| Page Range | 8353-8497 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 8412 - Application for New Awards; Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program (CSP)-Grants to Charter Management Organizations for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools | |
| 82 FR 8497 - Withdrawal of the United States From the Trans- Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement | |
| 82 FR 8495 - The Mexico City Policy | |
| 82 FR 8493 - Hiring Freeze | |
| 82 FR 8353 - Importation of Lemons From Northwest Argentina; Stay of Regulations | |
| 82 FR 8440 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 8399 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 44H-East Hanover, New Jersey; Authorization of Production Activity; Givaudan Flavors Corporation (Flavor Products); East Hanover, New Jersey | |
| 82 FR 8431 - Certain Electrical Conductor Composite Cores and Components Thereof Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Unopposed Motion To Terminate the Investigation as to Remaining Respondent; Termination of the Investigation | |
| 82 FR 8435 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the System Unit Resource Protection Act | |
| 82 FR 8440 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Automatic Depressurization System Stage 2, 3 & 4 Valve Flow Area Changes and Clarifications | |
| 82 FR 8412 - Notice of Request for Information (RFI) on Fostering Energy Innovation Ecosystems | |
| 82 FR 8443 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of The ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 8432 - Gentry Reeves Dunlop, M.D.; Decision and Order | |
| 82 FR 8434 - Donald W. Lamoureaux, M.D.; Decision and Order | |
| 82 FR 8443 - New Postal Product | |
| 82 FR 8441 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on APR 1400; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 8486 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Order 13304 | |
| 82 FR 8398 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Challenge and Prize Competition Solicitations Generic Clearance | |
| 82 FR 8431 - Statement of Delegation of Authority | |
| 82 FR 8425 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 8418 - Black Marlin Pipeline Company; Notice of Petition for Waiver | |
| 82 FR 8436 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Stipulation of Settlement and Order Under the Clean Air Act | |
| 82 FR 8419 - DTE Midstream Appalachia, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Birdsboro Pipeline Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Session | |
| 82 FR 8416 - Chugach Electric Association, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
| 82 FR 8423 - Carthage Specialty Paperboard, Inc.; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process | |
| 82 FR 8416 - S.D. Warren; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 82 FR 8418 - Notice of Staff Attendance at the Southwest Power Pool Regional Entity Trustee, Regional State Committee, Members' Committee and Board of Directors' Meetings | |
| 82 FR 8414 - Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
| 82 FR 8425 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 82 FR 8424 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 8485 - Dakota Southern Railway Company-Modified Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity-Yankton, Bon Homme, and Charles Mix Counties, S.D. | |
| 82 FR 8396 - Notice of Intent To Request Revision and Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 8353 - Eliminating Exception to Expedited Removal Authority for Cuban Nationals Arriving by Air | |
| 82 FR 8431 - Eliminating Exception to Expedited Removal Authority for Cuban Nationals Encountered in the United States or Arriving by Sea | |
| 82 FR 8430 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request; Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Core Medical Services Waiver Application Requirements | |
| 82 FR 8424 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10432-Fidelity Bank, Dearborn, Michigan | |
| 82 FR 8424 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10106-CapitalSouth Bank, Birmingham, Alabama | |
| 82 FR 8437 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 8439 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 8403 - Ammonium Sulfate From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
| 82 FR 8425 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 8428 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 8436 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | |
| 82 FR 8438 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Leasing | |
| 82 FR 8411 - Proposed Extension of Approval of Information Collection; Comment Request-Clothing Textiles, Vinyl Plastic Film | |
| 82 FR 8409 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Standard for the Flammability of Mattresses and Mattress Pads and Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets | |
| 82 FR 8421 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 8396 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 8415 - Southwestern Power Administration; Notice of Filing | |
| 82 FR 8414 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 8488 - Notice of Availability of Bilateral Agreement Between the European Union and the United States of America on Prudential Measures Regarding Insurance and Reinsurance | |
| 82 FR 8399 - Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Amorphous Silica Fabric From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value, and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances | |
| 82 FR 8405 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Amorphous Silica Fabric From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination | |
| 82 FR 8419 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 8417 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 8422 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 8437 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Previously Approved Collection | |
| 82 FR 8488 - Advisory Committee on Structural Safety of Department of Veterans Affairs Facilities, Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 8428 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review | |
| 82 FR 8427 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review | |
| 82 FR 8428 - Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee: Notice of Charter Renewal | |
| 82 FR 8427 - Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) | |
| 82 FR 8467 - Order Extending Certain Temporary Exemptions Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in Connection With the Revision of the Definition of “Security” To Encompass Security-Based Swaps and Request for Comment | |
| 82 FR 8452 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Mercury LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Amend ISE Mercury Rule 723 and To Make Pilot Program Permanent | |
| 82 FR 8474 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Amend ISE Gemini Rule 723 and To Make Pilot Program Permanent | |
| 82 FR 8452 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Changes to BZX Rule 14.11, Other Securities, and BZX Rule 14.12, Failure To Meet Listing Standards | |
| 82 FR 8462 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change to EDGX Rule 21.19, Bats Auction Mechanism, as it Applies to the Equity Options Platform | |
| 82 FR 8472 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 515A, MIAX Price Improvement Mechanism (“PRIME”) and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism | |
| 82 FR 8459 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1, and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Exchange Rules Related to the Automated Improvement Mechanism | |
| 82 FR 8445 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Amend the PIXL Price Improvement Auction in Phlx Rule 1080(n) and To Make Pilot Program Permanent | |
| 82 FR 8444 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5 and Rule 8 Series | |
| 82 FR 8481 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) Options Facility | |
| 82 FR 8450 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Interpretive Material to Rule 7150 (Price Improvement Period “PIP”) and Interpretive Material to Rule 7245 (Complex Order Price Improvement Period “COPIP”) To Make Permanent the Pilot Programs That Permit the Exchange to Have No Minimum Size Requirement for Orders Entered Into the PIP (“PIP Pilot Program”) and COPIP (“COPIP Pilot Program”) | |
| 82 FR 8465 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE MKT Rule 971.1NY and Make Permanent the Aspects of Customer Best Execution Auction That Are Subject to a Pilot | |
| 82 FR 8469 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Amend ISE Rule 723 and To Make Pilot Program Permanent | |
| 82 FR 8479 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Examination Requirement for CHX Market Maker Authorized Traders | |
| 82 FR 8450 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Provide for the Clearance of Additional Credit Default Swap Contracts | |
| 82 FR 8455 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Concerning The Options Clearing Corporation's Margin Coverage During Times of Increased Volatility | |
| 82 FR 8477 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule | |
| 82 FR 8397 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Arkansas Advisory Committee for an Orientation Meeting and To Discuss Civil Rights Topics in the State | |
| 82 FR 8408 - Proposed Update to the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity | |
| 82 FR 8402 - Certain Pasta From Italy: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 | |
| 82 FR 8485 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Visiting Masterpiece: Juan de Mesa's St. John the Baptist” Exhibition | |
| 82 FR 8442 - Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 8485 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Tomb Treasures: New Discoveries From China's Han Dynasty” Exhibition | |
| 82 FR 8484 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Degas, Impressionism and the Paris Millinery Trade” Exhibition | |
| 82 FR 8484 - Data Collection Available for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 8484 - North Carolina Disaster Number NC-00081 | |
| 82 FR 8433 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Organix, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 8486 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 6524 | |
| 82 FR 8487 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 82 FR 8431 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 8430 - National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 8431 - Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 8435 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act | |
| 82 FR 8391 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Automatic Emergency Braking | |
| 82 FR 8362 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Tombigbee River, Naheola, AL | |
| 82 FR 8369 - Proposed Amendments To Swap Data Access Provisions and Certain Other Matters | |
| 82 FR 8362 - Special Local Regulation; Southern California Annual Marine Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone-Hanohano Ocean Challenge | |
| 82 FR 8364 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Skate Complex; Adjustment to the Skate Wing and Skate Bait Inseason Possession Limits | |
| 82 FR 8363 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2017 Recreational Accountability Measures and Closure for Atlantic Migratory Group Cobia | |
| 82 FR 8360 - Rules of Practice for Hearings | |
| 82 FR 8353 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: AREVA Inc., Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1004, Amendment No. 14, and Revision 1 of the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 Through 11, and Amendment No. 13 | |
| 82 FR 8366 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: AREVA Inc., Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1004, Amendment No. 14, and Revision 1 of the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Drug Enforcement Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule; stay of regulations.
On December 23, 2016, we published a final rule amending the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of lemons from northwest Argentina into the continental United States under certain conditions. In this document, we are issuing a stay of those regulations for 60 days.
Effective January 25, 2017, 7 CFR 319.28(e) and 319.56-76 are stayed until March 27, 2017.
Mr. Stephen O'Neill, Chief, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234; (301) 851-3175.
On December 23, 2016, we published a final rule (81 FR 94217-94230) amending the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of lemons from northwest Argentina into the continental United States under certain conditions. In this document, we are issuing a stay of those regulations for 60 days in accordance with guidance issued January 20, 2017, intended to provide the new Administration an adequate opportunity to review new and pending regulations.
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.
Final rule; request for comments; correction.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a rule in the
Effective on January 25, 2017.
David Cloe, DHS Office of Policy, 202-447-4647,
In FR Doc. 2017-00915, appearing on page 4769 in the
1. At the bottom of the first column and the top of the second column, correct the “Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier” bullet to read:
2. In the second column, correct the
David Cloe, DHS Office of Policy, 202-447-4647,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Direct final rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the AREVA Inc. (AREVA), Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to add Amendment No. 14, and Revision 1 to the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1004. Amendment No. 14 will revise multiple items in the technical specifications (TSs) for dry shielded canister (DSC) models listed under CoC No. 1004; most of these revisions involve changes to the authorized contents. The revisions to the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 will remove language in the TSs that requires a transfer cask (TC) containing a DSC to be returned to the spent fuel pool following a drop of over 15 inches.
The direct final rule is effective April 25, 2017, unless significant adverse comments are received by February 24, 2017. If the direct final rule is withdrawn as a result of such comments, timely notice of the withdrawal will be published in the
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
Edward Lohr, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0253; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0200 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0200 in 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 will post 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 into ADAMS.
This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 14 and the revisions to the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 to CoC No. 1004 and does not include other aspects of the AREVA Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue the amendment and revisions because they represent limited and routine changes to an existing CoC that are expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The amendment and revisions to the rule will become effective on April 25, 2017. This direct final rule has an effective date of 90 days from publication in lieu of the historical 75 days because it has two rulemaking actions that have to be coordinated after the public comment period is closed and before the final rule takes effect. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this direct final rule by February 24, 2017, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the
A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or TSs.
For detailed instructions on filing comments, please see the companion proposed rule published in the
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”
To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the
On November 4, 2014, AREVA submitted an application for renewal of the Standardized NUHOMS® storage system, which is currently under review by the NRC staff. Because AREVA's renewal application was submitted more than 30 days in advance of the certificate's expiration date of January 23, 2015, and the NRC staff has yet to make a final determination on the renewal application, pursuant to the regulation in 10 CFR 72.240(b), the existing certificates have not expired.
By letter dated April 16, 2015, as supplemented on November 11, 2015, and March 14, 2016, AREVA submitted a request to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1004 by adding Amendment No. 14. Also, by letter dated August 24, 2015, as supplemented on February 9, 2016, AREVA submitted a request to the NRC to add Revision 1 of the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 to CoC No. 1004. These two requests are included in this rulemaking.
As documented in the Preliminary Safety Evaluation Report for AREVA Amendment No. 14 to CoC No. 1004 and Preliminary Safety Evaluation Report (PSER) for AREVA Revisions of Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 to CoC No. 1004 and described in this section, the NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC amendment and revisions. This direct final rule revises the AREVA Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System listing in 10 CFR 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 14 and Revision 1 of the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 to CoC No. 1004. The term “Amendment 0” used in the supporting documents for this direct final rulemaking and the term “Initial Certificate” used in 10 CFR 72.214 describes the same document. Initial Certificate is the correct term and will be used henceforth when discussion involves this document. The revised TSs are identified in the PSERs.
Amendment No. 14 to CoC No. 1004 includes the following provisions:
• Improvements to the fuel qualification tables for the boiling water reactor (BWR) and pressurized water reactor DSCs to allow for the calculation of cooling times for different uranium loading;
• Inclusion of new heat load zoning configurations for the 61BTH, 32PTH1 and 69BTH DSCs;
• Authorization of storage of up to 61 damaged BWR fuel assemblies in the 61BTH DSC;
• Authorization of storage of up to 16 failed fuel cans in the 32PTH1 DSC;
• Expansion of the 37PTH criticality analysis to include poison rod assemblies;
• Evaluation of the horizontal storage module (HSM) model HSM-H for shielding impact of reduced density concrete and gaps during installation;
• Clarification and revision of various terms and definitions in the TSs;
• Authorization of acceptance testing for neutron absorber content to be performed by either neutron transmission or by B-10 volume density measurement;
• Removal of language in the TSs that required a TC containing a DSC be returned to the spent fuel pool following a drop of over 15 inches, and instead permit the general licensee to determine the best available option for inspection of the TC/DSC by either returning it to the spent fuel pool or an alternate means;
• Revision of the minimum soluble boron concentration of 2800 ppm for Type A2 poison for Westinghouse 17x17 fuel design only;
• Update the existing Fuel Qualification Table for the 32PTH1 DSC with a heat load of 1.2 kW/FA; and
• Allowance for an alternative loading configuration of 16 damaged fuel assemblies in the 32PTH1 DSC.
These changes do not result in any changes to the design of the major components of the Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System. Most of the changes are related to the authorized contents. Similar changes have been reviewed and approved by the NRC for CoC No. 1030 for the NUHOMS® HD System.
Revisions to the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 of the CoC No. 1004 include:
• Removal of language in the TSs that required a TC containing a DSC be returned to the spent fuel pool following a drop of over 15 inches, and instead permit the general licensee to determine the best available option for inspection of the TC/DSC by either returning it to the spent fuel pool or an alternate means; and
• Clarifying language in the TSs that requires a transfer cask be returned to the spent fuel pool.
As documented in the PSERs, the NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC amendment and revisions. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the CoC amendment or revisions. The staff evaluated the specific design requirements for each accident condition and finds that the design of the cask will prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control. Therefore, the environmental impacts of these actions would be insignificant. This amendment and revisions to existing amendments do not reflect significant changes in design or fabrication of the cask. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 14
This direct final rule revises the AREVA Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System listing in 10 CFR 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 14 and Revision 1 of the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 to CoC No. 1004. The changes, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the TSs, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72. Therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under 10 CFR 72.210 may load spent nuclear fuel into AREVA Standardized NUHOMS® Cask Systems that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 14 to CoC No. 1004 under 10 CFR 72.212. Persons who hold a general license under 10 CFR 72.210 have 180 days after the effective date of Revision 1 of the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 to perform a 10 CFR 72.212 evaluation and to implement the changes authorized by the revisions.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC will revise the AREVA Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System design listed in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.
Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).
The action is to amend 10 CFR 72.214 to revise the AREVA Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to add Amendment No. 14 and Revision 1 of the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 to CoC No. 1004. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has made a finding of no significant impact on the basis of this environmental assessment.
This direct final rule amends CoC No. 1004 for the AREVA Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. Specifically, Amendment No. 14 revises TSs to allow for additional authorized contents be stored in the cask. Similar changes were previously reviewed and approved by the NRC for CoC No. 1030 for the NUHOMS® HD System. Revision 1 of the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 of CoC No. 1004 clarifies language in the TSs that requires a transfer cask be returned to the spent fuel pool, by permitting the general licensee to determine the best available option for inspection of the TC/DSC by either returning it to the spent fuel pool or inspection by alternate means.
On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was initially analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessment for Amendment No. 14 and Revision 1 of the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 tiers off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act.
The AREVA Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System is designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.
Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of confinement, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of confinement, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would be insignificant. The amendment and revisions to existing amendments do not reflect a significant change in
The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment No. 14 and Revision 1 of the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13, and end the direct final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into the AREVA Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System in accordance with the changes described in Amendment No. 14 and Revision 1 of the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 would have to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, an interested licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. Therefore, the environmental impacts would be the same or less than the action.
Approval of Amendment No. 14 and Revision 1 of the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 to CoC No. 1004 would result in no irreversible commitments of resources.
No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.
The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in 10 CFR part 51. Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule entitled, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: AREVA Inc., Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1004, Amendment No. 14, and Revision 1 of the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13,” will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.
This final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and AREVA. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).
On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in 10 CFR 72.214. On December 22, 1994 (59 FR 65898), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the AREVA Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System design by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214.
By letter dated April 16, 2015, as supplemented on November 11, 2015, and March 14, 2016, AREVA submitted a request to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1004 by adding Amendment No. 14. Also, by letter dated August 24, 2015, as supplemented on February 9, 2016, AREVA submitted a request to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1004 by adding Revision 1 of the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13. These requests are described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document.
The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 14 and Revision 1 of the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13. Withholding approval of these actions would require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into the AREVA Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System under the changes described in Amendment No. 14 and Revision 1 of the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would be required to prepare a separate exemption request and the NRC would need to review separate exemption requests, which would increase the administrative burden on the NRC and the costs to each licensee.
Approval of the direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the PSERs and the environmental assessment, the direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of the direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and therefore, this action is recommended.
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule and therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. First, this direct final rule revises CoC No. 1004 for the AREVA Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System, as currently listed in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” Amendment No. 14 revises multiple items in the TSs for the DSC models listed under CoC No. 1004; these include changes to the load zoning configurations for spent fuel assemblies, improvements to the spent fuel qualification tables for select DSCs, authorizing changes in the spent fuel parameters for storage, and evaluating the shielding impacts of gaps in the HSMs, among others. Amendment No. 14 to CoC No. 1004 for the AREVA Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System was initiated by AREVA. It was not submitted in response to the imposition of new NRC requirements or an NRC request for an amendment. Amendment No. 14 applies only to new casks that are fabricated and used under Amendment No. 14. The proposed changes to the CoC and the TSs will not affect existing users of the AREVA Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System. While current CoC users may comply with the new requirements in Amendment No. 14, this would be a voluntary decision on the part of current users. For these reasons, Amendment No. 14 to CoC No. 1004 does not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62 or 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).
The current holders of combined licenses issued under 10 CFR part 52, which also by law have general ISFSI licenses under 10 CFR part 72, do not use the Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System, and therefore are unaffected by Amendment No. 14. Therefore, this rulemaking does not involve any issue finality considerations for those licensees. Amendment No. 14 does not affect entities with regulatory approvals issued under 10 CFR part 52. Therefore, the portion of this rulemaking concerning Amendment No. 14 does not involve any other issue finality concerns.
AREVA requested Revision 1 of the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 for CoC No. 1004 for the Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System, as currently listed in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks.” The revisions to the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 will remove language in TS 1.2.10 that requires a TC containing a DSC be returned to the spent fuel pool following a drop of over 15 inches. The revised TS.1.210 will permit the general licensee to determine the best available option for inspection of the TC/DSC by either returning it to the spent fuel pool or an alternate means. The general licensee will inspect and evaluate the DSC/TC for damage before further use. This inspection requirement provides the option to inspect the DSC in a spent fuel pool or another proper location.
Revision 1 of the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 to CoC No. 1004 provides a voluntary alternative to the current requirement that a loaded DSC must be returned to the spent fuel pool following a drop exceeding 15 inches. Although the TSs for AREVA casks manufactured under existing CoC No. 1004 are being revised by this final rule, the staff finds the backfitting rule does not apply to AREVA's request because AREVA is the cask system vendor and the backfitting rule at 10 CFR 72.62 applies to general licensees.
AREVA, however, requested that the changes in Revision 1 be applied to the existing casks manufactured under the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13. For this reason, the NRC staff considered what effect revising the CoCs and TSs will have on general licensees currently using the casks and whether the changes constitute backfitting or a violation of issue finality under 10 CFR part 52. AREVA provided casks to general licensees at numerous reactor facilities under the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 to CoC No. 1004. Under 10 CFR 72.62, general licensees are entities that are protected from backfitting, absent the NRC staff's determination that the protection of occupational or public health and safety warrants the backfit. General licensees are required by 10 CFR 72.212(b)(3), to ensure that each cask conforms to the terms, conditions, and specifications of a CoC, and that each cask is safely used at its site.
The general licensees affected by the revisions to CoC No. 1004 voluntarily committed in writing to implement the revised TS changes at their ISFSIs. The revised TSs provide that in the event a DSC is dropped from greater than 15 inches, the general licensee may choose to return it to the spent fuel pool for inspection, or in the alternative, inspect the canister by other means. In either case, the revised TS 1.2.10 requires inspection and evaluation of the DSC and TC for damage before further use.
The new TSs specifically provide a general licensee with an alternative to the current requirement. The option to use a new voluntary alternative method does not constitute a required change under the backfit rule and therefore does not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62. For these reasons discussed, no backfit analysis has been prepared by the NRC staff. The two current holders of combined licenses, who also hold a general ISFSI license under 10 CFR part 72, do not use the Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System. Accordingly, there are no issue finality considerations with respect to Revision 1 to the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13. Revision 1 does not affect entities with regulatory approvals issued under 10 CFR part 52. Therefore, the portion of this rulemaking concerning Revision 1 does not involve any other issue finality concerns.
In order to provide the general licensees adequate time to evaluate and implement modifications to the Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System required by the revised CoC, a new condition is added to CoC No. 1004. The condition provides general licensees 180 days from the effective date of Revision 1 of the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 to CoC No. 1004 to implement the changes authorized by the revision. The new condition also provides general licensees 180 days to perform the evaluation required by 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5)(i-iii).
The Office of Management and Budget has not found this to be a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking Web site at
Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Manpower training programs, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Final rule.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Board”) is issuing a final rule amending its rules of practice and procedure to adjust the amount of each civil money penalty (“CMP”) provided by law within its jurisdiction to account for inflation as required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.
This final rule is effective January 25, 2017.
Patrick M. Bryan, Assistant General Counsel (202-974-7093), or Thomas O. Kelly, Senior Attorney (202-974-7059), Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20551. For users of Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact 202/263-4869.
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (“FCPIA Act”), requires federal agencies to adjust, by regulation, the CMPs within their jurisdiction to account for inflation. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the “2015 Act”)
Under the 2015 Act, the annual adjustment to be made for 2017 is the percentage by which the Consumer Price Index for the month of October 2016 exceeds the Consumer Price Index for the month of October 2015. On December 16, 2016, as directed by the 2015 Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance to affected agencies on implementing the required annual adjustment which included the relevant inflation multiplier.
The Board received one comment letter on behalf of International Bancshares Corporation (“IBC”) in response to the July 20, 2016 interim final rule. IBC expressed disappointment that the Board published the new penalty levels through an interim final rule without engaging in prior notice and comment proceedings. As IBC itself acknowledged, however, the 2015 Act required the Board to adjust the penalties for the catch-up adjustment through an interim final rulemaking to take effect no later than August 1, 2016. IBC also expressed concern with many of the new maximum penalty amounts, urging the Board to exercise its discretion to “withhold using its maximum penalty authority.” Again, as IBC acknowledged, the Board calculated the new penalty amounts strictly in accordance with the 2015 Act and OMB's implementing guidance. Moreover, setting the new upper limits on penalties does not require the Board in any particular case to assess the maximum amounts.
The 2015 Act states that agencies shall make the annual adjustment
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
There is no collection of information required by this final rule that would be subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Crime, Equal access to justice, Lawyers, Penalties.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends 12 CFR part 263 to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 504, 554-557; 12 U.S.C. 248, 324, 334, 347a, 504, 505, 1464, 1467, 1467a, 1817(j), 1818, 1820(k), 1829, 1831o, 1831p-1, 1832(c), 1847(b), 1847(d), 1884, 1972(2)(F), 3105, 3108, 3110, 3349, 3907, 3909(d), 4717; 15 U.S.C. 21, 78l(i), 78o-4, 78o-5, 78u-2; 1639e(k); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 5321; and 42 U.S.C. 4012a.
(a)
(b)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the Hanohano Ocean Challenge special local regulations on the waters of Mission Bay, California on January 28, 2017. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, and general users of the waterway. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 will be enforced from 7:00 a.m. through 2:00 p.m. on January 28, 2017 for Item 16 in Table 1 of Section 100.1101.
If you have questions about this publication of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Robert Cole, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone (619) 278-7656, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 for the Hanohano Ocean Challenge in Mission Bay, CA in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 1, Item 16 of that section from 7:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. on January 28, 2017. This enforcement action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the event. The Coast Guard's regulation for recurring marine events in the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated entities and area for this event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101, persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated area, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 33 CFR 100.1101. In addition to this document in the
If the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Meridian & Bigbee Railroad (MNBR) vertical lift bridge across the Tombigbee River, mile 128.6 (Black Warrior Tombigbee Waterway mile 173.6) at Naheola, between Choctaw and Marengo Counties, Alabama. The deviation is necessary to conduct maintenance essential for the continued safe operation of the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for certain daytime hours for two (2) three day periods between Friday, January 20, 2017, and Sunday, January 29, 2017.
This temporary deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on Friday, January 20, 2017, through 6 p.m. on Sunday, January 29, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0008] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Giselle MacDonald, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard, telephone (504) 671-2128, email
The Meridian & Bigbee Railroad (MNBR) requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule of the Meridian & Bigbee (MNBR) vertical lift bridge across the Tombigbee River, mile 128.6 (Black Warrior Tombigbee Waterway mile 173.6) at Naheola, between Choctaw and Marengo Counties, Alabama, in order to replace the mitre rails, which are essential for the continued safe operation of the bridge. The current bridge operating schedule is found in 33 CFR 117.118, and the bridge has a vertical clearance of 12.2 feet above ordinary high water (OHW), elevation of 64.5 feet, in the closed-to-navigation position and 55 feet above OHW in the open-to-navigation position.
This deviation will allow the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. until 6 p.m., each day, January 20, 2017, through January 22, 2017, and from 7 a.m. until 6 p.m., each day, January 27, 2017, through January 29, 2017, with a scheduled two-hour opening, from 11 a.m. until 1 p.m., each day to facilitate passage of vessel traffic. The bridge will be open-to-navigation to facilitate vessel traffic at night.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. Navigation on the waterway consists of tugs with tows, fishing vessels, and recreational craft.
The Coast Guard will inform the waterways users through Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for Atlantic migratory group cobia that are not sold (recreational) in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Atlantic. In 2015 and 2016, recreational landings of Atlantic migratory group cobia (Atlantic cobia) exceeded the stock annual catch limit (ACL), and therefore, AMs for the recreational sector are triggered for 2017. NMFS closes the recreational sector for Atlantic cobia in Federal waters on January 24, 2017, and it will remain closed for the remainder of the fishing year through December 31, 2017. This closure is necessary to protect the resource of Atlantic cobia.
This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m., local time, January 24, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2018.
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish, which includes king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia, is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
Separate migratory groups of cobia were established in Amendment 18 to the FMP (76 FR 82058, December 29, 2011) and revised in Amendment 20B to the FMP (80 FR 4216, January 27, 2015). The southern boundary in Federal waters for Atlantic cobia is a line that extends due east of the Florida and Georgia state border at 30°42′45.6″ N. lat. The northern boundary in Federal waters for Atlantic cobia is at the jurisdictional boundary between the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils. The northern boundary begins at the intersection point of the state waters of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York at 41°18′16.249″ N. lat. and 71°54′28.477″ W. long. and proceeds southeast in Federal waters to 37°22′32.75″ N. lat. and the intersection point with the outward boundary of the EEZ as specified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Cobia in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic are unique among Federally managed species in the southeast region, because no commercial permit is required to harvest and sell them. The distinction between commercial and recreational sectors is not as clear as other Federally managed species in the southeast region. For example, regulations at 50 CFR part 622 specify ACLs and AMs for cobia that are sold and cobia that are not sold. However, for purposes of this temporary rule, Atlantic cobia that are sold are considered commercially caught, and those that are not sold are considered recreationally caught. All weights in this temporary rule are in round and gutted weight.
The AMs specified at 50 CFR 622.388(f)(2)(i) require NMFS, if commercial and recreational landings combined exceed the stock ACL, to reduce the length of the following fishing season by the amount necessary to ensure landings may achieve the applicable recreational annual catch target, but do not exceed the applicable recreational ACL in that following fishing year, by filing a notification with the Office of the Federal Register. By reducing the length of the following fishing season, NMFS would close the recreational sector for Atlantic cobia prior to the end of the fishing year.
NMFS has determined that total landings of Atlantic cobia exceeded the 2016 stock ACL of 670,000 lb (303,907 kg). Thus, the recreational AM, to shorten the following recreational fishing season, is triggered for 2017.
NMFS expects that recreational harvest of cobia will remain open in
During the recreational closure, the possession limit of two cobia per day remains in effect (50 CFR 622.383(b)) for Atlantic cobia that are sold. The possession limit applies to cobia harvested in or from the EEZ in the Gulf of Mexico, Mid-Atlantic, or South Atlantic, regardless of the number of trips or duration of a trip. In addition, a person who fishes in the EEZ may not combine this harvest limitation with a harvest limitation applicable to state waters. Atlantic cobia taken in the EEZ may not be transferred at sea, regardless of where such transfer takes place, and may not be transferred in the EEZ.
The commercial quota for Atlantic cobia is 50,000 lb (22,680 kg), round weight, for the current fishing year, January 1 through December 31, 2017, as specified in 50 CFR 622.384(d)(2). The sale or purchase of Atlantic cobia taken under the possession limit is allowed until the commercial quota is reached or is projected to be reached. If commercial landings of Atlantic cobia reach or are projected to reach the commercial quota specified in § 622.384(d)(2), the Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to prohibit the sale and purchase of Atlantic cobia for the remainder of the 2017 fishing year.
The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Atlantic cobia and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.388(f)(2) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The AA finds good cause to waive the requirements 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 prior notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the AMs for Atlantic cobia have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the recreational closure for the remainder of the 2017 fishing year. Additionally, there is a need to immediately implement the closure to prevent further recreational harvest and prevent its ACL from being exceeded, which will protect the Atlantic cobia resource. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action would be contrary to the public interest, because those affected by the closure need as much advance notice as NMFS is able to provide.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason adjustments.
We announce the reduction of the commercial per-trip possession limits for the skate wing and skate bait fisheries for the remainder of the 2016 fishing year, through April 30, 2017. These possession limit reductions are necessary to prevent the seasonal skate wing and skate bait commercial quotas from being exceeded and still allow an opportunity for harvesting the annual total allowable landings. This announcement informs the public that the skate wing and skate bait possession limits are reduced.
Effective January 30, 2017, through April 30, 2017.
Reid Lichwell, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9112.
The skate wing and skate bait fisheries are managed primarily through the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan. The regulations describing the process to adjust inseason commercial possession limits of skate wings and skate bait are described at 50 CFR 648.322(b) and (d). The current skate wing possession limit is 9,307 lb (4,222 kg) whole weight, 4,100 lb (1,860 kg) skate wings, and the current skate bait possession limit is 25,000 lb (11,340 kg). When the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator projects seasonal skate wing and skate bait landings to reach 85 and 90 percent, respectively, of the annual total allowable landings (TAL), the Regional Administrator may reduce the skate wing possession limit and is required to reduce the skate bait possession limit for the remainder of the season, unless the reductions would be expected to prevent attainment of the annual TAL. The skate wing possession limit may be reduced to the incidental catch limit of 500 lb (227 kg) skate wings; the skate bait possession limit must be reduced to the 1,135-lb (515-kg) whole-weight equivalent of the skate wing possession limit. We anticipate that implementing these inseason adjustments will allow an opportunity for both fisheries to harvest the annual TAL while reducing the possibility of exceeding it.
Based on commercial landings data reported through December 24, 2016, we project the skate wing and skate bait fisheries to reach 85 and 90 percent of their annual TAL, respectively, on January 18, 2017. The annual TAL for both the skate wing and skate bait fisheries is divided into seasonal quota periods in which landings are applied to each quota to evaluate the need for possession limit reductions. We are currently in skate wing season 2 (September 1, 2016, through April 30, 2017) and skate bait season 3 (November 1, 2016, through April 30, 2017). These are the final skate seasons of the 2016 fishing year, providing us with cumulative annual landings data which allow us to calculate when the annual TAL would be harvested. We have
Therefore, consistent with § 648.322(b) and (d), we are reducing the skate wing possession limit from 4,100 lb (1,860 kg) of skate wings [9,307 lb (4,222 kg) whole weight] to 500 lb (227 kg) of skate wings [1,135 lb (515 kg) whole weight] per trip, and the skate bait possession limit is reduced from 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) to 1,135 lb (515 kg) of whole weight skate per trip. Beginning January 30, 2017, no person may possess on board or land more than 500 lb (227 kg) of skate wings [1,135 lb (515 kg) whole weight] per trip for the remainder of the 2016 fishing year. On May 1, 2017, the commercial skate wing possession limit will increase to the skate wing season 1 (May 1, 2017, to August 31, 2017) possession limit of 2,600 lb (1,179 kg) of skate wings [5,902 lb (2,677 kg) whole weight] per trip, and the commercial skate bait possession limit will increase to 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) per trip.
This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the AREVA Inc. (AREVA), Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to add Amendment No. 14, and Revision 1 to the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1004. Amendment No. 14 proposes to revise multiple items in the technical specifications (TSs) for dry shielded canister (DSC) models listed under CoC No. 1004; most of these revisions involve changes to the authorized contents. The revisions to the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 will remove language in the TSs that requires a transfer cask containing a DSC to be returned to the spent fuel pool following a drop of over 15 inches.
Submit comments by February 24, 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
Edward Lohr, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0253; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0200 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0200 in 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 will post 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 into ADAMS.
This proposed rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 14 and the revisions to the Initial Certificate, Amendment Nos. 1 through 11, and Amendment No. 13 to CoC No. 1004 and does not include other aspects of the AREVA Standardized NUHOMS® Cask System design. Because the NRC considers this action noncontroversial and routine, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently with a direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or TSs.
For additional procedural information and the regulatory analysis, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”
To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner that also follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and the intended audience. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). The NRC requests comment on the proposed rule with respect to clarity and effectiveness of the language used.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking Web site at
Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Manpower training programs, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Pursuant to Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank Act”), as amended by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015 (“FAST Act”), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is proposing amendments the Commission's regulations relating to access to swap data held by Swap Data Repositories. The proposed amendments would implement pertinent provisions of the FAST Act and make associated changes to the Commission's regulations governing the grant of access to swap data to certain foreign and domestic authorities by Swap Data Repositories and to certain other regulations unrelated to such access.
Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3038-AE44, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method.
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
Daniel Bucsa, Deputy Director, Division of Market Oversight—Data and Reporting Branch, (202) 418-5435,
Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act
As originally enacted, CEA sections 21(d)(1) and (2) of the Act mandated that, prior to receipt of any requested data or information from an SDR, a 21(c)(7) entity agree in writing to abide by the confidentiality requirements described in CEA section 8 and, separately, to indemnify the SDR and the Commission for “any expenses arising from litigation relating to the information provided under section 8.”
In 2011, the Commission adopted rules implementing CEA section 21's requirements for SDRs.
The term “Appropriate Foreign Regulator” (“AFR”)
An ADR or AFR seeking access to SDR data is required by current § 49.17(d)(1) to file an access request with the SDR certifying that it is acting within the scope of its jurisdiction and is required by current § 49.17(d)(6) to execute a “Confidentiality and Indemnification Agreement” with the SDR.
In the preamble to the SDR Final Rules, the Commission acknowledged commenters' concerns that compliance with the statutory and regulatory indemnification requirements would be difficult for certain domestic and foreign regulators due to various home country laws and other regulations prohibiting such arrangements,
Concerns about the scope of the indemnification provision persisted, and in October 2012 the Commission issued an Interpretative Statement, which was designed to provide guidance and greater clarity to interested members of the public and foreign regulators with respect to the scope and application of CEA section 21(d) and the part 49 rules.
Congress responded to the regulators' access concerns by including in the FAST Act a repeal of CEA section 21(d)(2)'s indemnification requirement.
repeal[ing] the indemnification requirements added by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act for regulatory authorities to obtain access to swap data. Foreign regulators and regulatory entities have indicated concerns regarding the indemnification requirements of Dodd-Frank. The title removes such requirements so data can be shared with foreign authorities. The title would still require the regulatory agencies requesting the information to agree to certain confidentiality requirements prior to receiving the data.
FAST Act: Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 22, Dec. 1, 2015 at 486-87. The repeal applied as well to the analogous provision in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78m(n)(5).
The FAST Act also modified CEA section 21(c)(7)(A) by specifying that “swap” data—as opposed to “all” data—must be provided to 21(c)(7) entities, and added to CEA section 21(c)(7)(E)'s non-exclusive list of persons that the Commission may determine to be appropriate recipients of SDR swap data the new category “other foreign authorities.”
CEA section 8 governs the Commission's treatment of nonpublic information in its possession in a number of circumstances, and its disclosure restrictions and confidentiality standards expressly inform the access provisions of CEA sections 21(c)(7) and 21(d). As relevant here, CEA section 8(e) permits the Commission to furnish to the specified types of domestic or foreign entities—upon their request and acting within the scope of their jurisdiction—any information in its possession obtained in connection with the administration of the Act.
The principles underlying CEA section 8(e) are also fundamental to CEA sections 21(c)(7) and (d) and to the access standards and confidentiality provisions proposed in this release. In proposing clearer and more robust access and confidentiality standards in §§ 49.17 and 49.18, the Commission is mindful of these foundational principles: Where information is sought to be accessed, the information must relate to the scope of the requesting entity's jurisdiction or authority; and information provided by the SDR shall not be further disclosed except in limited, defined circumstances.
Pursuant to its authority under the Act,
• Add “other foreign authorities” to the foreign regulators identified in § 49.2(a)(5), consistent with the FAST Act's amendment to CEA section 21(c)(7)(E) to include this category among the entities that the Commission may deem appropriate to access SDR swap data;
• Amend § 49.9 to make clarifying changes;
• Amend § 49.17 to, among other things: (i) Delete all references to the indemnification requirement and/or indemnification agreement; (ii) establish a process and clarify the standards for determining whether certain entities not enumerated in § 49.17(b)(1)(i)-(vi) are appropriate to directly access swap data from an SDR; (iii) revise the SDR notification requirement so that SDRs notify the Commission only for each initial request for swap data by ADRs and AFRs and any subsequent request at variance with the ADR's or AFR's scope of jurisdiction; (iv) specify that the information available to ADRs and AFRs is “swap data”—as distinguished from “data,” to reflect the corresponding FAST Act amendment to CEA section 21; and (v) add a delegation of authority provision so that Commission staff is able to efficiently administer certain functions related to SDR swap data access;
• Amend § 49.18 to, among other things: (i) Delete all references to the indemnification requirement and/or indemnification agreement; (ii) require that SDRs receive, prior to providing SDR swap data access to an ADR or AFR, a written confidentiality arrangement between the Commission and such ADR or AFR; (iii) specify the required elements of such written confidentiality arrangement; (iv) require SDRs to notify the Commission of any known failures to fulfill the terms of a confidentiality arrangement required by § 49.18(a); (v) inform ADRs, AFRs and SDRs that the Commission may direct an SDR to limit, suspend or revoke an ADR's or AFR's access to swap data held by an SDR if such ADR or AFR has failed to fulfill the terms of a confidentiality arrangement required by § 49.18(a); and (vi) add a delegation of authority provision so that Commission staff is able to efficiently administer certain functions related to SDR swap data access; and
• Amend § 49.22(d)(4) to omit a reference to indemnification in order to conform to the corresponding FAST Act amendment to the CEA.
The Commission has determined to rescind its 2012 Interpretative Statement. References to the indemnification requirement in the Interpretative Statement are no longer relevant as the indemnification requirement in CEA section 21(d) has been repealed by the FAST Act. Additionally, the modifications to § 49.17(d)(3) that are proposed here are consistent with the clarifications provided in the Interpretative Statement.
As originally adopted, § 49.2(a)(5) defined the term “foreign regulator” to include a foreign futures authority as defined in CEA section 1a(26), foreign financial supervisors, foreign central banks and foreign ministries.
Commission regulation 49.17(d)(2) of the Commission's regulations currently provides that an ADR with regulatory jurisdiction over an SDR registered with it pursuant to a separate statutory authority that is also registered with the Commission is not subject to the requirements of § 49.17(d) (application and notice provisions) and § 49.18(b) (confidentiality and indemnification agreement) as long as the following conditions are met: (i) The ADR executes an MOU or similar information sharing arrangement with the Commission; and (ii) the Commission, consistent with CEA section 21(c)(4)(A), designates the ADR to receive direct electronic access. As described in the SDR Final Rules, the Commission provided that these ADRs may be provided access to the swap data reported and maintained by SDRs without being subject to the notice and indemnification provisions of CEA sections 21(c)(7) and (d).
Commission regulation 49.17(d)(3) of the Commission's regulations currently provides that an AFR with supervisory authority over an SDR registered with it pursuant to foreign law and/or regulation that is also registered with the Commission is not subject to the requirements of § 49.17(d) (application and notice provisions) and § 49.18(b) (confidentiality and indemnification agreement). As described in the SDR Final Rules and Interpretative Statement, the Commission believes that confidential swap data reported to, and maintained, by an SDR may be appropriately accessed by an AFR without the execution of a confidentiality and indemnification agreement when the AFR is acting in a regulatory capacity with respect to an SDR that is also registered with the AFR and with respect to data reported to such SDR pursuant to such AFR's regulatory regime.
With respect to domestic regulators with regulatory jurisdiction over an SDR, the Commission proposes to remove: (1) The reference to “Appropriate Domestic Regulator” in § 49.17(d)(2) and replace it with the term “domestic regulator” to clarify that all domestic regulators and not just ADRs would fall under § 49.17(d)(2); (2) subparagraph (i) to § 49.17(d)(2) (the information sharing arrangement condition) and (3) subparagraph (ii) to § 49.17(d)(2) (the direct electronic access condition). Although the Commission in the original part 49 rules adopted the information sharing and direct electronic access conditions so that ADRs would not be subject to the then-existing confidentiality and indemnification requirements, the Commission through experience with SDR swap data access believes an additional refinement of these rules is necessary in order to promote greater efficiency and cooperation among domestic regulators. Accordingly, the Commission submits that a domestic regulator that has regulatory jurisdiction
In connection with foreign regulatory authorities that have supervisory authority over an SDR, the Commission proposes to (i) remove the reference to “Appropriate Foreign Regulator” in § 49.17(d)(3) and replace it with the term “Foreign Regulator” as defined in § 49.2 to clarify that all Foreign Regulators, not only those that have been determined “appropriate” by the Commission would fall under § 49.17(d)(3); and (ii) add qualifying language to § 49.17(d)(3) so that § 49.17(d)(3) applies not only to SDRs that are “registered” with the Foreign Regulator but also to those SDRs that are “registered, recognized, or otherwise authorized” by a foreign jurisdiction's regulatory regime, and where such swap data has been reported to the SDR pursuant to the Foreign Regulator's regulatory regime.
As it was when adopting the SDR Final Rules, the Commission is mindful of the need to protect the confidentiality of swap data when such data is provided to another regulator. Under the proposal, the Commission believes that the proposed changes to § 49.17(d)(3) strike the appropriate balance in providing access to swap data consistent with the confidentiality protections set forth in the CEA.
The Commission requests comment on all aspects of amendments to § 49.17(d)(2) and (3).
CEA section 21(c)(7) specifies U.S. entities to which swap data must be released by an SDR, provided certain prerequisites are satisfied. Because Congress has determined that access to SDR swap data by these entities is appropriate when the prerequisites are satisfied, no further access consideration by the Commission is necessary. These U.S. entities, along with others determined to be appropriate by the Commission pursuant to CEA section 21(c)(7)(E), are identified in § 49.17(b)(1) as “Appropriate Domestic Regulators.” The term “Appropriate Domestic Regulator” is also defined to include “any other person the Commission deems appropriate.” The current part 49 rules do not include a process for determining that a U.S. entity not specifically enumerated in § 49.17(b)(1) is an “Appropriate Domestic Regulator.”
Under current § 49.17(b)(2)(i), in order for a Foreign Regulator
The Commission proposes to eliminate the current filing requirements set forth in current § 49.17(b)(2)(i) and establish new filing requirements in proposed § 49.17(h). The Commission also proposes to include in § 49.17(h), CEA section 8-related confidentiality considerations and the ability for the Commission to revisit or reassess appropriateness determinations. The filing requirements proposed in new § 49.17(h) would apply to all foreign regulators regardless of whether a current MOU or similar arrangement with the Commission exists, and to any domestic regulator that is not an ADR enumerated in § 49.17(b)(1)(i)-(vi) (“Enumerated ADR”). Proposed § 49.17(h)(3) would specify two threshold requirements for a finding of appropriateness: (i) The requesting entity has in place appropriate safeguards to maintain the confidentiality of such swap data; and (ii) such entity is acting within the scope of its jurisdiction in seeking access to swap data maintained by an SDR. These requirements are necessary but may or may not be sufficient to support an appropriateness determination: The Commission proposes to evaluate each filing on a case-by-case basis with reference to these and other factors that the Commission may find germane to its determination. If the Commission finds on the basis of information submitted that access to SDR swap data is appropriate, the Commission would issue an order confirming the regulator's status as an ADR or AFR and setting forth any conditions or limitations on access consistent with the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements (the proposed “Determination Order”). The Commission is also proposing, through § 49.17(h)(4), to be able to revisit, reassess, limit, suspend or revoke a previously issued Determination Order. The Commission believes it is necessary to be able to revisit an appropriateness determination, and potentially take one of the foregoing remedial actions, in order to be able to address situations that may arise subsequent to the determination, such as where an AFR or ADR violates the term of a Determination Order or fails to properly keep SDR swap data confidential.
CEA section 21(c)(7) directs SDRs to provide swap data to regulators “on a confidential basis pursuant to section 8.”
In this regard, the Commission proposes to add to part 49 new § 49.17(h)(2), which would require an applicant seeking a Determination Order to provide the Commission sufficient information to permit the Commission to conclude that the applicant would be acting within the scope of its jurisdiction in seeking access to swap data maintained by an SDR. As part of this information, the Commission expects that an applicant would explain the relationship between its jurisdiction and its request for access to swap data maintained by SDRs, including an explanation of the applicant's need for particular swap data to carry out its regulatory mandate, legal authority or responsibility.
The Commission proposes in new § 49.17(h)(3) to specify that the Commission will not issue a Determination Order unless it is satisfied that the regulator is acting within the scope of its jurisdiction in seeking access to SDR swap data, and that any grant of access will be limited to swap data appropriate to the entity's regulatory mandate or legal authority. Each Determination Order would further require, as a condition of the appropriateness determination set forth therein, that a regulator that has received a Determination Order promptly notify the Commission, and each SDR from which it has received swap data, of any change to its jurisdiction that would relate to the swap data access requested.
CEA section 21(c)(7) is explicit in requiring that SDRs make swap data available on a confidential basis pursuant to CEA section 8. Proposed § 49.17(h)(2) accordingly would require that the applicant submit to the Commission information sufficient to permit a determination that the applicant employs adequate confidentiality safeguards to ensure that swap data the applicant receives from an SDR will not be disclosed other than as permitted by the confidentiality arrangement required by § 49.18(a). The Commission anticipates that this would involve the Commission considering whether the applicant's confidentiality protocols, system safeguards and security compliance procedures can be expected to ensure the confidentiality of the swap data, and that the applicant has in place protections sufficient to prevent unauthorized intrusions into the systems that maintain the swap data. In this regard, the Commission would also expect to consider the applicant's processes for limiting internal access to swap data to those persons with a need to know, as well as how the swap data will be stored and whether the swap data will be segregated from other information.
It is the Commission's view that reliance on these factors strikes an appropriate balance between realizing the benefits of data access by regulators
Although the Commission proposes to eliminate the current regulatory provision conferring AFR status on a foreign regulator with “an existing [MOU] or other similar type of information sharing arrangement executed with the Commission . . ., ”
Similarly, when assessing appropriateness, the Commission expects to consider whether it receives access to swap data maintained by trade repositories in that regulator's jurisdiction. The Commission is mindful of the Dodd-Frank Act's encouragement of coordination and cooperation with foreign regulatory authorities.
The Commission preliminarily believes that the Determination Order process and factors discussed above offer a reasonable approach to providing requesting entities access to SDR swap data based on clearly articulated factors and any additional considerations or circumstances the Commission may deem relevant on a case-by-case basis. Both the required factors and the additional considerations support the mandate of CEA sections 8, 21(c)(7) and 21(d) and are consistent with the express intent of Congress that the Commission coordinate and cooperate with foreign regulatory authorities on matters related to the regulation of swaps. Through the issuance of Determination Orders, the Commission will be able to impose appropriate conditions or restrictions on an entity's access to SDR swap data such that the entity's access is linked to its jurisdictional scope. Pursuant to proposed § 49.17(h)(4), the Commission
The Commission further believes it is appropriate to make the process and factors proposed in § 49.17(h) applicable to any domestic entities that are not enumerated as ADRs in § 49.17(b)(1)(i)-(vi), as scope of jurisdiction and confidentiality considerations are equally applicable to U.S. entities, and has drafted proposed § 49.17(h) accordingly.
The Commission requests comment on all aspects of proposed § 49.17(h), particularly on whether the proposed regulatory and other factors are sufficient to determine whether access to SDR swap data is appropriate.
CEA section 21(c)(7) requires each SDR to notify the Commission of a swap data request received from an ADR or AFR.
To reduce the burden on SDRs and provide greater operational efficiency consistent with the intent of CEA section 21(c)(7), the Commission is proposing to amend the SDR notification requirement in current § 49.17(d)(4)(i) to require an SDR to notify the Commission (i) at the time that it receives the first request for swap data from a particular ADR or AFR and (ii) at any time that a request does not comport with the scope of the ADR's or AFR's jurisdiction, as described in the confidentiality arrangement required by proposed § 49.18(a). The proposed amendment would make the notification applicable only to the initial request for swap data and any subsequent request at variance with the ADR's or AFR's scope of jurisdiction: On receiving either such request for data by a particular ADR or AFR, the SDR would be required to provide prompt electronic notification to the Commission of the request, in a format specified by the Secretary of the Commission, pursuant to proposed § 49.17(d)(4)(ii). The SDR would be required to keep such notification and related requests confidential consistent with the requirements of CEA sections 21(c)(6) and (7) and related regulatory requirements set forth in §§ 49.16 and 49.17.
The Commission believes that the proposed approach to SDR notification supports the Commission's need to be aware of who is able to access SDR swap data and what data has been accessed, while eliminating potentially costly, unwieldy and inefficient notice of every swap data request. Under the proposal, the Commission would be notified that a particular ADR or AFR has requested access to SDR swap data and will be able to examine records of the ADR's or AFR's individual swap data requests, and the swap data provided, as it deems necessary.
The Commission also proposes to amend § 49.17(d)(4) by adding new subsection (iii) to require each SDR that receives a request for access to its swap data from an ADR or AFR to verify, prior to providing such access, that the request is consistent with the scope of the ADR's or AFR's jurisdiction, as described in the confidentiality arrangement required by proposed § 49.18(a).
As proposed, § 49.17(d)(4)(iv) would require SDR verification only once with respect to a request for ongoing or recurring access to particular data, provided that there has not been a change in the scope of the regulator's jurisdiction (in which case an SDR would need to verify anew that the swap data requested is within the scope of the requesting ADR's or AFR's jurisdiction). The Commission recognizes that the proposed requirement imposes a burden on SDRs; however, it notes that SDRs are obliged by CEA section 21(c)(7) to provide access “pursuant to section 8” of the CEA, which requires a jurisdictional nexus to the information requested. In these circumstances, the Commission believes SDRs must take a role in ensuring compliance with these statutory restrictions.
In the interests of expedience and efficiency in determining appropriateness of access by regulators, the Commission proposes to delegate all functions reserved to the Commission in § 49.17 to the Director of the Division of Market Oversight and to such members of the Commission's staff acting under his or her direction as he or she may designate from time to time.
The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the proposed amendments to § 49.17, and particularly invites comments on:
1. Whether commenters believe there are more cost-effective methods of notification and recordkeeping that would still provide the Commission with access to the information necessary for it to perform its regulatory functions in a manner consistent with CEA section 21(c)(7); and
2. Whether a phase-in process is necessary to decrease the likelihood that a large number of new demands on SDRs' systems from ADRs and AFRs seeking access to swap data will decrease SDR systems reliability, efficiency or speed.
CEA section 21(d), as amended, requires that, prior to providing swap data to a 21(c)(7) entity, an SDR “shall
The Commission recognizes that its proposed amendments to § 49.18 represent a change in approach from the part 49 rules as adopted. Based on its experience with SDRs and swap data access since the adoption of part 49 in 2011, and further consideration of the relationship between CEA sections 21 and 8, however, the Commission believes this change is consistent with the statutory framework established by Congress in CEA section 21(d) and 21(c)(7). Moreover, in the Commission's view a confidentiality arrangement between the Commission and the regulator more directly supports the confidentiality mandate of CEA section 8. Finally, the Commission believes that the proposed requirement will promote regulatory efficiency and reduce costs to SDRs, ADRs and AFRs while ensuring the confidentiality of SDR swap data by giving full effect to the strictures of CEA section 8(e).
To further promote regulatory efficiency, the Commission is proposing to provide a form of confidentiality arrangement as Appendix B to Part 49, for use by ADRs and AFRs. The Commission would expect its use by ADRs and AFRs to reduce significantly the need for these entities to negotiate separate confidentiality arrangements with the Commission. This proposed change also would eliminate the costs and potential inefficiencies to SDRs inherent in requiring them to negotiate confidentiality agreements with a potentially large number of ADRs and AFRs. Finally, while its use is not required, the Commission believes that the proposed form of confidentiality arrangement in Appendix B to Part 49 can be expected to conserve its limited staff resources by eliminating in many cases the need for the Commission and its staff to develop individualized confidentiality arrangements with multiple ADRs or AFRs seeking access to SDR swap data.
The Commission adopted § 49.18 to implement CEA section 21(d)(1) and (2) as originally enacted. Accordingly, the current rule sets forth the obligation for SDRs to execute a “Confidentiality and Indemnification Agreement” before providing SDR swap data to an ADR or AFR. Congress has repealed the indemnification requirement, and the Commission proposes to make conforming amendments to § 49.18 to remove references to indemnification.
Separately, the Commission is proposing revisions to § 49.18 to modify the substantive requirements of the confidentiality arrangement and the parties to the confidentiality arrangement, to establish conditions for restricting or revoking access to SDR swap data, and to clarify the confidentiality obligations of ADRs and AFRs with regulatory responsibility over an SDR.
The Commission proposes to remove current § 49.18(a)
The Commission proposes to replace the text of current § 49.18(b)
Paragraph 6 of the confidentiality arrangement would require ADR and AFR signatories to employ the following safeguards to maintain the confidentiality of the Confidential Information:
• To the maximum extent practicable, maintain Confidential Information received from SDRs separately from other data and information;
• Protect such Confidential Information from misappropriation and misuse;
• Ensure that only ADR or AFR personnel with a need to access particular Confidential Information to perform their job functions related to such Confidential Information have access thereto and that such access is
• Except as provided in paragraph 8 of the confidentiality arrangement, prevent disclosure of Confidential Information unless sufficiently aggregated and anonymized to prevent identification, through disaggregation or otherwise, of a market participant's business transactions, trade data, market positions, customers or counterparties;
• Prohibit the use of Confidential Information by ADR or AFR personnel for any improper purpose; and
• Monitor compliance with the confidentiality safeguards and ensure prompt notification of the CFTC and each relevant SDR of any violation of the safeguards or failure to fulfill the terms of the confidentiality arrangement.
Paragraph 7 of the confidentiality arrangement also would preclude, with limited exceptions, ADRs and AFRs from disclosing any Confidential Information, via onward sharing
Paragraph 9 of the confidentiality arrangement contains certain provisions requiring ADRs and AFRs to notify the Commission, and take certain protective actions, prior to disclosing SDR swap data even where an ADR or AFR receives a legally enforceable demand to disclose Confidential Information.
Paragraph 11 of the confidentiality arrangement would require ADRs and AFRs accessing swap data from SDRs to comply with all security-related requirements imposed by SDRs in connection with access to such swap data, as such requirements may be revised from time to time. Because, subject to specified conditions, CEA sections 21(c)(7) and 21(d) require SDRs to provide ADRs and AFRs access to swap data, the Commission expects that SDRs will not impose security-related access requirements beyond those that are necessary to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of SDR swap data. The Commission further expects that SDRs' security-related access requirements for ADRs and AFRs would be akin, if not identical, to the requirements SDRs impose on others (
To further protect the confidentiality of SDR swap data, paragraph 12 of the confidentiality arrangement would require ADR and AFR signatories to promptly destroy all Confidential Information for which they no longer have a need or which no longer falls within their scope of jurisdiction.
The proposed rule would require that the confidentiality arrangement must include an exhibit (Exhibit A) specifying the scope of jurisdiction of the ADR or AFR signatory. If such signatory is not an Enumerated ADR, the ADR or AFR would attach the Commission Determination Order described in § 49.17(h) as Exhibit A to the confidentiality arrangement. If such signatory is an Enumerated ADR, it would attach, as Exhibit A to the confidentiality arrangement, a detailed description of its scope of jurisdiction as it relates to the swap data maintained by SDRs that the ADR would seek pursuant to the confidentiality arrangement. This requirement is designed to assist SDRs in determining that the scope of each swap data request is within the scope of the requesting entity's jurisdiction.
While the Commission would impose certain obligations on ADRs and AFRs, with respect to swap data received from an SDR, in the proposed confidentiality arrangement, ADRs and AFRs retain the discretion to determine how to comply with those obligations. Additionally, to the extent that neither the proposal nor commenters address a relevant confidentiality issue that arises after an ADR or AFR commences accessing swap data, the Commission expects affected ADRs and AFRs to take appropriate measures to safeguard affected swap data and advise the Commission of such issue promptly so that the Commission may consider appropriate action.
The Commission proposes to remove current § 49.18(c), which provides that the indemnification and confidentiality requirements established in § 49.18(b) do not apply to certain ADRs and AFRs with regulatory jurisdiction or supervisory responsibilities over an SDR, but requires such regulators to comply with CEA section 8 and “any other relevant statutory confidentiality authorities.” As noted above in section II.B. relating to § 49.17(d)(2) and (3), the Commission believes that those domestic and foreign regulators that have regulatory responsibility over an
The Commission accordingly submits that current § 49.18(c) is inappropriate and unnecessary, and therefore, should be eliminated.
The Commission proposes in new § 49.18(c) to require SDRs to promptly report to the Commission any known failure to fulfill the terms of a confidentiality arrangement that they receive pursuant to § 49.18(a). Proposed new § 49.18(d) would authorize the Commission to direct an SDR to limit, suspend or revoke an AFR's or ADR's access to swap data, if the Commission determines that the AFR or ADR has failed to fulfill the terms of its confidentiality arrangement with the Commission.
The Commission is proposing to add § 49.18(e)(1) to delegate to the Director of the Division of Market Oversight, and to such staff acting under his or her direction as he or she may designate from time to time, all functions reserved to the Commission in § 49.18. Proposed § 49.18(e)(2) would reserve to the Director of the Division of Market Oversight the authority to submit to the Commission for its consideration any matter which has been delegated to the Director under proposed § 49.18(e)(1). The Commission proposes in § 49.18(e)(3) to expressly permit the Commission, at its election, to exercise the authority delegated to the Director of the Division of Market Oversight under proposed § 49.18(e)(1).
This delegation is intended to conserve Commission resources and increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the Commission's oversight and supervision of SDR swap data access. The Commission anticipates that the delegation of authority will help facilitate timely access to SDR swap data by ADRs and AFRs consistent with the requirements set forth in part 49 of the Commission's regulations. However, the Division of Market Oversight may submit matters to the Commission for its consideration, as it deems appropriate.
As a result of the FAST Act Amendments, the Commission proposes conforming changes to § 49.17(d)(6), to delete references to an Indemnification Agreement. As a result of the proposed changes to § 49.18, and in particular, § 49.18(a), the Commission proposes conforming changes to § 49.22(d)(4) relating to chief compliance officer compliance responsibilities and duties so that the appropriate section reflecting the confidentiality arrangement is referenced.
1. The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the proposed amendments to § 49.18. Commenters are particularly invited to address the proposed amendments to § 49.18 relating to the confidentiality provisions of CEA sections 21(c)(7) and 21(d), whether the Commission should prescribe specific processes to govern ADR and AFR requests for swap data access from an SDR; and whether the Commission should prescribe a process to govern an SDR's treatment of requests for swap data access.
2. In addition, commenters are invited to address the proposed rules implementing the notification requirement. In this regard, is there an alternative to requiring SDRs to maintain copies of all data they provide in connection with the data access provisions that would still permit the Commission to assess the SDR's ongoing compliance with those provisions? For example, are alternative approaches available such that the Commission need not require SDRs to maintain actual copies of all information provided pursuant to the data access provisions? Would such an alternative approach reduce the burdens on SDRs while still permitting the Commission to assess ongoing compliance?
In addition to those changes discussed throughout this release, the Commission is proposing other changes to part 49, including a number of ministerial changes. The Commission proposes to amend § 49.9(a)(9) to change the reference in § 49.9(a)(9) from “certain appropriate domestic regulators and foreign regulators” to “Appropriate Domestic Regulators and Appropriate Foreign Regulators” to make clear that an SDR is required to provide access to swap data, pursuant to § 49.17, only to ADRs and AFRs. The Commission is proposing to make a number of other changes to part 49 to more consistently refer to the defined term “swap data”. The Commission is proposing to modify the references in existing §§ 49.9(a)(9) and 49.17(b)(2)(i) to “swap data or information”; the reference in existing § 49.17(d)(4)(i) to “swaps transaction data”; and the reference in existing § 49.17(d)(6) to “requested data,” to be references to “swap data” as that term is defined in § 49.2(a)(15). The Commission is proposing these changes to eliminate confusion and to conform part 49 to the FAST Act's amendment of CEA section 21(c)(7) to refer to “swap data.”
The Commission is also proposing to replace the reference in § 49.17(a) to “swaps data” with a reference to “swap data” and to replace the reference in § 49.17(a) to “Regulation” with a reference to “§ 49.17” to match the format of the reference in § 49.17(b). The Commission does not intend to effect any substantive changes with these proposed amendments.
The Commission is proposing to change the references to “swap transaction data” and “swaps transaction data” in § 49.17(c)(2) and 49.17(c)(3) to “swap data” as defined in § 49.2(a)(15). The Commission is also proposing to change the references to “data” in § 49.17(d)(5), (d)(6), (e), and (e)(1) to “swap data” in order to clarify the Commission's intent to refer to “swap data” within the meaning of § 49.2(a)(15). For the same reason, the Commission is also proposing to add “swap data and” before “information” in § 49.17(e)(2) to conform it to § 49.17(e)(1), as proposed to be amended.
In § 49.17(f)(2), the Commission is proposing to change both references to “[d]ata and information” to “[S]wap data and information” in order to clarify, in each case, that the intended reference is to “swap data” as defined in § 49.2(a)(15).
In addition to those changes related to references to swap data, the Commission is also proposing to amend § 49.17(b)(1)(vii) to change “[a]ny other person the Commission deems appropriate[ ]” to “[a]ny other person the Commission determines to be appropriate pursuant to the process set forth in § 49.17(h)” to match the language in CEA section 21(c)(7).
Commission regulation 49.17(f)(1) currently states, “Access of swap data maintained by the registered swap data repository to market participants is generally prohibited.” The Commission is proposing to amend § 49.17(f)(1) to state, “Access by market participants to swap data maintained by the registered swap data repository is prohibited other than as set forth in § 49.17(f)(2)” in order to clarify its meaning. The Commission does not intend this to be a substantive change to § 49.17(f)(1).
Finally, the Commission is proposing several minor clarifying changes to § 49.18(b).
In addition to the specific questions set forth in various sections above, the Commission requests comment on all aspects of the proposal, and particularly invites comment on the questions set forth below.
(1) What, if any, impediments exist to accurately and cost-effectively determining whether swap data access requests are within the scope of an ADR's/AFR's jurisdiction?
(2) Are there any particular elements the Commission has proposed to include in the confidentiality arrangement that are unnecessary? Has the Commission omitted particular element(s) that should be included in a confidentiality arrangement?
(3) Do SDRs maintain swap data in a manner that permits accurate reproduction at a later date of the results of an ADR's/AFR's request for swap data? If so, is it necessary for the Commission to require that SDRs maintain records of the results of such requests, as opposed to merely maintaining the details of the request?
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires federal agencies, in promulgating rules, to consider the impact of those rules on small entities.
The Commission has previously established certain definitions of “small entities” to be used by the Commission in evaluating the impact of its rules on small entities in accordance with the RFA.
The proposed amendments to part 49 would result in new “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”).
The proposed modifications to part 49 would require SDRs to make swap data available to requesting entities if certain conditions are satisfied. These conditions include the requesting entity executing a confidentiality arrangement and, in some cases, receiving a determination order from the Commission that it is an appropriate entity to receive SDR swap data. The proposed modifications would also require SDRs to report failures to fulfill the terms of confidentiality arrangements to the Commission.
Currently, OMB Control Number 3038-0086 sets out burden estimates relating to a broad range of SDR obligations associated with registration requirements, reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirements, and disclosure requirements. Where the information collection associated with those obligations would be modified by this proposed rule, the Commission is proposing to revise Information
As discussed above, the proposed modifications to part 49 set out in this release are intended to provide a process by which other authorities may obtain access to SDR swap data. The information collections associated with this process are intended to ensure that SDR swap data is only accessed by appropriate entities and that the confidentiality of any accessed SDR swap data is adequately protected. The ultimate result of this process is intended to provide other authorities with information to assist with the oversight of the global swaps market and market participants.
Pursuant to § 49.18(a), every requesting entity seeking access to SDR swap data must execute a confidentiality arrangement with the Commission prior to receiving access. This requirement applies to both those entities that are specifically enumerated as appropriate in § 49.17(b)(1) and those entities that require a determination from the Commission that they are appropriate entities to receive access to SDR swap data, regardless of whether the requesting entity is a domestic or foreign entity.
In addition to executing a confidentiality arrangement, requesting entities that are not Enumerated ADRs will be required to seek a Determination Order from the Commission to have access to SDR swap data. Such Determination Orders will describe SDR swap data that is appropriate for the entity to access, based on the requesting entity's scope of jurisdiction. For Enumerated ADRs, the Commission is proposing to require that the confidentiality arrangement describe the requesting entity's scope of jurisdiction. The Commission believes the use of the form of confidentiality arrangement set out in Appendix B to part 49 will provide an efficient means to satisfy the requirements of § 49.18(a).
The Commission, for PRA purposes, believes that it is reasonable to assume that 300 total entities will seek access to SDR swap data. This estimate is based on the Commission's experience in receiving data requests from other regulators and its experience in coordinating and cooperating with other regulators.
An entity that seeks access to SDR swap data must be considered appropriate by the Commission prior to that entity receiving access to SDR swap data. For Enumerated ADRs, there is no burden associated with seeking to be deemed appropriate by the Commission as they are already enumerated as such. Those entities that are not Enumerated ADRs will be required to receive a Determination Order prior to receiving access to SDR swap data. The process for obtaining such a Determination Order is set out in general terms in proposed § 49.17(h) and requires the requesting entity to prepare and submit an application to the Commission. The preparation and submittal of this application constitutes an information collection under the PRA.
As discussed above, the Commission believes that for PRA purposes it is reasonable to assume that 300 domestic and foreign entities will seek access to SDR swap data. Very few of these entities are specifically enumerated in § 49.17(b)(1). The Commission estimates, for PRA purposes, that each such requesting entity would expend 100 hours in connection with filing an application to receive an appropriateness determination, for a total initial burden of no more than 30,000 hours, calculated as the product of 300 domestic and foreign entities seeking access to SDR swap data and 100 hours per application). This estimate considers the relevant information that would be required to be provided in such an application, including information regarding the entity's scope of jurisdiction, mutual assistance provided to the Commission, and the existence of cooperation related to an MOU or similar information sharing arrangement with the Commission, as well as any other information relevant for the Commission's determination. This burden estimate is included in the Commission's proposed revisions to Information Collection 3038-0086.
The Commission expects to limit a requesting entity's access to SDR swap data based on the entity's scope of jurisdiction. In connection with this
SDRs will also be required to provide electronic notice to the Commission of the first request for data from a particular requesting entity and promptly after receiving any request that does not comport with the scope of the ADR's or AFR's jurisdiction. In addition to notifying the Commission of the foregoing, the Commission is proposing, in §§ 49.17(d)(4)(i) and (iii), to require SDRs to maintain records of all information related to the initial and all subsequent requests for data from the requesting entity. These records shall include, at a minimum, the identity of the requestor or person accessing the data; the date, time and substance of the request or access; and copies of all data reports or other aggregation of data provided in connection with the request or access. The SDR shall maintain this information for a period of no less than five years after the date of such request and shall provide this information to the Commission upon request.
Currently, OMB Control Number 3038-0086 estimates burdens associated with various registration, reporting, recordkeeping, and disclosure requirements to which SDRs are subject. The proposed recordkeeping requirements relating to requesting entities' data requests constitute an information collection for PRA purposes and require the Commission to revise the recordkeeping burden estimates contained in OMB Control Number 3038-0086. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements proposed in this release may potentially impact each SDR.
SDRs already have the ability to communicate electronically with the Commission and are subject to significant recordkeeping requirements pursuant to § 49.12. Therefore, the proposed requirements should not result in SDRs having to incur initial costs to implement systems to properly notify the Commission when a requesting entity submits a data request for the first time that are in excess of what is already accounted for in OMB Control Number 3038-0086. The Commission estimates that initially each SDR may incur a burden of 360 hours associated with these proposed recordkeeping requirements, for a total of 1,440 hours (
Finally, current Information Collection 3038-0086 accounts for the costs to SDRs of executing a “Confidentiality and Indemnification Agreement” with each requesting ADR and AFR. Under the Commission's proposal, the SDR is no longer required to execute such an agreement with the ADRs or AFRs. The proposed confidentiality arrangement shall be between the requesting ADR or AFR and the Commission. Accordingly, the total burden to SDRs, as currently reflected in Information Collection 3038-0086, is reduced by the cost to execute such agreements. The reduction in burden associated with this change in the confidentiality agreement is addressed in proposed revised Information Collection 3038-0086.
The Commission invites the public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of the reporting burdens discussed above. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the Commission solicits comments in order to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) determine whether there are ways to 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 automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, by fax at (202) 395-6566 or by email at
As discussed in Section I, entitled “Background and Introduction,” above, Congress passed the FAST Act to facilitate broader access to swap data by the regulatory community. Section 86001(b) of the FAST Act amends CEA section 21 by, among other things, eliminating the requirement that, as a condition of receiving information from SDRs, each ADR or AFR agree to indemnify the SDR and the Commission for any expenses arising from litigation relating to the information provided under CEA Section 8. The Commission is issuing this proposed rulemaking to enable ADRs and AFRs to access swap data, subject to certain safeguards designed to protect swap data from misappropriation or misuse, and to advise the public of the practical implications of the changes to the CEA made by the FAST Act. The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed safeguards are warranted based on the incorporation by reference
CEA section 15(a) requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its actions before promulgating a regulation under the CEA or issuing certain orders. CEA section 15(a) further specifies that the costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of the following five broad areas of market and public concern: (1) Protection of market participants and the public; (2) efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; (3) price discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and (5) other public interest considerations. The Commission considers the costs and benefits resulting from its discretionary determinations with respect to the CEA section 15(a) factors.
As an initial matter, the Commission recognizes that there are benefits, discussed more fully below, for domestic and foreign regulators to have access to SDR swap data. Yet, there are inherent compromises between data access and data security. More directly, greater access leads to data being less secure from misappropriation or misuse. The Commission recognizes that there are costs associated with this proposed rulemaking. The Commission, however, lacks the requisite data and information to precisely estimate costs, in part, because the proposed rulemaking grants SDRs, ADRs, and AFRs discretion to implement the proposed regulations through alternative measures. Furthermore, the Commission does not know which approach SDRs, ADRs, and AFRs will take. As a consequence, where it is not feasible to quantify (
The status quo baseline definition for the term “foreign regulator” as defined in current § 49.2(a)(5) is a “foreign futures authority as defined in CEA Section 1a(26), foreign financial supervisors, foreign central banks and foreign ministries.”
The status quo baseline definition for the term “Appropriate Foreign Regulator” (defined in current § 49.17(b)(2)) is “those Foreign Regulators with an existing memorandum of understanding or other similar type of information sharing arrangement executed with the Commission and/or Foreign Regulators without an MOU as determined on a case-by-case basis by the Commission.”
The Commission is proposing to amend current § 49.17(b)(2) to require all “foreign regulators” to file an application with the Commission to become “Appropriate Foreign Regulators.” The existence of a current MOU or other information sharing arrangement with the Commission will not be dispositive to a determination of appropriateness. The proposed amendment would require the Commission to issue an order finding each foreign regulator “appropriate.” In this manner, the Commission will ensure that each “Appropriate Foreign Regulator” is acting within its scope of jurisdiction as mandated under CEA section 21(c)(7) through incorporation by reference of CEA section 8(e). The Commission believes that this proposal will provide greater control over the process by which foreign regulators obtain access to SDR swap data; specifically, it will help to ensure that only those foreign regulators who have a regulatory interest in SDR swap data can access such swap data. The limitation on swap data access proposed in this recommendation is expected to help reduce the risk of unauthorized disclosure, misappropriation or the misuse of swap data.
The Commission has proposed conforming language changes to current § 49.9(a)(9).
The Commission has proposed conforming language changes to current § 49.17(a).
The Commission has proposed conforming language changes to current § 49.17(b)(vii) to cross-reference the process under § 49.17(h).
By way of this proposed rulemaking, the Commission has explained that if a domestic regulator receives swap data pursuant to its regulatory regime, that access is not subject to CEA sections 21(c)(7) or 21(d), or Commission regulations § 49.17(d) or § 49.18.
Foreign Regulators require data in order to fulfill their regulatory responsibilities. In proposed § 49.17(d)(3) the Commission has explained that, if a foreign regulator receives swap data pursuant to its regulatory regime, that access is not subject to CEA sections 21(c)(7) or 21(d), or §§ 49.17(d) or 49.18.
Current § 49.17(d)(4)(i) requires an SDR to promptly notify the Commission regarding any request for swap data received by Appropriate Domestic or Foreign Regulators.
The Commission proposes to amend current § 49.17(d)(4)(i)-(ii) to provide that SDRs notify the Commission at the time that such SDR receives the initial request for swap data from a particular
In addition, proposed § 49.17(d)(4)(iii) requires SDRs to limit, suspend, or revoke an ADR's or AFR's swap data access if the ADR's or AFR's scope of jurisdiction changes and the Commission directs the ADR or AFR to limit, suspend, or revoke an ADR's or AFR's swap data access.
The changes to the rule text in current § 49.17(d)(5) make clear that SDRs must notify the Commission of an ADR or AFR access request and the receipt of a confidentiality arrangement, among other things. In addition, proposed § 49.17(d)(5) requires SDRs to limit, suspend, or revoke an ADR's or AFR's swap data access if the Commission limits, suspends or revokes the ADR's or AFR's appropriateness determination or otherwise directs the ADR or AFR to limit, suspend, or revoke an ADR's or AFR's swap data access.
Current §§ 49.17(d)(6) and 49.18, adopted as part of the original part 49 rules, provide that SDRs execute a “Confidentiality and Indemnification Agreement” with a CEA section 21(c)(7) entity, prior to sharing swap transaction data and information.
The Commission proposes to amend current §§ 49.17(d)(6) and 49.18 to (i) reflect the FAST Act amendments to CEA sections 21(c)(7) and (d), and (ii) require SDRs to receive a confidentiality arrangement from a 21(c)(7) entity, before sharing swap data, to satisfy the requirements of CEA section 21(d). Unlike the current regulations, this confidentiality arrangement will not be executed by the SDR with the 21(c)(7) entity, but instead would be executed by the Commission and the 21(c)(7) entity. The Commission proposes to provide a form of confidentiality arrangement attached as Appendix B to part 49. Use of the form would not be mandatory but would provide an efficient and expeditious means of fulfilling the confidentiality requirement of 21(d) and §§ 49.17(d) and 49.18.
The Commission modified the text in current § 49.17(e) for clarity. There are no substantive cost or benefit implications.
The Commission modified the text in current § 49.17(f) for clarity. There are no substantive cost or benefit implications.
In this proposed rulemaking, the Commission has added proposed § 49.17(h) to describe the application process for persons seeking an appropriateness determination. In sub-paragraph (2), the Commission explains that the applicant must provide sufficient detail to explain its jurisdiction and its confidentiality safeguards. Proposed § 49.17(h)(3) also outlines the standards by which the Commission will issue an appropriateness determination. Finally, the Commission explains in proposed § 49.17(h)(4) that it reserves the right to “revisit, reassess, limit, suspend or revoke” an appropriateness determination.
Current §§ 49.17 and 49.18 do not have delegation of authority provisions. The Commission proposes to amend §§ 49.17 and 49.18 to add a delegation of authority to the Director of the Division of Market Oversight (“DMO”) and the Director's designee(s) of functions reserved to the Commission in §§ 49.17 and 49.18. The delegation of Commission authority would make the process more effective and efficient.
The change to current § 49.22(d)(4) is the removal of the word “indemnification” from the rule text. This is a conforming change to make the rule consistent with the FAST Act amendments.
At a high level regarding benefits, the rulemaking is expected to assist regulators in performing their supervisory and regulatory functions by providing them access to swap data, which would help regulators better understand the risks their regulated entities are assuming and the impact of such risks on the broader markets. These supervisory and regulatory functions may include: Monitoring and mitigation of systemic risk; ensuring financial stability; registration and oversight of financial market infrastructures; registration and oversight of trading venues; registration and oversight of market participants; central bank activities; prudential supervision; restructuring or resolution of infrastructures and firms; and regulation of cash markets, in some of which swap counterparties are active.
A more granular benefit to regulators flows from the Commission's proposal to resolve a conflict or potential conflict between the Commission's Interpretative Statement and current § 49.18(c). In the Interpretative Statement, the Commission took the view that other regulators who access swap data based on their own authority over SDRs are not subject to the swap data access-related provisions of the CEA. On the other hand, current § 49.18(c) provides that such regulators are required to comply with CEA section 8 and any other relevant statutory confidentiality provisions. The Commission proposes to delete the statement in current § 49.18(c) providing that other regulators are required to comply with CEA section 8 and any other relevant statutory
The Commission recognizes that there are different types of costs associated with this proposed rulemaking. One cost is the potential harm to market participants and the public if swap data is misused—for example, inappropriately disclosed by ADRs and AFRs. Or, another harmful scenario might involve misappropriated data where hackers pilfer swap data from ADRs and AFRs to learn the positions of market participants so that the hackers, or other interested parties who may even pay for such information, scam the market. Such bad actors might be able to anticipate such market participants' trades and trade in front of them, raising swap trading costs to market participants, thereby reducing their profits.
At a high level regarding costs to ADRs and AFRs, the less access to swap data granted to ADRs and AFRs, the less such swap data would help in performing ADRs' and AFRs' supervisory and other regulatory functions. Similarly, the more impediments to swap data access, the longer it would take ADRs and AFRs to use, or the less use ADRs and AFRs could make of, such swap data.
At a more granular level, the Commission is proposing several new obligations applicable to foreign regulators and certain domestic regulators that will trigger costs for such regulators. The obligation for foreign regulators and unenumerated domestic regulators to apply for a Determination Order conferring AFR or ADR status so that such foreign regulators and unenumerated domestic regulators can receive access to SDR swap data will, at a minimum, require such applicants to dedicate personnel to drafting the application. Some applicants for ADR and AFR status may choose to retain outside counsel or another third party to draft the application, thereby incurring related costs. There also may be an additional cost associated with the complexity of the application because applicants for ADR and AFR status will have to explain their jurisdiction and link it to the sought swap data so that the Commission can provide swap data access parameters to SDRs in the Determination Orders.
The proposed requirement in § 49.18(a) that SDRs receive an executed confidentiality arrangement from an ADR or AFR before the SDR can provide the ADR or AFR swap data is based on a corresponding requirement set forth in CEA section 21(d) and will generate costs to ADRs and AFRs. CEA section 21(d) does not specify any details of the required written agreement other than that it must state that the ADR or AFR shall abide by CEA section 8's confidentiality requirements. The Commission, however, is proposing, in Appendix B to this part 49, to specify required elements as well as a form of confidentiality arrangement providing for ADRs and AFRs to implement a number of safeguards that would impose burdens on ADRs and AFRs. The confidentiality arrangement would include safeguards that:
• To the maximum extent practicable, maintain Confidential Information separately from other data and information;
• Protect Confidential Information from misappropriation and misuse;
• Ensure that only ADR or AFR personnel with a need to access particular Confidential Information to perform their job functions related to such Confidential Information have access thereto and that such access is permitted only to the minimum extent necessary to perform such job functions;
• Prevent disclosure of aggregated Confidential Information unless anonymized to prevent identification, through disaggregation or otherwise, of a market participant's business transactions, trade data, market positions, customers or counterparties;
• Prohibit the use of Confidential Information by ADR or AFR personnel for any improper purpose, including in connection with trading for their personal benefit or for the benefit of others or with respect to any commercial or business purpose;
• Monitor compliance with the confidentiality safeguards and ensure prompt notification of the CFTC and each relevant SDR of any violation of the safeguards or failure to fulfill the terms of the confidentiality arrangement;
• Prohibit the onward sharing or disclosing of Confidential Information unless exempted in paragraphs 6(d) or 8 of the confidentiality arrangement;
• Notify the CFTC in writing prior to complying with any legally enforceable demand for Confidential Information and assert all available appropriate legal exemptions or privileges with respect to such Confidential Information, and use its best efforts to protect the confidentiality of the Confidential Information; and
• Promptly destroy all Confidential Information for which an ADR or AFR no longer has a need or for which the information no longer falls within the scope of its jurisdiction, and certify to the CFTC, upon request, that the ADR or AFR has destroyed such Confidential Information.
The Commission preliminarily believes that the monetary costs of these burdens would be minor, and the other costs of complying with these burdens, such as the costs to develop policies,
The proposed rulemaking would prohibit ADRs and AFRs from onward sharing Confidential Information with other parties. This could impose some costs in that ADRs and AFRs would not be able to freely share swap data among themselves. This could reduce the utility of the swap data to ADRs and AFRs, possibly reducing the effectiveness thereof. In addition, the fact that the Commission is proposing not to specify a particular means of ADRs and AFRs accessing swap data could result in SDRs providing a means of access other than a means preferred by ADRs and AFRs. This might impose additional costs to ADRs and AFRs relative to the potentially lesser costs of their preferred means of access. Because of these uncertainties, the Commission is unable to quantify these costs but is able to identify such costs generally.
For SDRs, providing swap data access to so many potential ADRs and AFRs may be expensive. For example, SDRs may be forced to purchase new servers, hire new system administrators to oversee the new swap data/system usage and troubleshoot related problems that may arise. New recordkeeping requirements would require more system resources. The proposed requirement to limit the swap data provided to ADRs and AFRs to only swap data that is within the scope of ADRs' and AFRs' jurisdiction may cause SDRs to elect to create new methods for parsing swap data to comply with the proposed requirement to so limit swap data. The proposed reporting obligations also will increase SDRs' costs, although to the extent that such reporting obligations are not triggered, such cost increases would be tempered accordingly. Nevertheless, SDRs presumably would need to incur some costs to develop policies and procedures, and build out systems, to monitor potential events that would trigger the proposed new reporting requirements.
Other SDR costs will include those related to SDRs verifying that each access request by an ADR or AFR is within the scope of the ADR's or AFR's jurisdiction. This will require SDRs to expend resources to ensure that they do not improperly disclose to an ADR or AFR swap data that such ADR or AFR is not entitled to see, in violation of CEA section 21(c)(7)'s requirement that SDRs disclose swap data to ADRs and AFRs “on a confidential basis pursuant to [CEA] section 8 . . . .”
The Commission understands that there are some blank data entries in LEI fields, however, despite the Commission having designated an LEI system in 2012, and masked LEIs in a number of cases to reflect certain other jurisdictions' privacy law limits on disclosure.
In general, the blank or masked LEI data fields and UPI limits discussed above would raise the costs for SDRs and potentially for ADRs and AFRs. Inadequate data fields and UPIs hinder SDRs' abilities to identify transactions and determine whether such transactions, in particular swap data, are within an ADR's or AFR's jurisdictional scope and interest. Even though the Commission believes these obstacles would increase costs, the Commission also believes that such costs are difficult to quantify at this time. The Commission specifically requests comment on this concern. Commenters are encouraged to quantify such costs, if practical. The Commission understands that lists of LEIs of ADRs' and AFRs' regulated entities and lists of UPIs or UPI-equivalents of swaps within ADRs' and AFRs' jurisdiction may have to be updated from time to time as regulated entities move in and out of ADRs' and AFRs' jurisdiction, ADRs' and AFRs' jurisdiction expands or contracts, swaps evolve, and new swaps are developed. In these cases, for example, an ADR or AFR likely would have to modify periodically the list of LEIs and UPIs it gives to SDRs.
The proposal would further mitigate the costs to SDRs by permitting them to verify the scope of an ADR's or AFR's jurisdiction just once for a recurring request the details of which do not change. SDRs might incur additional costs, however, if the scope of jurisdiction changes for an ADR or AFR. Such additional costs include some fraction of the above costs as well as the cost to notify the Commission of the change in jurisdiction for the ADR or AFR.
The Commission is proposing Appendix B to Part 49 to provide a form of confidentiality arrangement for execution by the Commission and by ADRs and AFRs seeking swap data access maintained by SDRs so that ADRs and AFRs can satisfy the confidentiality agreement requirement set forth in CEA § 21(d). The Commission believes that this form would eliminate SDRs' costs and reduce ADRs' and AFRs' costs to negotiate the terms of such an arrangement relative to an alternative of negotiating and signing confidentiality arrangements with four separate SDRs. Otherwise, confidentiality arrangement costs could be substantial in terms of management
The Commission is proposing to permit SDRs to determine the means by which they will provide access to swap data to ADRs and AFRs. The Commission notes that SDRs already provide the Commission and the National Futures Association with data. Providing incremental access to ADRs and AFRs may permit SDRs to take advantage of economies of scale, thus mitigating SDRs' costs. The proposal would also mitigate SDRs' costs by permitting them to choose the means by which they will provide access to swap data to ADRs and AFRs. The Commission expects that SDRs would choose the lowest cost means of access consistent with their statutory obligation to provide ADRs and AFRs access to swap data and other constraints. The Commission cannot forecast what these costs would be at this time, however, because it depends on particulars of each SDR that the Commission does not know. Consequently, the Commission welcomes public comments on this requirement and how SDRs might satisfy this requirement. Commenters are encouraged to quantify where practical.
CEA section 21(c)(7) requires SDRs to notify the Commission of requests for data from a particular ADR or AFR. Proposed § 49.17(d)(4)(i) would reduce that burden by permitting SDRs to notify the Commission only of the first such request by each ADR or AFR and promptly after receiving any request that does not comport with the scope of the ADR's or AFR's jurisdiction. In addition to the foregoing, the Commission is proposing to amend current § 49.17(d)(4)(i) to require SDRs to maintain records of all information related to the initial and all subsequent requests for data from the requesting entity. The SDR would have to maintain this information for the same period required for other SDR records. Although these costs may be relatively small, the Commission anticipates using such data to, for example, monitor ADRs' and AFRs' access requests from time to time to ensure that they remain within the scope of their jurisdiction and, relatedly, to ensure that SDRs have been monitoring this access issue.
As one alternative to proposing comprehensive swap data safeguards, the Commission instead could have chosen to merely delete the indemnification references in its regulations. While that approach could have avoided imposing many of the costs to ADRs, AFRs, and SDRs related to protection of confidentiality discussed herein, it would have dramatically increased the risk of imposing on market participants and the public the costs discussed above in the first paragraph of this section IV.C.4. and below in section IV.C.5.a.-c., which the Commission preliminarily believes is inconsistent with the historical importance Congress and the Commission have placed on protecting information covered by CEA section 8. Consequently, the Commission has determined to take the proposed approach.
The Commission is proposing a number of safeguards to prevent market participants' swap data maintained at SDRs from being misappropriated or misused, as discussed above. Those proposed safeguards include: Modifying the requirements for being an AFR; requiring both ADRs and AFRs to demonstrate the scope of their swap-data jurisdiction as a limit on the swap data to which an ADR or AFR may have access; having the Commission issue Determination Orders; imposing on ADRs and AFRs seeking access to swap data maintained by SDRs a number of required confidentiality safeguards; barring onward sharing of swap data; certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements; and ensuring the Commission's ability to revoke an ADR's or AFR's swap data access. Some market participants, and the public, could be harmed if market participants' proprietary swap data were misappropriated or misused. As detailed above in the “Cost” discussion, there is the potential harm that misappropriated swap data could be used to front run market participants whose swap data were misappropriated, raising their costs of completing swap transactions. More specifically, spreads could widen, which could deter some market participants from engaging in swap transactions trading and prevent prices from adjusting as quickly. Another possible misuse of market participants' swap data is if those who obtained misappropriated swap data were to reverse engineer the trading strategies of the market participants whose data were misappropriated and use such strategies, potentially undermining their efficacy.
The Commission believes that there will be little effect on efficiency, competiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets if swap data is properly protected from being misappropriated or misused. If swap data is not properly protected, however, competition might be affected, in that market participants might be less willing to engage in swap transactions if parties are trading in front of them, raising their costs, or misappropriating their trading strategies, lowering such strategies' effectiveness. This could induce some swap dealers to charge higher fees (explicitly or implicitly) for their services and otherwise reduce profits. Such concerns may also encourage market participants to increase their use of futures contracts relative to swaps, because futures position data may be better protected.
The Commission believes that price discovery would not be affected by this proposed rulemaking. There may be some indirect effects on price discovery if the safeguards in this proposed rulemaking prove ineffective, however. Price discovery could be negatively impacted if position data is misappropriated or misused to the disadvantage of some participants. For instance, as previously explained, some market participants might withdraw from swaps markets if they fear that their position data will be misappropriated or misused. This could lead to less frequent trading as well as reduced liquidity in swap markets. Furthermore, spreads could widen due to front-running concerns, which could make prices more volatile and harm price discovery.
This proposed rulemaking will help regulators better understand the risks posed by their regulated entities. Without swaps data, it is impossible to comprehensively supervise entities that engage in swap trading. In this way, the proposed rulemaking helps to mitigate systemic risk. Allowing more ADRs and AFRs to access SDR swap data establishes the potential to improve SDR data by potentially facilitating research and analysis that ultimately leads to better risk management by market participants. This can occur through academic research that influences market participants to improve their risk management based on the research, or by ADRs and AFRs asserting their authority over their regulated entities to compel them to improve their swap data reporting and risk management.
The Commission does not believe that there are any other public interest considerations with respect to this proposed rulemaking.
The Commission requests comment on all aspects of its cost and benefit considerations. Commenters are encouraged to quantify their comments, if practical.
CEA section 15(b) requires the Commission to take into consideration the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws and endeavor to take the least anticompetitive means of achieving the objectives of the CEA, in issuing any order or adopting any Commission rule or regulation.
The Commission does not anticipate that the proposed amendments to part 49 will result in anticompetitive behavior. However, because the proposed amendments affect existing SDR procedures relating to data reporting validation and data accuracy, the Commission encourages comments from the public on any aspect of the proposal that may have the potential to be inconsistent with the antitrust laws or be anticompetitive in nature.
Access to swap data; Commodity Exchange Act section 8; Confidentiality; Registration and regulatory requirements; Swap data repositories.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission proposes to amend 17 CFR part 49 as set forth below:
7 U.S.C. 12a and 24a, unless otherwise noted.
(a) * * *
(5)
(a) * * *
(9) Upon request of Appropriate Domestic Regulators and Appropriate Foreign Regulators, provide access to swap data held and maintained by the swap data repository, as prescribed in § 49.17;
The revisions and additions to read as follows:
(a)
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) Any other person the Commission determines to be appropriate pursuant to the process set forth in § 49.17(h).
(2)
(c) * * *
(2)
(3)
(d) * * *
(2)
(3)
(4)
(ii) The registered swap data repository shall notify the Commission electronically, in a format specified by the Secretary of the Commission, of the receipt of a request specified in § 49.17(d)(4)(i).
(iii) The registered swap data repository shall not provide an Appropriate Domestic Regulator or Appropriate Foreign Regulator access to swap data maintained by the swap data repository unless the swap data repository has determined that the swap data to which the Appropriate Domestic Regulator or Appropriate Foreign Regulator seeks access is within the then-current scope of such Appropriate Domestic Regulator's or Appropriate Foreign Regulator's jurisdiction, as described and appended to the confidentiality arrangement required by § 49.18(a). An Appropriate Domestic Regulator or Appropriate Foreign Regulator that has executed a confidentiality arrangement with the Commission pursuant to § 49.18(a) and provided such confidentiality arrangement to one or more swap data repositories shall notify the Commission and each such swap data repository of any change to such Appropriate Domestic Regulator's or Appropriate Foreign Regulator's scope of jurisdiction as described in such confidentiality arrangement. The Commission may direct a swap data repository to suspend, limit, or revoke access to swap data maintained by such swap data repository based on any such change to such Appropriate Domestic Regulator's or Appropriate Foreign Regulator's scope of jurisdiction, and, if so directed, such swap data repository shall so suspend, limit, or revoke such access.
(iv) The registered swap data repository need not make the determination required pursuant to § 49.17(d)(4)(iii) more than once with respect to a recurring swap data request. If such request changes, the swap data repository must make a new determination pursuant to § 49.17(d)(4)(iii).
(5)
(i) Notified the Commission, pursuant to § 49.17(d)(4)(i) and (ii), of an initial request for swap data access by an Appropriate Domestic Regulator or Appropriate Foreign Regulator, as applicable, that was submitted pursuant to § 49.17(d)(1);
(ii) Received from such Appropriate Domestic Regulator or Appropriate Foreign Regulator a confidentiality arrangement executed by the Commission and such Appropriate Domestic Regulator or Appropriate Foreign Regulator as required by § 49.18(a); and
(iii) Satisfied its obligations under § 49.17(d)(4)(iii), such swap data repository shall provide access to the requested swap data;
(6)
(e)
(1) Both the registered swap data repository and the third party service provider shall have strict confidentiality procedures that protect swap data and information from improper disclosure.
(2) Prior to a registered swap data repository granting access to swap data or information to a third-party service provider, the third-party service provider and the registered swap data repository shall execute a confidentiality agreement setting forth minimum confidentiality procedures and permissible uses of the swap data and information maintained by the swap data repository that are equivalent to the privacy procedures for swap data repositories outlined in § 49.16.
(f)
(2)
(h)
(2) Each applicant seeking an appropriateness determination shall provide sufficient detail in its application to permit the Commission to analyze whether the applicant is acting within the scope of its jurisdiction in seeking access to swap data maintained by a registered swap data repository, and whether the applicant employs appropriate confidentiality safeguards to ensure that any swap data such applicant receives from a registered swap data repository will not, except as allowed for in the form of confidentiality arrangement set forth in Appendix B of this part, be disclosed.
(3) If the Commission determines that an applicant pursuant to this paragraph is, conditionally or unconditionally, appropriate for purposes of CEA section 21(c)(7), the Commission shall issue an order setting forth its appropriateness determination. The Commission shall not determine that an applicant pursuant to this paragraph is appropriate unless the Commission is satisfied that—
(i) The applicant employs appropriate confidentiality safeguards to ensure that any swap data such applicant receives from a registered swap data repository
(ii) Such applicant is acting within the scope of its jurisdiction in seeking access to swap data from a registered swap data repository.
(4) The Commission reserves the right, in connection with any appropriateness determination with respect to an Appropriate Domestic Regulator or Appropriate Foreign Regulator, to revisit, reassess, limit, suspend or revoke such determination consistent with the Act.
(i)
(2) The Director of the Division of Market Oversight may submit any matter which has been delegated under paragraph (i)(1) of this section to the Commission for its consideration.
(3) Nothing in this section may prohibit the Commission, at its election, from exercising the authority delegated under paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2) The Director of the Division of Market Oversight may submit any matter which has been delegated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section to the Commission for its consideration.
(3) Nothing in this section may prohibit the Commission, at its election, from exercising the authority delegated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(d) * * *
(4) Taking reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the Act and Commission regulations in this chapter relating to agreements, contracts, or transactions, and with Commission regulations in this chapter under Section 21 of the Act, including confidentiality arrangements received by the chief compliance officer's registered swap depository pursuant to § 49.18(a);
1. ABC is permitted to request and receive swap data directly from a registered SDR (“Swap Data”) on the terms and subject to the conditions of this Arrangement.
2. This Arrangement is entered into to fulfill the requirements under Section 21(d) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”) and CFTC Regulation 49.18. Upon receipt by a registered SDR, this Arrangement will satisfy the requirement for a written agreement pursuant to Section 21(d) of the Act and CFTC Regulation 49.17(d)(6). This Arrangement does not apply to information that is [reported to a registered SDR pursuant to [ABC]'s regulatory regime where the SDR also is registered with [ABC] pursuant to separate statutory authority, even if such information also is reported pursuant to the Act and CFTC regulations][reported to a registered SDR pursuant to [ABC]'s regulatory regime where the SDR also is registered with, or recognized or otherwise authorized by, [ABC], which has supervisory authority over the repository pursuant to foreign law and/or regulation, even if such information also is reported pursuant to the Act and CFTC regulations.]
3. This Arrangement is not intended to limit or condition the discretion of an Authority in any way in the discharge of its regulatory responsibilities or to prejudice the individual responsibilities or autonomy of any Authority.
4. This Arrangement does not alter the terms and conditions of any existing arrangements.
5. ABC will be acting within the scope of its jurisdiction in requesting Swap Data and employs procedures to maintain the confidentiality of Swap Data and any information and analyses derived therefrom (collectively, the “Confidential Information”). ABC undertakes to notify the CFTC and each relevant SDR promptly of any change to ABC's scope of jurisdiction.
6. ABC undertakes to treat Confidential Information as confidential and will employ safeguards that:
a. To the maximum extent practicable, identify the Confidential Information and maintain it separately from other data and information;
b. Protect the Confidential Information from misappropriation and misuse;
c. Ensure that only authorized ABC personnel with a need to access particular Confidential Information to perform their job functions related to such Confidential Information have access thereto, and that such access is permitted only to the extent necessary to perform their job functions related to such particular Confidential Information;
d. Prevent the disclosure of aggregated Confidential Information; provided, however, that ABC is permitted to disclose any sufficiently aggregated Confidential Information that is anonymized to prevent identification, through disaggregation or otherwise, of a market participant's business transactions, trade data, market positions, customers or counterparties;
e. Prohibit use of the Confidential Information by ABC personnel for any improper purpose, including in connection with trading for their personal benefit or for the benefit of others or with respect to any commercial or business purpose; and
f. Include a process for monitoring compliance with the confidentiality safeguards described herein and for promptly notifying the CFTC, and each SDR from which ABC has received Swap Data, of any violation of such safeguards or failure to fulfill the terms of this Arrangement.
7. Except as provided in Paragraphs 6.d. and 8, ABC will not onward share or otherwise disclose any Confidential Information.
8. ABC undertakes that:
a. If a department, central bank, or agency of the Government of the United States, it will not disclose Confidential Information except in an action or proceeding under the laws of the United States to which it, the CFTC, or the United States is a party;
b. If a department or agency of a State or political subdivision thereof, it will not disclose Confidential Information except in connection with an adjudicatory action or proceeding brought under the Act or the laws of [
c. If a foreign futures authority or a department, central bank, ministry, or agency of a foreign government or subdivision thereof, or any other Foreign Regulator, as defined in Commission Regulation 49.2(a)(5), it will not disclose Confidential Information except in connection with an adjudicatory action or proceeding brought under the laws of [
9. Prior to complying with any legally enforceable demand for Confidential Information, ABC will notify the CFTC of such demand in writing, assert all available appropriate legal exemptions or privileges with respect to such Confidential Information, and use its best efforts to protect the confidentiality of the Confidential Information.
10. ABC acknowledges that, if it does not fulfill the terms of this Arrangement, the CFTC may direct any registered SDR to suspend or revoke ABC's access to Swap Data.
11. ABC will comply with all applicable security-related requirements imposed by an SDR in connection with access to Swap Data maintained by the SDR, as such requirements may be revised from time to time.
12. ABC will promptly destroy all Confidential Information for which it no longer has a need or which no longer falls within the scope of its jurisdiction, and will certify to the CFTC, upon request, that ABC has destroyed such Confidential Information.
13. This Arrangement may be amended with the written consent of the Authorities.
14. The text of this Arrangement will be executed in English, and may be made available to the public.
15. On the date this Arrangement is signed by the Authorities, it will become effective and may be provided to any registered SDR that holds and maintains Swap Data that falls within the scope of ABC's jurisdiction.
16. This Arrangement will expire 30 days after any Authority gives written notice to the other Authority of its intention to terminate the Arrangement. In the event of termination of this Arrangement, Confidential Information will continue to remain confidential and will continue to be covered by this Arrangement.
This Arrangement is executed in duplicate, this ___day of ___.
The following appendices will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On this matter, Chairman Massad and Commissioners Bowen and Giancarlo voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.
The increased reporting of data on swaps transactions is an important reform of the derivatives markets agreed to by the G20 leaders in 2009. Today, thanks to this reporting, regulators across the globe are in a better position to assess exposures and risks related to this market. Because of the global nature of the market, it is critical for regulators to be able to share information, subject to appropriate confidentiality and other protections.
That's why I am pleased we are issuing this proposal, which will make it easier for other regulators, both domestic and foreign, to gain access to swap data repository (SDR) swap data. The proposal would conform our rules to various changes Congress made in the law and provide a process for sharing of information. Among other things, Congress removed a requirement that another regulator must indemnify both the Commission and the swap data repository for expenses related to litigation before data could be shared. To date, no domestic or foreign regulator has provided such an indemnification. Today's proposal removes this requirement in the CFTC's own rules, makes other changes consistent with Congressional action, and creates a process for when and how other regulators gain access to SDR information that will protect confidentiality.
I thank my fellow Commissioners Bowen and Giancarlo for their unanimous support for this proposal. I also thank the hardworking CFTC staff for all their efforts.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Denial of petition for rulemaking.
This document denies a January 13, 2016 rulemaking petition jointly submitted by Consumer Watchdog, Center for Auto Safety, and Public Citizen. The petition requested NHTSA to begin a rulemaking proceeding to mandate that all light vehicles be equipped with three types of automatic emergency braking (AEB) technologies: Forward crash warning, crash imminent braking, and dynamic brake support. NHTSA is denying the petition because the Agency has already taken significant steps to incentivize the installation of these technologies in a way that allows for continued innovation and technological advancement. First, NHTSA has expanded its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) so that the NCAP information for a vehicle notes whether the vehicle is equipped with one or more of these technologies. Second, it has sought public comment on its plans to revise NCAP so that the presence and level of performance of these technologies affects the overall rating of light motor vehicles.
To reinforce these improvements to the NCAP program, NHTSA encouraged and facilitated a process that resulted in 20 light vehicle manufacturers, representing more than 99 percent of light motor vehicle sales in the United States, committing to voluntarily installing forward crash warning and crash imminent braking. While NHTSA's actions will help create availability and market push for AEB technologies, private sector organizations such as the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and Consumer Reports are helping to create market pull through a variety of outreach activities that are helping consumers understand the benefits of AEB as well as differences among various vehicle models. Together with NCAP, the industry commitment and the actions of other stakeholders will lead to the installation of a growing array of AEB technologies in substantially all light vehicles and will foster innovation and competition in this technologically dynamic area. As the manufacturers respond to NCAP and carry out their commitments, the Agency is continuously monitoring their efforts to assess whether additional steps, including the possibility of a rulemaking to establish a new standard, might be needed in the future to ensure realization of the potential benefits from the full array of automatic emergency braking technologies.
January 18, 2017.
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (“Safety Act”) (49 U.S.C. 30101
An Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) system uses forward-looking sensors, typically radars and/or cameras, to detect objects,
FCW is a system that uses information from forward-looking sensors to determine whether or not a crash is likely or unavoidable and that, in such cases, warns the driver so the driver can brake and/or steer to avoid a crash or minimize the force of the crash. The system is based on two components: A sensing system capable of detecting a vehicle in front of the subject vehicle, and a warning system sending a signal to the driver. The sensing system consists of forward-looking radar, LIDAR,
CIB is a system that uses information from forward-looking sensors to automatically apply the brakes in driving situations in which a crash is likely or unavoidable and the driver makes no attempt to avoid the crash. When an object in front of the driver's forward-moving vehicle is detected, a computer software algorithm reviews the available data from the input signal of the sensing system. If the algorithm determines that a rear-end crash with another motor vehicle is imminent, then a signal is sent to the electronic brake controller to automatically activate the brakes of the driver's vehicle.
DBS is a system that uses information from forward-looking sensors about driving situations in which a crash is likely or unavoidable to supplement automatically the output of the brakes when the DBS system senses that the force being applied by the driver to the brake pedal is insufficient to avoid the crash. FCW most often works in concert with DBS by first warning the driver of the situation and thereby providing the opportunity for the driver to initiate the necessary braking. If the driver's brake application is insufficient, DBS provides the additional braking needed to avoid or mitigate the crash.
DBS is similar to CIB; the difference is that CIB activates when the driver has not pressed on the brake pedal, and DBS activates when the driver has pressed on the brake pedal, but not hard enough.
July 2011—NHTSA added FCW to NCAP. (July 29, 2011; 76 Fed Reg 45453).
July 2012—NHTSA published a notice informing the public that the Agency had, for about two years, been studying advanced braking technologies that rely on forward-looking sensors to supplement driver braking or to actuate automatic braking in response to an impending crash. NHTSA stated that it believes these technologies show promise for enhancing vehicle safety by helping drivers to avoid crashes or mitigate the severity and effects of crashes. NHTSA solicited comments on the results of its research thus far to help guide its continued efforts in this area. (July 3, 2012; 77 FR 39561).
January 2015—NHTSA published a notice requesting public comments on Agency plans for adding CIB and DBS as recommended technologies to NCAP. (January 28, 2015; 80 FR 4630).
September 2015—NHTSA and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) announced a commitment by 10 vehicle manufacturers to install FCW and CIB in their light motor vehicles.
October 2015—NHTSA published a notice granting a petition by Center for Auto Safety, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and the Truck Safety Coalition to initiate a rulemaking to mandate the installation of FCW, CIB, and DBS in heavy trucks and other heavy vehicles. (October 16, 2015; 80 FR 62487).
November 2015—NHTSA published a final decision adding CIB and DBS as recommended technologies in NCAP, effective with model year 2018. FCW had previously been added to NCAP. Thus, if FCW, CIB or DBS were installed in a light motor vehicle, the NCAP information for that vehicle would note the presence of the technologies. However, the vehicle's overall NCAP score would not be affected. (November 5, 2015; 80 FR 68604).
December 2015—NHTSA published a notice requesting public comments on a new plan under which the scoring system would be revised such that, in the future, the installation and performance of FCW, CIB or DBS in a light motor vehicle would increase the vehicle's overall NCAP score. In addition, a pedestrian safety rating would be assigned to new vehicles, based on tests that determine how well the vehicles minimize injuries and fatalities to pedestrians. The rating would reflect the results from four crashworthiness pedestrian tests and the system performance tests of two advanced crash avoidance technologies that have the potential to avoid or mitigate crashes that involve a pedestrian and improve pedestrian safety—pedestrian AEB and rear automatic braking. (December 16, 2015; 80 FR 78521).
January 2016—Consumer Watchdog, Center for Auto Safety, and Public Citizen (“Petitioners”) submitted a petition for rulemaking (dated January
March 2016—NHTSA and IIHS announced that 20 vehicle manufacturers, representing more than 99 percent of light motor vehicle sales in the United States, voluntarily committed to installing FCW and CIB in substantially all of their light motor vehicles.
BMW, Fiat-Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai-Kia, Jaguar Land-Rover, Mazda, Mercedes Benz, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru, Tesla, Toyota, Volkswagen\Audi, Volvo
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Transport Canada
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Association of Global Automakers, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
To keep the public informed about the progress on developing the commitments, the agency prepared minutes of the meetings and placed them in docket NHTSA-2015-0101, available at
May 2016—Petitioners sent NHTSA a letter (dated May 23, 2016) asking the Agency to either grant or deny their petition.
Petitioners submitted a petition for rulemaking, dated January 13, 2016, requesting NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking to issue a safety standard requiring that light vehicles be equipped with three AEB technologies: FCW, CIB and DBS. Based on their petition and their follow-up letter submitted in May 2016, it appears that the petitioners further intend that the Agency include in that rulemaking all of the tests, including test speeds, either adopted or planned for inclusion in NCAP or developed through Agency research projects. Alternatively, the petitioners ask that the Agency explain why it was not including any of those tests.
In support of their petition, petitioners stated the following:
• It is feasible to issue a light motor vehicle AEB standard now given that the technologies are mature and NHTSA has: Researched the AEB technologies extensively; granted a petition for rulemaking for heavy vehicle AEB; incorporated FCW and CIB into NCAP and announced plans to incorporate the third AEB technology, DBS, in NCAP.
• Neither a voluntary commitment nor NCAP is an adequate substitute for a safety standard because neither is enforceable.
• The commitment is not comprehensive or stringent enough. It does not include DBS. Further, with respect to FCW and CIB, the commitment does not include some of the performance requirements included in NCAP. In addition, while the commitment includes other performance requirements, it does so at reduced levels of stringency.
Petitions for rulemaking are governed by 49 CFR part 552. Pursuant to Part 552, the Agency conducts a technical review of the petition, which may consist of an analysis of the material submitted, together with information already in possession of the Agency. In deciding whether to grant or deny a petition, the Agency considers this technical review as well as appropriate factors, which may include, among others, allocation of Agency resources and Agency priorities.
Two sets of numbers serve to convey the state of vehicle safety and identify the way forward. First, in 2015, 35,092 people lost their lives on the Nation's roadways, making motor vehicle crashes a leading cause of death in the United States. That was an increase of more than 7 percent over the total for 2014. Preliminary figures indicate that, for the first nine months of 2016, fatalities were up again, approximately 8 percent, compared to the same portion of 2015.
Second, 94 percent of vehicle crashes can be traced to human choices (
Automated vehicles, which depend on technologies like automatic emergency braking, hold the promise of being the means that will prevent human choice or error from causing crashes. That is why NHTSA and the Department of Transportation have focused on trying to accelerate the safe development and deployment of highly automated and connected vehicles.
To realize this potential, NHTSA has a variety of tools that it has used in the past to improve vehicle safety. The primary traditional approach to improving vehicle safety has been developing and writing new standards prescribing detailed, specific requirements and test procedures and then conducting a notice-and-comment rulemaking process to adopt and implement those standards.
However, because many modern vehicle safety technologies are software-controlled and still relatively new, they are evolving very quickly. Standard setting at this early stage of technological evolution must be undertaken with great care, given the risk of inadvertently stymieing innovation and stalling the development and introduction of successively better versions of these technologies.
Further, rulemaking, and the research that must precede it in order to select the appropriate thresholds of performance and the test procedures for measuring compliance, take considerable time, often six to ten years
Accordingly, the Agency has sought to adapt the lessons and practices of the Federal Aviation Administration and the aviation industry regarding proactive safety and apply them, where appropriate, to the motor-vehicle sector. The Agency has revamped or expanded its use of its non-rulemaking tools in an effort to be more responsive to safety issues and more proactive about preventing them.
For several decades, NHTSA used NCAP to encourage light vehicle manufacturers to offer, and consumers to demand, levels of crash protection above and beyond those required by the safety standards. In recent years, the Agency has begun to expand NCAP to encourage the installation of safety-focused advanced crash avoidance systems.
More recently, the Agency has begun issuing guidance documents to promote the development and adoption of safer designs of evolving, complex electronic vehicle safety systems. Guidance documents are more adaptive tools than standards with respect to the ease of being updated to reflect the latest developments in these technologies. The prime example to date of Agency guidance is the vehicle performance guidance for automated vehicles included in the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy
NHTSA shares the petitioners' belief that AEB technologies will lead to important safety benefits. These technologies are vital to automated vehicles. NHTSA has already invested substantial resources and taken significant steps to increase the installation of these technologies by expanding NCAP and facilitating a process that resulted in light vehicle manufacturers committing voluntarily to install forward crash warning and crash imminent braking.
Based on its consideration and analysis of the petition, NHTSA notes the following points:
1. NCAP is influencing light vehicle manufacturers to increase their installation of AEB technologies and to improve their performance.
NHTSA has already added FCW, CIB and DBS to NCAP to promote the installation of those and other advanced crash avoidance technologies. In addition, in December 2015, NHTSA requested comments on revising the NCAP scoring system so that the installation of FCW, CIB or DBS in a motor vehicle would increase that vehicle's overall NCAP score. These revisions are already promoting wider spread installation of a broad array of these technologies.
2. The complementary commitments made by light vehicle manufacturers and the ratings programs of IIHS and Consumer Reports are magnifying the effects of NCAP.
The monitoring of the industry commitment shows that there has been an upturn in the rate of AEB installation.
3. The combined effects of the above activities are expected to produce benefits substantially similar to those that would eventually result from the rulemaking requested by the petitioners.
The Agency believes that the benefits of the AEB aspects of NCAP, in combination with the benefits of the industry commitment and the stakeholder rating programs, would be substantially similar to the benefits of the rulemaking requested by the petitioners. The petitioners did not make any showing to the contrary.
4. The Agency does not have evidence before it showing that there is a market failure warranting the initiating of rulemaking.
One of the principles of regulation in Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, is that agencies seeking to initiate rulemaking should identify the market failure that necessitates regulation. At the current time, on account of the combined effects of NCAP, the industry commitment, and various stakeholder rating programs, there is not any evidence showing that there is a market failure with respect to the offering of AEB technologies.
5. These activities will make AEB standard on new light vehicles faster than could be achieved through the formal regulatory process.
Based on the Agency's rulemaking proceedings on complex issues in recent years, if the Agency were to grant the petition, conduct research, tentatively select required levels of performance, conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking and provide sufficient leadtime to enable manufacturers to phase-in compliance, the delay in making AEB standard equipment on light vehicles would be as many as three years, and possibly longer.
6. Making AEB standard equipment earlier than could be achieved through rulemaking will provide significant additional safety benefits.
According to IIHS estimates made in March 2016, the benefits of making AEB standard equipment three years earlier will be to prevent 28,000 crashes and 12,000 injuries during that time period.
7. Given the success of light vehicle AEB activities described above and the large array of rulemakings either mandated by Congress or initiated by the Agency in response to petitions or at the Agency's discretion, the Agency should place priority at this time on conducting rulemakings in areas other than light-vehicle AEB.
Among the higher priority rulemakings is the one on light vehicle vehicle-to-vehicle communication, for which the agency recently published a notice of proposed rulemaking, and heavy vehicle AEB. As noted above, in late 2015, NHTSA granted a petition for rulemaking to initiate rulemaking on heavy vehicle AEB. In addition, the Agency is involved in some nonrulemaking activities that are of higher priority, such as the continued expansion and strengthening of NCAP and the issuance of guidance in areas such as automated vehicles, driver distraction and cybersecurity.
8. A rulemaking can be commenced later if it proves necessary.
As the manufacturers carryout their commitments, the Agency will continuously monitor their efforts and assess whether and when additional steps, including rulemaking, might be needed in the future to ensure realization of the potential benefits from the full array of automatic emergency braking technologies.
In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, and for the forgoing reasons, NHTSA hereby denies, without prejudice, the January 13, 2016 petition by Consumer Watchdog, Center for Auto Safety, and Public Citizen to commence a rulemaking proceeding to require all light vehicles to be equipped with FCW, CIB and DBS.
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30162; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden 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 other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by February 24, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection, the Agricultural Surveys Program. Revision to burden hours will be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, and/or questionnaire length.
Comments on this notice must be received by March 27, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
•
•
•
•
R. Renee Picanso, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-4333. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS-OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 690-2388 or at
These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Arkansas Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Monday, February 13, 2017, at 12:00 noon CST for the purpose of committee orientation and a discussion on civil rights topics affecting the state.
The meeting will be held on Monday, February 13, 2017, at 12:00 noon. CST.
David Barreras, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-395-3241, conference ID: 8639876. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
Office of the Secretary, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Commerce, is publishing the following summary of a proposed information collection request for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; the accuracy of the estimated burden; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Written comments must be submitted on or before March 27, 2017.
Written comments may be submitted 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 should be directed to the Information Collection Clearance staff at
The information collected will be used to understand whether the participant has met the technical requirements for the challenge, assist in the technical review and judging of the solutions that are provided, and understand the impact and consequences of administering the competition and developing solutions for submission. Information may be collected during the competition or after its completion. The submissions are evaluated by the submitting agency and typically prizes (monetary and non-monetary) are awarded to the winning entries.
This clearance applies to challenges posted on Challenge.gov, which uses a common platform for the solicitation of challenges from the public. Each agency designs the criteria for its solicitations based on the goals of the challenge and the specific needs of the agency. There is no standard submission format for solution providers to follow.
We anticipate that approximately 250 challenges would be issued each year by DOC. It is expected that other federal agencies will issue a similar number of challenges. There is no set schedule for the issuance of challenges; they are developed and issued on an “as needs” basis in response to issues the federal agency wishes to solve. The respondents to the challenges, who are participating voluntarily, are unlikely to reply to more than one or several of the challenges.
Although in previous memoranda the GSA and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) described circumstances whereby OMB approval of a PRA request is not needed, program officials at DOC have identified several sets of information that will typically need to be requested of solution providers to enable the solutions to be adequately evaluated by the federal agency issuing the challenge. These requests for additional information have been suggested to require a PRA review as they represent structured data requests.
There are three types of additional data that will be routinely requested by the federal agencies. These include the following:
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.
On September 20, 2016, Givaudan Flavors Corporation submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility within Subzone 44H in East Hanover, New Jersey.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that imports of certain amorphous silica fabric (silica fabric) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). In addition, we determine that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the subject merchandise. The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. The final dumping margins for this investigation are listed in the “Final Determination Margins” section of this notice.
Effective January 25, 2017.
Scott Hoefke or Fred Baker, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4947 or (202) 482-2924, respectively.
The Department published the
A summary of the events that occurred since the Department published the
The product covered by this investigation is woven industrial grade amorphous silica fabric from the PRC. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I. Since the
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), in September and October 2016, we conducted verification of the sales and factors of production information submitted by ACIT (Pinghu) Inc. (ACIT), and its U.S. affiliate, ACIT USA Inc. (ACIT USA). We issued a verification report on November 16, 2016.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
Based on the Department's analysis of the comments received and findings at verification, we made certain changes to our dumping margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes,
In accordance with section 735(a)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, we continue to find that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of silica fabric from ACIT, Nanjing Tianyuan Fiberglass Material Co., Ltd. (Nanjing Tianyuan), and the PRC-wide entity.
For the reasons discussed in the
In the
The Department determines, as provided in section 735 of the Act, that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015:
In accordance with section 735(c)(4)(A) of the Act, for the final determination, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of silica fabric from the PRC as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 90 days prior to the date of publication in the
Further, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit
Consistent with our practice, where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price or constructed export price, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass-through.
Because all final dumping margins are based on total AFA, no disclosure of calculations is necessary for this final determination.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV and final affirmative determination of critical circumstances. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of silica fabric from the PRC no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice will serve as a reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The product covered by this investigation is woven (whether from yarns or rovings) industrial grade amorphous silica fabric, which contains a minimum of 90 percent silica (SiO2) by nominal weight, and a nominal width in excess of 8 inches. The investigation covers industrial grade amorphous silica fabric regardless of other materials contained in the fabric, regardless of whether in roll form or cut-to-length, regardless of weight, width (except as noted above), or length. The investigation covers industrial grade amorphous silica fabric regardless of whether the product is approved by a standards testing body (such as being Factory Mutual (FM) Approved), or regardless of whether it meets any governmental specification.
Industrial grade amorphous silica fabric may be produced in various colors. The investigation covers industrial grade amorphous silica fabric regardless of whether the fabric is colored. Industrial grade amorphous silica fabric may be coated or treated with materials that include, but are not limited to, oils, vermiculite, acrylic latex compound, silicone, aluminized polyester (Mylar®) film, pressure-sensitive adhesive, or other coatings and treatments. The investigation covers industrial grade amorphous silica fabric regardless of whether the fabric is coated or treated, and regardless of coating or treatment weight as a percentage of total product weight. Industrial grade amorphous silica fabric may be heat-cleaned. The investigation covers industrial grade amorphous silica fabric regardless of whether the fabric is heat-cleaned.
Industrial grade amorphous silica fabric may be imported in rolls or may be cut-to-length and then further fabricated to make welding curtains, welding blankets, welding pads, fire blankets, fire pads, or fire screens. Regardless of the name, all industrial grade amorphous silica fabric that has been further cut-to-length or cut-to-width or further finished by finishing the edges and/or adding grommets, is included within the scope of this investigation.
Subject merchandise also includes (1) any industrial grade amorphous silica fabric that has been converted into industrial grade amorphous silica fabric in China from fiberglass cloth produced in a third country; and (2) any industrial grade amorphous silica fabric that has been further processed in a third country prior to export to the United States, including but not limited to treating, coating, slitting, cutting to length, cutting to width, finishing the edges, adding grommets, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope industrial grade amorphous silica fabric.
Excluded from the scope of the investigation is amorphous silica fabric that is subjected to controlled shrinkage, which is also called “pre-shrunk” or “aerospace grade” amorphous silica fabric. In order to be excluded as a pre-shrunk or aerospace grade amorphous silica fabric, the amorphous silica fabric must meet the following exclusion criteria: (l) The amorphous silica fabric must contain a minimum of 98 percent silica (SiO2) by nominal weight; (2) the amorphous silica fabric must have an areal shrinkage of 4 percent or less; (3) the amorphous silica fabric must contain no coatings or treatments; and (4) the amorphous silica fabric must be white in color. For purposes of this scope, “areal shrinkage” refers to the extent to which a specimen of amorphous silica fabric shrinks while subjected to heating at 1800 degrees F for 30 minutes.
((Fired Area, em2—Initial Area, cm2)/Initial Area, cm2) × 100 = Areal Shrinkage, %.
Also excluded from the scope are amorphous silica fabric rope and tubing (or sleeving). Amorphous silica fabric rope is a knitted or braided product made from amorphous silica yarns. Silica tubing (or sleeving) is braided into a hollow sleeve from amorphous silica yarns.
The subject imports are normally classified in subheadings 7019.59.4021, 7019.59.4096, 7019.59.9021, and 7019.59.9096 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), but may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7019.40.4030, 7019.40.4060, 7019.40.9030, 7019.40.9060, 7019.51.9010, 7019.51.9090, 7019.52.9010, 7019.52.9021, 7019.52.9096 and 7019.90.1000. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is amending the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review of certain pasta (pasta) from Italy to correct a ministerial error. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015.
Effective January 25, 2017.
Joy Zhang, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1168.
On December 13, 2016, the Department disclosed to interested parties its calculations for the
The POR covered by this review is July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015.
Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta. The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.
Section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.224(f) define a ministerial error as an error “in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error which {the Department} considers ministerial.” We analyzed the ministerial error comments submitted by Indalco and Liguori and determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that there is a ministerial error in our margin calculations for Liguori for the
In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the
As a result of correcting for the ministerial error, we determined the following amended weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015:
The rate of 2.47 percent, as listed in the rate chart above, will apply to P.A.P SNC DI Pazienza G.B. & C. for assessment purposes. Effective December 16, 2016, the rate of 2.47 percent, as listed in the rate chart above for P.A.P SNC DI Pazienza G.B. & C., will apply to P.A.P. S.R.L. for cash deposit purposes.
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these amended final results to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by respondents listed above entered, or withdrawn form warehouse, for consumption on or after July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated dumping duties, in the amounts shown above for each of the respective companies shown above, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 16, 2016, the date of publication of the
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 APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We will disclose the calculations performed for these amended final results to interested parties within five business days of the date of the publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b)
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) determines that ammonium sulfate from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”). The period of investigation is October 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016. The final dumping margin of sales at LTFV is listed below in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.
Effective January 25, 2017.
Maliha Khan, 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) 482-0895.
On November 9, 2016, the Department published the
The scope of the investigation covers ammonium sulfate from the PRC. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
As noted above, we received no comments in response to the
As stated in the
The final weighted-average dumping margin is as follows:
The weighted-average dumping margin assigned to the PRC-wide entity in the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of ammonium sulfate from the PRC, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 9, 2016, the date of publication in the
Further, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, the Department will also instruct CBP to require for all PRC exporters/producers of merchandise under consideration, and all non-PRC exporters of merchandise under consideration, the cash deposit rate applicable for the PRC-wide entity, 493.46 percent.
The Department is making no adjustments to the antidumping cash deposit rate in the instant investigation because the Department has made no findings in the companion countervailing duty investigation that any of the programs are export subsidies.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of ammonium sulfate from the PRC no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return of destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is ammonium sulfate in all physical forms, with or without additives such as anti-caking agents. Ammonium sulfate, which may also be spelled as ammonium sulphate, has the chemical formula (NH
The scope includes ammonium sulfate that is combined with other products, including by, for example, blending (
Ammonium sulfate that has been combined with other products is included within the scope regardless of whether the combining occurs in countries other than China.
Ammonium sulfate that is otherwise subject to this investigation is not excluded when commingled (
The Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number for ammonium sulfate is 7783-20-2.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 3102.21.0000. Although this HTSUS subheading and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain amorphous silica fabric (silica fabric) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC). For information on the estimated subsidy rates,
Effective January 25, 2017.
Emily Maloof or John Corrigan, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5649 or (202) 482-7438, respectively.
The Department published the
The period of investigation for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.
The Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is silica fabric from the PRC. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
The subsidy programs under investigation, and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by the parties, are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix I.
In making its findings, the Department relied, in part, on facts available. For mandatory respondent Nanjing Tianyuan Fiberglass Material Co., Ltd. (Nanjing Tianyuan), we are basing certain countervailing duty (CVD) rates on facts otherwise available, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Further, because Nanjing Tianyuan did not cooperate to the best of its ability in this investigation by not providing necessary information requested by the Department, we determine that an adverse inference in selecting from the facts available is warranted with respect to certain countervailable subsidy programs, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. The Department has, therefore, relied, in part, on AFA in calculating Nanjing Tianyuan's subsidy rates.
Regarding ACIT (Pinghu) Inc. and ACIT (Shanghai) Inc. (collectively, ACIT),
In addition, the Department has applied a total AFA rate to the 48 companies that failed to respond to the Department's quantity and value questionnaire.
For further information on the Department's application of adverse facts available, as summarized above,
Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, and minor corrections presented at verification, we made certain changes to ACIT's and Nanjing Tianyuan's subsidy rate calculations since the
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated an individual rate for each producer/
Pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we have calculated the “all-others” rate using the subsidy rates of the two individually investigated respondents. However, we have not calculated the “all-others” rate by weight-averaging the rates because doing so risks disclosure of proprietary information. Therefore, and consistent with the Department's practice, for the “all-others” rate, we calculated a simple average of the two mandatory respondents' subsidy rates.
As a result of our
In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we later issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for CVD purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after November 2, 2016, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries between July 5, 2016, and November 1, 2016.
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (the ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order, will reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and will require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
In the event the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.
The product covered by this investigation is woven (whether from yarns or rovings) industrial grade amorphous silica fabric, which contains a minimum of 90 percent silica (SiO
Industrial grade amorphous silica fabric may be produced in various colors. The investigation covers industrial grade amorphous silica fabric regardless of whether the fabric is colored. Industrial grade amorphous silica fabric may be coated or treated with materials that include, but are not limited to, oils, vermiculite, acrylic latex compound, silicone, aluminized polyester (Mylar®) film, pressure-sensitive adhesive, or other coatings and treatments. The investigation covers industrial grade amorphous silica fabric regardless of whether the fabric is coated or treated, and regardless of coating or treatment weight as a percentage of total product weight. Industrial grade amorphous silica fabric may be heat-cleaned. The investigation covers industrial grade amorphous silica fabric regardless of whether the fabric is heat-cleaned.
Industrial grade amorphous silica fabric may be imported in rolls or may be cut-to-length and then further fabricated to make welding curtains, welding blankets, welding pads, fire blankets, fire pads, or fire screens. Regardless of the name, all industrial grade amorphous silica fabric that has been further cut-to-length or cut-to-width or further finished by finishing the edges and/or adding grommets, is included within the scope of this investigation.
Subject merchandise also includes (1) any industrial grade amorphous silica fabric that has been converted into industrial grade amorphous silica fabric in China from fiberglass cloth produced in a third country; and (2) any industrial grade amorphous silica fabric that has been further processed in a third country prior to export to the United States, including but not limited to treating, coating, slitting, cutting to length, cutting to width, finishing the edges, adding grommets, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope industrial grade amorphous silica fabric.
Excluded from the scope of the investigation is amorphous silica fabric that is subjected to controlled shrinkage, which is also called “pre-shrunk” or “aerospace grade” amorphous silica fabric. In order to be excluded as a pre-shrunk or aerospace grade amorphous silica fabric, the amorphous silica fabric must meet the following exclusion criteria: (1) The amorphous silica fabric must contain a minimum of 98 percent silica (SiO
Also excluded from the scope are amorphous silica fabric rope and tubing (or sleeving). Amorphous silica fabric rope is a knitted or braided product made from amorphous silica yarns. Silica tubing (or sleeving) is braided into a hollow sleeve from amorphous silica yarns.
The subject imports are normally classified in subheadings 7019.59.4021, 7019.59.4096, 7019.59.9021, and 7019.59.9096 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), but may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7019.40.4030, 7019.40.4060, 7019.40.9030, 7019.40.9060, 7019.51.9010, 7019.51.9090, 7019.52.9010, 7019.52.9021, 7019.52.9096 and 7019.90.1000. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice, request for comments.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) requests comments on a proposed update to the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (the “Framework”). The voluntary Framework consists of standards, methodologies, procedures, and processes that align policy, business, and technological approaches to address cyber risks. The Framework was published on February 12, 2014, after a year-long, open process involving private and public sector organizations, including extensive input and public comments. It has been used with increasing frequency and in a variety of ways by organizations of all sizes, areas of interest, and based inside and outside the United States.
This Request for Comments (RFC) is meant to facilitate coordination with, “private sector personnel and entities, critical infrastructure owners and operators, and other relevant industry organizations” as directed by the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014.
Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on April 10, 2017.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to Edwin Games, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Online submissions in electronic form may be sent to
All comments received in response to this RFC will be posted at
For questions about this RFC contact: Adam Sedgewick, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone (202) 482-0788, email
The national and economic security of the United States depends on the reliable functioning of critical infrastructure,
The Secretary of Commerce was tasked to direct the Director of NIST to lead the development of a voluntary framework to reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure (the “Framework”).
The Cybersecurity Framework incorporates voluntary consensus standards and industry best practices to the fullest extent possible and is consistent with voluntary international consensus-based standards when such international standards advance the objectives of the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014. The Framework is designed for compatibility with existing regulatory authorities and regulations, although it is intended for voluntary adoption.
Given the diversity of sectors in the Nation's critical infrastructure, the Framework development process was designed to build on cross-sector security standards and guidelines that are immediately applicable or likely to be applicable to critical infrastructure. The process also was intended to increase visibility and use of those standards and guidelines, and to find potential areas for improvement (
While the focus of the Framework is on the Nation's critical infrastructure, it was developed in a manner to promote wide adoption of practices to increase risk management-based cybersecurity across all industry sectors and by all types of organizations.
NIST has worked closely with industry groups, associations, non-profits, government agencies, and international standards bodies to increase awareness of the Framework. NIST has promoted the use of the Framework as a basic, flexible, and adaptable tool for managing and reducing cybersecurity risks. The Framework was designed as a communication tool. It is applicable for leaders at all levels of an organization. For these reasons, NIST has engaged a wide diversity of stakeholders in Framework education. NIST has also issued several RFIs, held workshops, and encouraged direct communication with potential and current users of the Framework.
Based on the information received from the public via these channels and the work that it has carried out on cybersecurity—including its collaborative efforts with the private sector—NIST has developed a draft update of the Framework (termed “Version 1.1” or “V1.1”), available at
NIST is soliciting public comments on this proposed update. Specifically, NIST is interested in comments that address updated features of the Framework. These features seek to:
• Clarify Implementation Tier use and relationship to Profiles,
• Enhance guidance for applying the Framework for supply chain risk management,
• Provide guidance on metrics and measurements using the Framework,
• Update the FAQs to support understanding and use of Framework, and
• Update the Informative References.
NIST also will consider comments on other aspects of the Framework update. All comments will be made available to the public. These comments will be analyzed and will be one focus of a public workshop to be held in May 2017. Details about that workshop, which also will feature user experiences with the Framework, will be announced on the NIST Cybersecurity Framework Web site at:
After the May 2017 workshop and considering the comments received on this draft update, NIST intends to issue a final version of Framework V1.1 along with an updated Roadmap
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC, or
The Office of the Secretary must receive comments not later than March 27, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2010-0055, by any of the following methods:
For further information contact: Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to:
Approximately 358 firms produce mattresses.
The Commission also promulgated the Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets, 16 CFR part 1633 (part 1633 standard), under section 4 of the FFA to reduce deaths and injuries related to mattress fires, particularly those ignited by open-flame sources, such as lighters, candles, and matches. The part 1633 standard requires manufacturers to maintain certain records to document compliance with the standard, including maintaining records concerning prototype testing, pooling, and confirmation testing, and quality assurance procedures and any associated testing. The required records must be maintained for as long as mattress sets based on the prototype are in production and must be retained for 3 years thereafter. Although some larger manufacturers may produce mattresses based on more than 100 prototypes, most mattress manufacturers base their complying production on 15 to 20 prototypes. OMB previously approved the collection of information for 16 CFR parts 1632 and 1633, under control number 3041-0014, with an expiration date of April 30, 2017. The information collection requirements under the part 1632 standard do not duplicate the testing and recordkeeping requirements under the part 1633 standard.
The total estimated cost to the 358 firms for the burden hours associated with both 16 CFR part 1632 and 16 CFR part 1633 is approximately $2.86 million annually.
The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:
• Whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility;
• Whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate;
• Whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and
• Whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) requests comments on a proposed request for extension of approval of a collection of information from manufacturers and importers of clothing, textiles and related materials intended for use in clothing under the Standard for the Flammability of Clothing Textiles (16 CFR part 1610) and the Standard for the Flammability of Vinyl Plastic Film (16 CFR part 1611). These regulations establish requirements for testing and recordkeeping for manufacturers and importers who furnish guaranties for products subject to these standards. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) previously approved the collection of information under control number 3041-0024. OMB's most recent extension of approval will expire on April 30, 2017. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of approval of this collection of information from OMB.
The Office of the Secretary must receive comments not later than March 27, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2009-0092, by any of the following methods:
For further information contact: Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to:
The Commission has promulgated several standards under section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA), 15 U.S.C. 1193, to prohibit the use of dangerously flammable textiles and related materials in wearing apparel. Clothing and fabrics intended for use in clothing (except children's sleepwear in sizes 0 through 14) are subject to the Standard for the Flammability of Clothing Textiles (16 CFR part 1610). Clothing made from vinyl plastic film and vinyl plastic film intended for use in clothing (except children's sleepwear in sizes 0 through 14) are subject to the Standard for the Flammability of Vinyl Plastic Film (16 CFR part 1611). These standards prescribe a test to ensure that articles of wearing apparel, and fabrics and film intended for use in wearing apparel, are not dangerously flammable because of rapid and intense burning. (Children's sleepwear and fabrics and related materials intended for use in children's sleepwear in sizes 0 through 14 are subject to other, more stringent flammability standards codified at 16 CFR parts 1615 and 1616).
Section 8 of the FFA (15 U.S.C. 1197) provides that a person who receives a guaranty in good faith that a product complies with an applicable flammability standard is not subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of the FFA resulting from the sale of any product covered by the guaranty. The Commission uses the information compiled and maintained by firms that issue these guaranties to help protect the public from risks of injury or death associated with flammable clothing and fabrics and vinyl film intended for use in clothing. In addition, the information helps the Commission arrange corrective actions if any products covered by a guaranty fail to comply with the applicable standard in a manner that creates a substantial risk of injury or death to the public. Section 8 of the FFA requires that a guaranty must be based on “reasonable and representative tests.” The testing and recordkeeping requirements by firms that issue guaranties are set forth under 16 CFR part 1610, subpart B, and 16 CFR part 1611, subpart B.
The Commission estimates that approximately 1,000 firms issue guaranties. Although the Commission's records indicate that approximately 675 firms have filed continuing guaranties at the CPSC, staff believes additional
• Burden Hours per Firm—An estimated 5 hours for testing per firm, using either the test and conditioning procedures in the regulations or alternate methods. Although many firms are exempt from testing to support guaranties under 16 CFR 1610.1(d), CPSC staff does not know the proportion of those firms that are testing vs. those that are exempt. Thus, staff has included testing for all firms in the burden estimates.
• Guaranties Issued per Firm—On average, 20 new guaranties are issued per firm per year for new fabrics or garments.
• Estimated Annual Testing Time per Firm—100 hours per firm (5 hours for testing × 20 guaranties issued = 100 hours per firm).
• Estimated Annual Recordkeeping per Firm—1 hour to create, record, and enter test data into a computerized dataset; 20 minutes (= 0.3 hours) for annual review/removal of records; 20 minutes (= 0.3 hours) to respond to one CPSC records request per year; for a total of 1.6 recordkeeping hours per firm (1 hour + .3 hours + .3 hours = 1.6 hours per firm).
• Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours per Firm—100 hours estimated annual testing time per firm + 1.6 estimated annual recordkeeping hours per firm = 101.6 hours per firm.
• Total Estimated Annual Industry Burden Hours—101.6 hours per firm × 1,000 firms issuing guaranties = 101,600 industry burden hours. The total annual industry burden imposed by the flammability standards for clothing textiles and vinyl plastic film and enforcement regulations on manufacturers and importers of garments, fabrics, and related materials is estimated to be about 101,600 hours (101.6 hours per firm × 1,000 firms).
• Total Annual Industry Cost—The hourly wage for the testing and recordkeeping required by the standards is approximately $66.19 (for management, professional, and related occupations in goods-producing industries, Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2016), for an estimated annual cost to the industry of approximately $6.7 million (101,600 × $66.19 = $6,724,904).
The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:
In notice document 2017-00748, appearing on pages 4322 through 4332 in the issue of Friday, January 13, 2017, make the following corrections:
1. On page 4326, in the second column, in the seventh paragraph, beginning on the second line, “[INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE
2. On the same page, in the third column, in the sixth paragraph, beginning on the second line, “[INSERT DATE 105 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE
Office of the Under Secretary for Science and Energy, Department of Energy (DOE).
Request for Information (RFI).
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comment on this Request for Information (RFI) regarding regional innovation ecosystems and regional cooperation. The purpose of this RFI is to support a public discussion about how to create and foster regional and local “innovation ecosystems,” specifically for energy technologies and energy use. DOE is establishing through this RFI a temporary public “ideation” tool to serve as a resource of ideas for individuals and organizations interested in promoting regional innovation ecosystems.
Written comments and information are requested on or before February 28, 2017.
Interested parties should submit their comments using the IdeaBuzz.com platform at:
The public can view the submitted ideas and comments without creating a user-name on the IdeaBuzz platform, but IdeaBuzz does require users to register a user-name in order to participate (submit ideas, comment, and “vote”). DOE employees may not submit comments via this platform. DOE will not respond to individual submissions and may or may not publish a compendium of responses.
Randy Steer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the Under Secretary for Science and Energy (S4-1), 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 202-586-2600, email:
DOE is interested in understanding and fostering self-sustaining local and
The value of a regional focus to promote innovation, economic development, and job-creation is widely recognized. For example, a decade ago, the Council on Competitiveness reported that “although national and state policies create a platform for innovation, the locus of innovative activities is at the regional level, where workers, companies, universities, research institutions and government interface most directly . . . Regions are the building blocks of national innovation capacity because they offer proximity and can provide specialized assets that foster firm-level differentiation.”
• Historically, federally funded R&D has not been connected to state and regional industrial development; bridging that gap can create the local talent and technology base needed to convert these U.S. investments into domestic companies, industries, and jobs.
• Private businesses and local education institutions and economic development agencies are in the best position to identify opportunities, gauge competitive strengths, and mobilize wide community support for regional cluster initiatives.
• Regional innovation cluster initiatives should be built upon existing knowledge clusters and comparative strengths of each geographic region.
Also, recent reviews of the capabilities of DOE's National Laboratories have strongly encouraged the laboratories to broaden their participation in regional innovation ecosystems.
Based on the background above and on the broad range of ideas heard from university, State, and industry participants at the recent university-hosted events, DOE believes that there is much more yet to be said by the broader public, which could benefit all interested parties, including State and local governments, universities, policy groups, companies, and national organizations.
As a result, DOE is making this temporary ideation and knowledge-sharing tool available as a national “town hall” to support a public dialogue on regional energy innovation and innovation ecosystems. The ideation tool suggests a number of potentially fruitful topic areas for suggestions and ideas, although any ideas relating to innovation ecosystems and to local and regional collaboration to support innovation are welcome.
This RFI and its associated web-based ideation tool does not require responses to all of the suggested topics, and would encourage all interested entities/individuals to offer ideas and comments in any of the topic areas, or in new topic areas where relevant. In general, the web-based ideation will work best when ideas regarding different topics are submitted individually, rather than bundling multiple ideas into a single submission.
1. Key Elements of an Innovation Ecosystem: What are the essential “puzzle pieces” or “moving parts” that make up a successful, self-sustaining innovation ecosystem or technology “cluster”? They include businesses, educational institutions, research centers, people, policies, and financial resources—but are there specific
2. Ecosystem Sustainability: Which of those key elements are most important for supporting the start-up of new businesses? Which are most important to make sure that the innovation ecosystem itself is self-sustaining and enduring? Are there supply-chain considerations that are often overlooked?
3. Economic Benefits: Which of those key elements are most important for supporting workforce development as part of the ecosystem? Which are crucial to accelerating the innovation cycle?
4. Performance Metrics: What identifiable metrics would provide useful measures of the economic or innovation impact of efforts to promote a regional energy innovation ecosystem?
5. Regional Gaps: Are there specific “ecosystem” components that are missing from a geographic region you're interested in? (Indicate region.) How could that region fill the gaps?
6. Geographic Scales and Defining a “Region”: Most existing examples of innovation ecosystems and industry or technology clusters are fairly local or metropolitan in scale—meetings and site visits aren't more than an hour or two drive away. But energy concerns, challenges, and resources are often shared across a much larger geographic
7. Cooperating Regionally: If local or regional organizations want to collaborate to help foster or enhance a regional energy innovation ecosystem, how should they organize or collaborate? Does the answer differ depending on geographic scale?
8. Regional Opportunities: What are the energy challenges, resources, or technologies that offer the most innovation opportunity to your region? (Identify region.) What would be the greatest strengths or weaknesses of your region in trying to create or enhance an energy innovation ecosystem?
9. References and Models: Recommend references, studies, data sources, or models (including foreign innovation centers).
Because all idea and comments submissions are publicly visible, respondents are strongly advised to not include any information in their responses that might be considered business sensitive, proprietary, or otherwise confidential. Because the IdeaBuzz platform is not a government Web site, DOE is not able to provide any confidentiality protections for ideas submitted on the IdeaBuzz platform.
Take notice that on January 9, 2017, Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC (Tallgrass), Post Office Box 281304, Lakewood, Colorado 80228-8304, filed in Docket No. CP17-31-000 and pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations, a prior notice under its Part 157 blanket certificate that it intends to abandon in place two 12-inch loop pipeline segments, a total of approximately 15,335 feet, along its Palco to Phillipsburg Pipeline in Rooks County, Kansas, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Tallgrass states that the pipe segments, which loop the 12-inch Palco to Phillipsburg Pipeline where it crosses the South Fork Solomon River and near the Webster Reservoir respectively are redundant and no longer necessary. Abandoning the pipe segments from service will eliminate a potential safety hazard. The proposed abandonment will not result in or cause any interruption, reduction, or termination of transportation service presently rendered by TALLGRASS. Therefore, TALLGRASS proposes to abandon in place the two 12-inch pipe segments.
Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to David Haag, Vice President of Regulatory, Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC, 370 Van Gordon St., Lakewood, Colorado 80228-1519, phone (303) 763-3258.
Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company 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 on January 3, 2017, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy, pursuant to the authority vested by sections 301(b), 302(a), 402(e), 641, 642, 643, and 644, of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91), and by Delegation Order Nos. 00-037.00A (October 25, 2013) and 00-001.00F (November 17, 2014), confirmed, approved, and placed in effect on an interim basis in Rate Order SWPA-71, Southwestern Power Administration Integrated System Non-Federal Transmission Service Rates Scheduled for the period January 1, 2017 through September 30, 2017.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests, is 15 days from the issuance date of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, and recommendations, using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
On December 23, 2016, Chugach Electric Association, Inc. filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the
The project consists of two alternatives both using the following new facilities: (1) A 700-foot-long, 300-foot-high concrete-faced rockfill or roller compacted concrete gravity dam with a 400-foot-long spillway built into the crest of the dam; (2) a 300-foot-long, 60-foot-high concrete-faced rockfill or roller compacted concrete gravity auxiliary dam on the right bank; (3) a 500-foot-long, 80-foot-high concrete-faced rockfill or roller compacted concrete gravity auxiliary dam on the left bank; and (4) a 5,321-acre reservoir.
(1) A 10,040-foot-long, 14 foot-diameter horseshoe intake tunnel; (2) a 1,140-foot long, 173-inch-diameter steel penstock; (3) an 80-foot-long, 100-foot-wide pre-engineered metal powerhouse with three turbine units rated at 25 megawatts (MW) each for 75 MW total; (4) a submerged tailrace discharge; (5) a 2.55-mile-long, 69-kilovolt (kV) transmission line tying into an existing high voltage transmission line located west of the proposed powerhouse; (6) a 1,410-foot-long access road to the intake tunnel and dam; (7) a 6,858-foot-long access road to the powerhouse; and (8) appurtenant facilities.
(1) A 3,310-foot-long, 14 foot-diameter horseshoe intake tunnel; (2) a 2,650-foot long, 173-inch-diamater steel penstock; (3) the same powerhouse, turbine, tailrace and transmission line as described above for Alternative 1; (4) a 12,600-foot-long access road to the intake tunnel and dam; (5) a 8,000-foot-long access road to the powerhouse; and (6) appurtenant facilities.
The estimated annual generation of the Snow River Project would be 341 gigawatt-hours.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site 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:
Take notice that on January 17, 2017, Black Marlin Pipeline Company filed a petition for waiver of CPA Certification Statement for its FERC Form 2-A submittals encompassing the report years 2016 and 2017, as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of its staff may attend the meetings of the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Regional Entity Trustee (RET), Regional State Committee (RSC), Members' Committee and Board of Directors as noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
All meetings will be held at the Doubletree Hotel, 4099 Valley View Lane, Dallas, TX 75244. The phone number is (972) 385-9000. All meetings are Central Time.
The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
These meetings are open to the public.
For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5937 or
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
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.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Birdsboro Pipeline Project involving construction and operation of facilities by DTE Midstream Appalachia, LLC (DTE) in Berks County, Pennsylvania. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before February 17, 2017.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on October 14, 2016, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. PF17-1-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (PF17-1-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;
(4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public scoping session its staff will conduct in the project area, scheduled as follows:
The primary goal of these scoping sessions is to have you identify the specific environmental issues and concerns that should be considered in the EA to be prepared for this project. Individual verbal comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court reporter. This format is designed to receive the maximum amount of verbal comments, in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted.
The scoping session is scheduled from 5:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. You may arrive at any time after 5:30 p.m. There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff when the session opens. If you wish to speak, the Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival; distribution of numbers will be discontinued at 8:00 p.m. Please see appendix 1 for additional information on the session format and conduct.
Your scoping comments will be recorded by the court reporter (with FERC staff or representative present) and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system (see below for instructions on using eLibrary). If a significant number of people are interested in providing verbal comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit of 5 minutes may be implemented for each commentor.
It is important to note that verbal comments hold the same weight as written or electronically submitted comments. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the comment session to answer your questions about the environmental review process. Representatives from DTE will also be present to answer project-specific questions.
DTE plans to construct and operate about 14 miles of up to 16-inch-diameter pipeline and appurtenant facilities. The purpose of the planned Birdsboro Pipeline Project is to provide about 79,000 dekatherms of natural gas per day to the Birdsboro Power Plant in Berks County, Pennsylvania. The Birdsboro Power Plant is not under the jurisdiction of FERC and will not be part of the proposed action evaluated in the EA. The power plant is/will be obtaining multiple federal, state, and local permits and approvals for construction and operation of the facility.
The Birdsboro Pipeline Project would consist of the following facilities:
• About 14 miles of up to 16-inch-diameter pipeline;
• a pig launcher and receiver;
• a new meter station and associated facilities at the Texas Eastern Transmission Company Pipeline right-of-way; and
• 6 new mainline valves.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 2.
Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 147.8 acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline. Following construction, DTE would maintain about 82.7 acres for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• land use;
• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• cultural resources;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• air quality and noise;
• endangered and threatened species;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts.
We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. We will also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned project.
Copies of the EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 3).
Once DTE files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility 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 corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
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:
a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
b. Project No.: 10887-028.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h. Potential
i.
j. Carthage Specialty Paperboard, Inc. filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on October 28, 2016. Carthage Specialty Paperboard, Inc. provided public notice of its request on November 4, 2016. In a letter dated January 18, 2017, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Carthage Specialty Paperboard, Inc.'s request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Carthage Specialty Paperboard, Inc. as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Carthage Specialty Paperboard, Inc. filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (
o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. 10887-028. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by October 31, 2019.
p. Register online at
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 21, 2017.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than February 14, 2017.
1.
1.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 21, 2017.
1.
Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”).
Notice and request for comment.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the FTC is seeking public comments on its request to OMB for a three-year extension of the current PRA clearance for the FTC's portion of the information collection requirements contained in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Regulation O (the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule). The FTC shares enforcement of Regulation O with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). This clearance expires on January 31, 2017.
Comments must be received by February 24, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements should be addressed to Rebecca Unruh, Attorney, Division of Financial Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3565.
Because the FTC and CFPB share enforcement authority for this rule, the FTC is seeking clearance for one-half of the following estimated PRA burden that the FTC attributes to the disclosure requirements under Regulation O. The potential entities providing MARS services are varied, and there are no ways to formally track them. By extension, there is no clear path to track how many affected individual entities have newly entered and departed from one year to the next or from one triennial PRA clearance cycle to the next. However, based on law enforcement experience and the CFPB's recent analysis conducted after the MARS Rule was restated as Regulation O, the FTC estimates that Regulation O affects roughly 107 MARS providers.
The above hours estimate is based on the assumption that compliance with all MARS disclosures requires 6 hours of labor annually. Multiplying this figure by 107 entities yields a total burden of 642 hours, of which 321 hours are attributed to the FTC.
Commission staff assumes that a compliance officer or equivalent will prepare the required disclosures for 6 hours annually at an hourly rate of $33.26. Thus, the estimated labor cost is $21,353 (107 providers × 6 hours × $33.26) of which the FTC assumes half, or $10,677.
Based on the CFPB's analysis, the FTC assumes that each of the estimated 107 MARS providers bears an additional $550 in material fees for acquiring relevant legal and technical compliance information, for a total additional burden of $58,850, of which the FTC assumes half, or $29,425. Based on law enforcement experience, the FTC assumes that any disclosures will likely be made electronically and thus will not generate additional non-labor costs such as printing and distribution.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before February 24, 2017. Write “Regulation O, PRA Comment, FTC File No. P134812” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you are required to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comment online, or to send it to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Regulation O, PRA Comment, FTC File No. P134812” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should also be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, address comments to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail, however, are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments instead should be sent by facsimile to (202) 395-5167.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of application in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) PAR 15-303, Occupational Safety and Health Education and Research Centers (ERC).
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announce the following meeting of the aforementioned committee.
The meeting will be webcast live via the World Wide Web; for instructions and more information on ACIP please visit the ACIP Web site:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), RFA-CE-12-0010501SUPP16, Grants for Injury Prevention and Control.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) PAR 13-129, Occupational Safety and Health Research, NIOSH Member Conflict Review.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) PS17-003, Innovative Internet-Based Approaches to Reach Black and Hispanic MSM for HIV Testing and Prevention Services; and FOA PS17-004, Comparison of Models of PrEP Service Delivery at Title X and STD Clinics.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period through January 19, 2019.
For information, contact Jeffrey Hageman, M.H.S., Executive Secretary, Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, Department of Health and Human Services, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop A35, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, telephone 404-639-4951 or fax 404-639-2647.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
To further assist states collect child support, the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) worked with child support agencies and financial institutions to develop the Federally Assisted State Transmitted (
The FIDM/
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments 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 of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than February 24, 2017.
Submit your comments, including the Information Collection Request Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference, in compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
OMB No. 0915-0307—Extension.
On October 25, 2013, HRSA published revised standards for core medical services waiver requests in the
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board, February 15, 2017, 1:00 p.m. to February 15, 2017, 3:00 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850 which was published in the
This meeting notice is amended to add an additional open session agenda
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Cardiac Contractility, Hypertrophy, and Failure Study Section, February 06, 2017, 8:00 a.m. to February 7, 2017, 4:00 p.m., Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015 which was published in the
This meeting will now be held at Ritz-Carlton Pentagon City, 1250 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202. The meeting date and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Advisory Environmental Health Sciences Council, February 14, 2017, 08:30 a.m. to February 15, 2017, 10:00 a.m., National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Building 101, Rodbell Auditorium, 111 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 which was published in the
This notice is to amend the date of the closed session and to add an additional open session date. The closed session will be held on February 14, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. The open session will now be held on February 14, 2017 from 10:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and on February 15, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
The meeting is partially Closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given that I have delegated to the Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH), the authorities vested in the Secretary of Health and Human Services under Section 2041 of the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255), as amended, to establish a task force, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), to be known as the “Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women”.
These authorities may be redelegated. Exercise of this authority shall be in accordance with established policies, procedures, guidelines, and regulations as prescribed by the Secretary. The Secretary retains the authority to submit reports to Congress, promulgate regulations, appoint members to the Task Force, and to receive advice and guidance from the Task Force, pursuant to section 2041(a)(2).
Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a notice in the
David Cloe, DHS Office of Policy, 202-447-4647,
In FR Doc. 2017-00914, appearing on page 4903 in the
1. In the first column, correct the “Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier” bullet to read:
Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Please submit all written comments (including and CD-ROM submissions) to David Cloe, DHS Office of Policy, 245 Murray Lane SW., Mail Stop 0445, Washington, DC 20528.
2. In the first column, correct the
David Cloe, DHS Office of Policy, 202-447-4647,
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. 11) granting an unopposed motion to terminate the investigation as to the only remaining respondent, Shenzhen Zm Hesheng Power Development Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China (“Shenzhen Zm
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 (
The Commission instituted this investigation on May 16, 2016, based on a complaint filed by CTC Global Corporation, of Irvine, California (“CTC Global”). 81 FR 30340-41 (May 16, 2016). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electrical conductor composite cores and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,211,319 and U.S. Patent No. 7,368,162. The notice of investigation named as respondents, Shenzhen Zm Hesheng and Mercury Cable & Energy, Inc. of San Juan Capistrano, California (“Mercury”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is a party to the investigation.
On September 23, 2016, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 9) granting an unopposed motion to terminate the investigation as to Mercury based upon consent based upon a consent order stipulation and consent order. The Commission determined not to review. Comm'n Notice of Non-Review and Issuance of Consent Order (Oct. 21, 2016).
On December 13, 2016, CTC Global filed a motion to terminate the investigation as to Shenzhen Zm Hesheng, the only remaining respondent. CTC Global stated that despite repeated attempts, it has been unable to serve the complaint on Shenzhen Zm Hesheng and that Shenzhen Zm Hesheng has not filed an answer or made any appearance in this investigation. On December 21, 2016, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response in support of the motion. No other responses to the motion were filed.
On December 28, 2016, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 11) granting the motion. The ALJ noted that Commission Rules permit terminating the investigation as to any respondent based upon good cause (19 CFR 210.21(a)(1)) and found that good cause exists to grant the motion because service was unsuccessful. ID at 2 (citing
The Commission has determined not to review the ID and to terminate the investigation.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
On September 20, 2016, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to Gentry R. Dunlop, M.D. (Registrant), of Aurora, Colorado. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration on the ground that he does not have authority to dispense controlled substances in Colorado, the State in which he is registered with the DEA. Order to Show Cause, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. §§ 823(f) and 824(a)(3)).
As grounds for the action, the Show Cause Order alleged that Registrant is the holder of Certificate of Registration BD0874378, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner, at the registered address of 4745 South Helena Way, Aurora, Colorado.
The Show Cause Order also alleged that effective on July 19, 2016, the Colorado Medical Board issued an order “which suspended [Registrant's] authority to practice medicine” and that Registrant is “without authority to [dispense] controlled substances in Colorado, the [S]tate in which [he is] registered with the” Agency.
The Show Cause Order also notified Registrant of his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the consequence for failing to elect either option.
On or about September 21, 2016, a Diversion Investigator (DI) with the Denver Division Office mailed the Show Cause Order to Registrant via Certified Mail addressed to him at his registered address of 4745 South Helena Way, Aurora, Colorado. GX 3, at 1-2 (Declaration of DI). According to the DI, using the Postal Service's tracking system, she determined that the Show Cause Order was delivered to Registrant's address on September 28, 2016; the DI also averred that on or about September 30, 2016, she received back the return receipt card.
On November 7, 2016, the Government forwarded its Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA) and an evidentiary record to my Office. Therein, the Government represents that it “has not received a request for hearing or any other reply from Registrant.” RFAA, at 2.
Based on the Government's representation that more than 30 days have now passed since the date of service of the Show Cause Order and that Registrant has not submitted a request for a hearing or any other reply, I find that Registrant has waived his right to a hearing or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing. 21 CFR 1301.43(d). I therefore issue this Decision and Final Order based on
Registrant is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration BD0874378, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in Schedules II through V as a practitioner, at the registered address of 4745 S. Helena Way, Aurora, Colorado. GX 2. His registration does not expire until June 30, 2019.
Registrant is also the holder of a license to practice medicine (DR-28729) issued by the Colorado Medical Board (the Board). GX 4, at 1. However, on July 19, 2016, the Board issued Registrant an Order of Suspension effective the same day which “shall remain in effect until resolution of this matter.”
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of Title 21, “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” Moreover, with respect to a practitioner, DEA has long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a registration.
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined “the term `practitioner' [to] mean[] a . . . physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. § 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. § 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the Act, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices medicine.
Moreover, because “the controlling question” in a proceeding brought under 21 U.S.C. § 824(a)(3) is whether the holder of a DEA registration “is currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the [S]tate,”
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. § 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration BD0874378, issued to Gentry Reeves Dunlop, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. § 823(f), I further order that any pending application of Gentry Reeves Dunlop, M.D., to renew or modify his registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective immediately.
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 1301.33(a) on or before March 27, 2017.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated her 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
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on September 14, 2016, Organix, Inc., 240 Salem Street, Woburn, Massachusetts 01801, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture reference standards for distribution to its research and forensics customers. In reference to drug code 7360 (marihuana) and 7370 (THC) the company plans to manufacture these drugs as synthetic. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
On September 16, 2016, the Assistant Administrator, Division of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to Donald W. Lamoureaux, M.D. (Registrant), of Horseshoe Bend, Arkansas. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of his DEA Certificate of Registration, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V, as a practitioner, on the ground that he “do[es] not have authority to handle controlled substances in Arkansas, the [S]tate in which he is registered with the DEA.” Show Cause Order, at 1.
As grounds for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that Registrant is registered with the DEA as a practitioner authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V, pursuant to Certificate of Registration No. FL2413297, at the registered address of 707 Third Street, Horseshoe Bend, Arkansas.
The Show Cause Order then alleged that Registrant's Arkansas medical license expired on April 30, 2015, and that he is currently without authority to dispense controlled substances in Arkansas, the State in which he is registered with the DEA.
The Show Cause Order also notified Registrant of his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing, the procedures for electing either option, and the consequence for failing to elect either option.
On September 19, 2016, the Show Cause Order was sent via certified mail to Registrant at his current residence, the Federal Correctional Institution, Butner, North Carolina, 27509. Government Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Appendix 4, Declaration, at 1. As evidenced by a copy of the signed return receipt card, service was accomplished on September 22, 2016.
On November 1, 2016, the Government forwarded to my Office a Request for Final Agency Action and an evidentiary record. In its Request, the Government represents that it has not received a request for a hearing or any other reply from Registrant. RFAA, at 2. The Government thus seeks the revocation of Registrant's Registration on the ground that he lacks state authority.
Based upon the Government's representation and the record, I find that more than 30 days have now passed since the date of service of the Show Cause Order, and neither Registrant, nor anyone purporting to represent him, has requested a hearing or submitted a written statement in lieu of a hearing. I therefore find that Registrant has waived his right to a hearing or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing and issue this Decision and Final Order based on relevant evidence contained in the record submitted by the Government. 21 CFR 1301.43(d) & (e). I make the following findings of fact.
Respondent is the holder of practitioner's registration FL2413297, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V at the registered address of 707 Third Street, Horseshoe Bend, Arkansas; this registration does not expire until March 31, 2017. Declaration of the Diversion Investigator (DI), at 1. According to the DI, Registrant's license to practice medicine in Arkansas lapsed on April 30, 2015, and he currently has no authority to practice medicine in that State.
As further support for the action, the DI obtained, and the Government submitted, a license verification from the Arkansas State Medical Board along with a Certification from the Board's Executive Secretary that the license verification was true and correct as of September 15, 2016. Appendix 2, at 1; Appendix 3, at 1. This document shows that as of September 14, 2016, the Board listed the expiration date of Registrant's medical license as “April 30, 2015” and the status of his license as “Inactive”; it also includes the notation: “License Category: Felony Conviction.” Appendix 3, at 2. Also, the document contains the following Board History notes, which include that:
1. On February 9, 2015, the Board issued an Emergency Order of Suspension to Registrant;
2. On April 10, 2015, the Board voted “to continue the disciplinary hearing until after [Registrant's] [] trial date”;
3. On July 2, 2015, the Board voted “to block [Registrant's] access to renew his license should he wish to renew”; and
4. On December 3, 2015, Registrant's “medical license lapsed subsequent to the felony criminal conviction.”
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of Title 21, “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has repeatedly held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined “the term `practitioner' [to] mean[] a . . . physician . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. § 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. § 823(f).
Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the Act, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he engages in professional practice.
Accordingly, because Registrant currently lacks authority to dispense controlled substances in Arkansas, the State in which he holds his DEA registration, I will order that his registration be revoked.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. §§ 823(f) and 824(a)(3), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration FL2413297 issued to Donald W. Lamoureaux, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending application of Donald W. Lamoureaux, M.D., to renew or modify his registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective February 24, 2017.
On January 19, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in
The United States filed a complaint under the System Unit Resource Protection Act, 54 U.S.C. 100722(a), and California trespass law seeking damages and response costs stemming from the Defendant's alleged use of a parcel of land owned by the United States and administered by the United States National Park Service as part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The United States simultaneously lodged a consent decree which would settle these claims in return for a payment of $280,000. From this sum, the Department of Justice will deposit $267,742 in the Department of the Interior's Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Fund to pay for response and natural resource damage assessment costs incurred by the United States and natural resource restoration projects related to this incident. The Department of Justice will deposit the remaining $12,258 in the United States Treasury.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $4.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
On January 17, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in the lawsuit entitled
The United States of America and the State of Texas (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against the City of Tyler, Texas, (“Defendant”) alleging that Defendant violated and continues to violate Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. 1311, and Section 26.121(a)(1) of the Texas Water Code (“TWC”) by discharging raw sewage from the City of Tyler's wastewater collection and treatment systems (“WCTS”) into or adjacent to local waterways. The complaint further alleges that Defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of its two Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, issued pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1342, and in violation of Section 7.101 of the TWC, due to operational failures, Defendant's failure to issue all necessary reports required by its permits, and Defendant's failure to adequately safeguard against discharges during power outages. The complaint alleges violations have been ongoing since 2005. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, pursuant to Section 309(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1319(b), and Section 7.032 of the TWC, and civil penalties, pursuant to Section 309(d) of the CWA,
Under the proposed settlement, Defendant will perform injunctive relief aimed at upgrading and advancing the physical and operational state of its WCTS. Specifically, Defendant must improve employee training and the daily operation of its WCTS; overhaul its inspection forms and recordkeeping procedures; assess the condition of the entire WCTS and remediate certain defects identified; study WCTS capacity to identify potential capacity constraints in the system and address field-verified confirmed capacity constraints; install adequate backup power to manage untreated wastewater in the event of electrical failures; and identify and permanently remove certain discovered locations that could divert untreated wastewater from the WCTS to waters or otherwise into the environment. The proposed Consent Decree also requires Defendant to pay a $563,000 civil penalty to the United States and Texas, to be split equally by Plaintiffs, and to pay the State of Texas an additional $30,000 in attorney's fees.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $36.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy requested without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $21.25.
On January 18, 2017, a proposed Stipulation of Settlement and Order was lodged with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed this lawsuit against Tauber Oil Company (“Tauber”) alleging violations of Section 211(b) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545(b), and the regulations promulgated thereunder. The Complaint contends that Tauber sold approximately 1.9 million gallons of a product called “Mixed Alcohol” for use as a fuel additive without complying with the Clean Air Act's registration and “substantially similar” requirements. The proposed Stipulation of Settlement and Order requires Tauber to pay a civil penalty of $700,000.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Stipulation of Settlement and Order. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Stipulation of Settlement and Order may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $2.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
On January 17, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed this lawsuit under the Clean Air Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA,” also known as the Superfund statute). The United States' complaint names S.H. Bell Company as defendant. The complaint seeks injunctive relief under the Clean Air Act and CERCLA to address manganese emissions from S.H. Bell's plant that spans across the Ohio-Pennsylvania border in East Liverpool, Ohio and Ohioville, Pennsylvania. The consent decree requires several measures to provide both immediate and long-term reductions in fugitive manganese emissions. These safeguards include (i) fenceline monitoring with EPA-approved monitors and required steps to investigate and, if needed, take corrective action if emissions exceed specified trigger levels; (ii) a tracking system for manganese materials and video recordings of certain facility operations to help the company and regulators determine the source of any manganese emissions detected in the future; and (iii) implementation of identified fugitive dust control measures.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $11.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Justice Management Division, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Justice Management Division has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with established review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until February 24, 2017.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Lubna Shirazi, Office of Information Policy, U.S. Department of Justice, Suite 11050, 1425 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice and request for comment.
NCUA, as part of a continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the following extensions of currently approved collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments should be received on or before March 27, 2017 to be assured consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the information collection to Dawn Wolfgang, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, Suite 5067; Fax No. 703-519-8579; or Email at
Requests for additional information should be directed to the address above.
NCUA, as part of a continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the following extensions of currently approved collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The number of respondents has been revised to reflect only submissions made by new or FCU requesting changes to their account information.
Regulation C, 12 CFR part 1003, requires financial institutions that meet certain thresholds to report data annually about: Each application or loan, including the application date; the action taken and the date of that action; the loan amount; the loan type (for example, government guaranteed or not) and purpose (for example, home purchase); and, if the loan is sold, the type of purchaser; Each applicant or borrower, including ethnicity, race, sex, and income; and Each property, including location and occupancy status.
A covered lender generally must update information quarterly—all reportable transaction must be recorded within 30 calendar days after the end of the calendar quarter in which final action is taken on a loan application register (LAR)—and must submit the completed LAR annually to the appropriate Federal agency by March 1 of the year following the year covered by the LAR. Institutions that submit incorrect information may be required to correct and resubmit the information. The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) then prepares a disclosure statement from data submitted by the financial institutions, and provides the disclosure statement to the financial institution. Within three business days of receiving its statement, the financial institution must make a copy available at its home office. In addition, within ten business days of receiving its disclosure statement, the financial institution must either: (1) Make the disclosure statement available in at least one branch office in every Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and Metropolitan Division (Division) where it has an office or (2) post a notice in at least one branch office per MSA and Division where it has an office stating that the disclosure statement is available upon written request. A covered lender must make each public disclosure statement available to the public for five years.
Each financial institution must retain its completed LAR for three years and during that period it must make its LAR available to the public after redacting certain information to protect the privacy of its applicants and borrowers.
The number of federally insured credit union respondents filing HMDA LAR and the total number of reportable HMDA loans have been adjusted to reflect the numbers obtained for calendar years 2012 and 2013.
By Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, the National Credit Union Administration, on January 19, 2017.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice and request for comment.
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), as part of a continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the following extension request of currently approved collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments should be received on or before March 27, 2017 to be assured consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the information collections to Dawn Wolfgang, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Suite 5067, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; Fax No. 703-519-8579; or Email at
Requests for additional information should be directed to the address above.
Estimated residual value is the projected future value of leased property at lease end. The accuracy of the estimated residual values used in a lease program is a fundamental element in the success or failure of a lease program. The higher the estimated residual values used by a federal credit union, the greater the potential for loss. To mitigate this risk, the leasing rule requires that if the amount of the estimated residual value relied on by the federal credit union to satisfy the full payout lease requirement exceeds 25 percent of the original cost of the leased property, the credit union must obtain a guarantee of the excess from a financially capable party.
If the guarantor cannot meet its guarantee, a federal credit union may suffer serious financial loss. Accordingly, it is important that a federal credit union documents that a guarantor has the financial resources and capability to meet the guarantee. If the guarantor is an insurance company, the federal credit union may satisfy this record keeping requirement by obtaining and maintaining information demonstrating that the insurance company has a rating equivalent to a B+ or better from a major rating company.
An adjustment is due to the increase in the number of credit unions that offer leasing products, resulting in an increase in burden.
Comments submitted in response 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. The public is invited to submit comments concerning: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper execution of the function 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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice.
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) will be submitting the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before February 24, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for NCUA, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission may be obtained by emailing
The FCU uses the information in determining whether and upon what terms to provide records to members for inspection. The petition signatures collected by each FCU will be used by the FCU to verify the membership status of each petitioner.
In accordance with Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Act that OMWIs “include a written statement, in a form and with such content as the [OMWI] Director shall prescribe, that a contractor shall ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion of women and minorities in the workforce of the contractor and, as applicable, subcontractors,” each new contract award whose dollar value exceeds $100,000 (NCUA's Simplified Acquisition Threshold) will include a Good Faith Effort (GFE) Certification. This certification is included in the solicitation package and returned to NCUA as part the contractor's proposal, with the understanding that the contractor maybe required to provide documentation in support of certification. As part of this compliance review, selected contractors will be sent a Contractors Diversity Profile to provide documentation outlined in the GFE certification to NCUA. The contractor would provide current information on their diversity strategy, policies, recruitment, planning and
By Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, the National Credit Union Administration, on January 19, 2017.
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, February 7, 2017.
NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594.
The one item is open to the public.
Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.
Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle Hall at (202) 314-6305 or by email at
The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at
Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at
Candi Bing at (202) 314-6403 or by email at
Eric Weiss at (202) 314-6100 or by email at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and is issuing License Amendment No. 62 to Combined Licenses (COLs), NPF-91 and NPF-92. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., and Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC, MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC, MEAG Power SPVP, LLC, Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensee); for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.
The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information asked for in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
The exemption and amendment were issued on December 29, 2016.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Chandu Patel, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3025; email:
The NRC is granting an exemption from paragraph B of section III, “Scope and Contents,” of appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of title 10 of the
Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VEGP Units 3 and 4 (COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92). The exemption documents for VEGP Units 3 and 4 can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16357A659 and ML16357A665, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16357A651 and ML16357A654, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to VEGP Units 3 and Unit 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated July 25, 2016, the licensee requested from the Commission an exemption to allow departures from Tier 1 information in the certified DCD incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, as part of license amendment request 16-012, “Automatic Depressurization System (ADS) Stage 2, 3, and 4 Valve Flow Area Changes and Clarifications.”
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16357A681, the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law;
B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;
C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;
D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;
E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and
F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption from the certified DCD Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes to Appendix C of the Facility Combined Licenses as described in the licensee's request dated July 25, 2016. This exemption is related to, and necessary for, the granting of License Amendment No. 62, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 5.0 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML16357A681), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.
By letter dated July 25, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16207A340), the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COLs for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92. The proposed amendment is described in Section I of this
The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or COL, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested on dated July 25, 2016. The exemption and amendment were issued on December 29, 2016, as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML16357A640).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACRS Subcommittee on APR 1400 will hold a meeting on February 8, 2017, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of portions that may be closed to protect information that is proprietary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review topical reports related to the APR 1400 Design Control Document, Chapter 4, “Reactor.” The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Christopher Brown (Telephone 301-415-7111 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. After registering with Security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting on February 9-11, 2017, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the
Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided 30 minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the Cognizant ACRS Staff one day before meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the Cognizant ACRS Staff with a CD containing each presentation at least 30 minutes before the meeting.
In accordance with Subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463 and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), certain portions of this meeting may be closed, as specifically noted above. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the
ACRS meeting agendas, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at
Video teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. (ET), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices will hold a meeting on February 7, 2017, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss proposed updates to NRC's guidance for backfitting and cost-benefit analysis in accordance with Phase One of the staff's plan as described in SECY-14-0002. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Michael Snodderly (Telephone 301-415-2241 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. After registering with Security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5 and Rule 8 series to add additional continued listing standards as well as clarify the procedures it will undertake when an ETP is noncompliant with applicable rules. 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.
The Exchange proposes to amend the listing rules for ETPs in the Rule 5 and Rule 8 series of the NYSE Arca Equities rule book to add additional continued listing standards as well as clarify the procedures it will undertake when an ETP is noncompliant with applicable rules. The proposed rule changes are being made in concert with discussions with the SEC. Staff (“Staff”) of the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets (“T&M”) requested that the Exchange adopt certain additional continued listing standards for ETPs.
As a result, the proposed amended rules reflect the guidance provided by T&M Staff to clarify that most initial listing standards, as well as certain representations included in Exchange rule filings under SEC Rule 19b-4 to list an ETP (“Exchange Rule Filings”), are also considered continued listing standards. The Exchange Rule Filing representations that will also be required to be maintained on a continuous basis include (a) the description of the fund and (b) the fund's investment restrictions.
The proposed rule changes require that ETPs listed by the Exchange without an Exchange Rule Filing must maintain the initial index or reference asset criteria on a continued basis. For example, in the case of a domestic equity index, these criteria generally include: (a) Stocks with 90% of the weight of the index must have a minimum market value of at least $75 million; (b) stocks with 70% of the weight of the index must have a minimum monthly trading volume of at least 250,000 shares; (c) the most heavily weighted component cannot exceed 30% of the weight of the index, and the five most heavily weighted stocks cannot exceed 65%; (d) there must be at least 13 stocks in the index; and (e) all securities in the index must be listed in the U.S. There are similar criteria for international indexes, fixed-income indexes and indexes with a combination of components.
If an Exchange Rule Filing is made to list a specific ETP, the proposed rule change requires that the issuer of the security comply on a continuing basis with any statements or representations contained in the applicable rule proposal, including (a) the description of the portfolio and (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets. The NYSE Arca listing rules will also be modified to require that issuers of securities listed under the Rule 5 and Rule 8 series must notify the Exchange regarding instances of non-compliance. In addition, while listed ETPs are currently subject to the delisting process in Rule 5.5(m), the rules will be clarified to make this explicit.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed rule changes accomplish these objectives by enhancing Exchange rules by clarifying that most initial listing standards, as well as certain representations included in Exchange Rule Filings to list an ETP, are considered continued listing standards. Additionally, the NYSE Arca listing rules will be modified to require that issuers of securities listed under the Rule 5 and Rule 8 series must notify the Exchange regarding instances of non-compliance and to clarify that deficiencies will be subject to the delisting process in Rule 5.5(m). The Exchange believes that these amendments will enhance the NYSE Arca listing rules, thereby serving to improve the national market system and protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to amend the listing rules for ETPs in the NYSE Arca Rule 5 and Rule 8 series and the related notification requirement will have no impact on competition. Furthermore, since T&M Staff has provided the same guidance regarding ETP continued listing requirements to all exchanges, the Exchange believes that there will be no effect on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
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 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 December 6, 2016, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange adopted PIXL in October 2010 as a price-improvement mechanism on the Exchange.
Certain aspects of PIXL are currently operating on a pilot basis (“Pilot”),
Currently, a PIXL Auction may be initiated if all of the following conditions are met. If the PIXL Order (except if it is a Complex Order) is for the account of a public customer the Initiating Member must stop the entire PIXL Order (except if it is a Complex Order) at a price that is equal to or better than the NBBO and the internal market BBO (the “Reference BBO”) on the opposite side of the market from the PIXL Order, provided that such price must be at least one minimum price improvement increment (as determined by the Exchange but not smaller than one cent) better than any limit order on the limit order book on the same side of the market as the PIXL Order.
If the PIXL Order (except if it is a Complex Order) is for the account of a broker dealer or any other person or entity that is not a public customer the Initiating Member must stop the entire PIXL Order (except if it is a Complex Order) at a price that is the better of: (i) The Reference BBO price improved by at least one minimum price improvement increment on the same side of the market as the PIXL Order, or (ii) the PIXL Order's limit price (if the order is a limit order), provided in either case that such price is at or better than the NBBO and the Reference BBO.
PHLX proposes to amend PIXL to require that, if the PIXL Order (except if it is a Complex Order) is for less than 50 option contracts, and if the difference between the NBBO is $0.01, the Initiating Member must stop the entire PIXL Order at one minimum price improvement increment better than the NBBO on the opposite side of the market from the PIXL Order, and better than any limit order on the limit order book on the same side of the market as the PIXL Order. This requirement would apply regardless of whether the PIXL Order is for the account of a public customer, or where the PIXL Order is for the account of a broker dealer or any other person or entity that is not a Public Customer. The Exchange would continue to require that the Initiating Member stop the entire PIXL Order at a price that is better than any limit order on the limit order book on the same side of the market as the PIXL Order regardless of the size of the PIXL Order and the width of the NBBO.
The Exchange would retain the current requirements for Auction eligibility in all other instances. Accordingly, if the PIXL Order (except if it is a Complex Order) is for the account of a public customer and such order is for 50 option contracts or more or if the difference between the NBBO is greater than $0.01, the Initiating Member must stop the entire PIXL Order at a price that is equal to or better than the NBBO on the opposite side of the market from the PIXL Order, provided that such price must be at least one minimum price improvement increment (as determined by the Exchange but not smaller than one cent) better than any limit order on the limit order book on the same side of the market as the PIXL Order. If the PIXL Order (except if it is a Complex Order) is for the account of a broker dealer or any other person or entity that is not a public customer and such order is for 50 option contracts or more, or if the difference between the NBBO is greater than $0.01, the Initiating Member must stop the entire PIXL Order (except if it is a Complex PIXL Order) at a price that is the better of: (i) The Reference BBO price improved by at least the Minimum Increment on the same side of the market as the PIXL Order, or (ii) the PIXL Order's limit price (if the order is a limit order), provided in either case that such price is at or better than the NBBO and the Reference BBO.
The Exchange believes that these changes to PIXL may provide additional opportunities for PIXL Orders, other than Complex Orders, of under 50 option contracts to receive price improvement over the NBBO where the difference in the NBBO is $0.01 and therefore encourage the increased submission of orders of under 50 option contracts.
As described above, four components of the PIXL system are currently operating on a pilot basis: (i) Auction eligibility for Complex Orders in a PIXL Auction; (ii) no minimum size requirement of orders entered into PIXL; (iii) the early conclusion of a PIXL Auction; and (iv) the provision that an unrelated market or marketable limit order (against the PBBO) on the opposite side of the market from the PIXL Order received during the Auction will not cause the Auction to end early and will execute against interest outside
During the Pilot period, the Exchange submitted certain data periodically as required by the Commission, to provide supporting evidence that, among other things, there is meaningful competition for all size orders, there is significant price improvement available through PIXL, and that there is an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange both within PIXL and outside of the Auction mechanism.
Rule 1080(n) sets forth Auction eligibility requirements for Complex Orders. If the PIXL Order is a Complex Order and of a conforming ratio, as defined in Rule 1098(a)(i) and (a)(ix), the Initiating Member must stop the entire PIXL Order at a price that is better than the best net price (debit or credit) (i) available on the Complex Order book regardless of the Complex Order book size; and (ii) achievable from the best Phlx bids and offers for the individual options (an “improved net price”), provided in either case that such price is equal to or better than the PIXL Order's limit price. Complex Orders consisting of a ratio other than a conforming ratio will not be accepted.
The Exchange does not propose to modify the Auction eligibility requirements for Complex Orders to require increased price improvement. The Exchange states that Rule 1080(n)(i)(C) already requires that the Initiating Member must stop the entire PIXL Order at a price that is better than the best net price (debit or credit) that is available on the Complex Order book regardless of the Complex Order book size; and that is achievable from the best Phlx bids and offers for the individual options, provided in either case that such price is equal to or better than the PIXL Order's limit price.
The Exchange proposes, however, to make permanent the sub-paragraph concerning Auction eligibility for Complex Orders in PIXL. Rule 1080(n)(i)(C) states that the Auction eligibility requirements for a PIXL Order that is a Complex Order, where applied to Complex Orders where the smallest leg is less than 50 contracts in size, is part of the current Pilot.
Phlx believes it is appropriate to approve this aspect of the Pilot on a permanent basis for two reasons.
Second, the Exchange also believes that it is appropriate to approve this aspect of the Pilot on a permanent basis for Complex Orders where the smallest leg is less than 50 contracts in size because this will continue to provide such Orders with the opportunity to receive price improvement.
Rule 1080(n)(vii) provides that, as part of the current Pilot, there will be no minimum size requirement for orders to be eligible for the Auction.
The Exchange also has gathered information about activity in orders for less than 50 contracts and 50 contracts or greater for simple PIXL Auctions between January and June 2015. For Auctions occurring during that period, 93% of Auctions were for orders for less than 50 contracts, a percentage that increased slightly over that time period. Auctions for orders of less than 50 contracts accounted for 45.5% of the contract volume traded in PIXL. Auctions of 50 contracts or more made up 7.0% of all PIXL Auctions and accounted for 54.5% of contracts traded in PIXL.
With respect to price improvement, 68.6% of PIXL Auctions for simple PIXL Orders executed at a price that was better than the NBBO at the time the Auction began. 69.2% of Auctions for less than 50 contracts received price improvement. 56.3% of Auctions for 50 contracts or more received price improvement. 66.5% of contracts in Auctions for less than 50 contracts received price improvement. 55.7% of Auctions for 50 contracts or more received price improvement.
Phlx has also gathered data relating to the number of Complex Orders entered into PIXL. For November 2016, a total of 18,016 orders were entered into PIXL where the smallest leg was less than 50 contracts, representing 99,941 contracts. For November 2016, a total of 641 orders were entered into PIXL where the smallest leg was 50 contracts or greater, representing 52,686 contracts.
The Exchange believes that the data gathered during the Pilot period indicates that there is meaningful competition in PIXL Auctions for all size orders, there is an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the auction mechanism, and that there are opportunities for significant price improvement for orders executed through PIXL.
Rule 1080(n)(ii)(B) provides that the PIXL Auction shall conclude at the earlier of (i) the end of the Auction period; (ii) for a PIXL Auction (except if it is a Complex Order), any time the Reference BBO crosses the PIXL Order stop price on the same side of the market as the PIXL Order; (iii) for a Complex Order PIXL Auction, any time the cPBBO
As with the no minimum size requirement, the Exchange has gathered data on these three conditions to assess the effect of early PIXL Auction conclusions on the Pilot.
Between January and June 2015, 76.3% of PIXL Auctions for simple PIXL Orders that terminated early executed at a price that was better than the NBBO at the time the Auction began. 71.9% of contracts in Auctions that terminated early received price improvement. The average amount of price improvement per contract for PIXL Auctions that terminated early was 4.1%.
Based on the data gathered during the pilot, the Exchange does not anticipate that any of these conditions will occur with significant frequency, or will otherwise significantly affect the functioning of PIXL Auctions.
Rule 1080(n)(ii)(D) provides that an unrelated market or marketable limit order (against the PBBO) on the opposite side of the market from the PIXL Order received during the Auction will not cause the Auction to end early and will execute against interest outside of the Auction. In the case of a Complex PIXL Auction, an unrelated market or marketable limit Complex Order on the opposite side of the market from the Complex PIXL Order as well as orders for the individual components of the Complex Order received during the Auction will not cause the Auction to end early and will execute against interest outside of the Auction. If contracts remain from such unrelated order at the time the Auction ends, they will be considered for participation in the order allocation process described elsewhere in the Rule. This section is operating as part of the current Pilot.
In approving this feature on a pilot basis, the Commission found that
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, with Section 6(b) of the Act.
As part of its proposal, the Exchange provided summary data on Exhibit 3 of its filing for the period January through June 2015, which the Exchange and Commission both publicly posted on their respective Web sites. Among other things, this data is useful in assessing the level of price improvement in the Auction, in particular for orders for fewer than 50 contracts; the degree of competition for order flow in such Auctions; and a comparison of liquidity in the Auctions with liquidity on the Exchange generally.
The Exchange's proposal to modify the Auction eligibility requirements for orders of fewer than 50 contracts and seek permanent approval of the Pilot, as amended with the new provision, will, in the Commission's view, promote opportunities for price improvement for such orders when the NBBO is $0.01 wide, while continuing to provide opportunities for price improvement when spreads are wider than $0.01.
In addition, the Commission has carefully evaluated the PIXL Pilot data and has determined that it would be beneficial to customers and to the options market as a whole to approve on a permanent basis the provisions concerning early conclusion of the PIXL Auction, and the receipt of an unrelated market or marketable limit order (against the Phlx BBO) on the opposite side of the market from the PIXL Order during the Auction. The Commission notes that there have been few instances of early termination of PIXL. The Commission further notes that permitting the PIXL Auction to continue despite receipt of unrelated orders outside the Auction would allow the Auction to run its full course and provide a full opportunity for price improvement to the PIXL Order while allowing the unrelated order to seek an execution, including in the Auction's order allocation.
The Commission believes that, particularly for Auctions for fewer than 50 contracts when the bid/ask differential is wider than $0.01, the data provided by the Exchange support its proposal to make the Pilot permanent. The data demonstrate that the Auction generally provides price improvement opportunities to simple and complex orders, including orders of retail customers and particularly when the bid/ask differential is wider than $0.01, that there is meaningful competition for orders on the Exchange; and that there exists an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the Auction.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th day after publication of the notice thereof in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 18, 2016, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. ICC's proposes to revise the ICC Rulebook (the “Rules”) to provide for the clearance of Standard Australian Corporate Single Name CDS contracts (collectively, “STAC Contracts”) and Standard Australian Financial Corporate Single Name CDS contracts (collectively, “STAFC Contracts”). The Commission finds 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 ICC's proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 9, 2016, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Pursuant to BOX Rule 7150, Options Participants executing agency orders (“Initiating Participants”) may designate Market Orders and marketable limit Customer Orders for price improvement and submission to the PIP (“PIP Orders”) along with a matching contra order equal to the full size of the PIP Order. The PIP was introduced with the launch of the BOX Options Exchange facility (“BOX Facility”) in 2004.
The PIP Pilot Program and COPIP Pilot Program (“Pilot Programs”) guarantee Participants the right to trade with their customer orders that are less than 50 contracts. The rules permitting an Initiating Participant to enter an agency order into the PIP and COPIP with no minimum size requirement were approved on a pilot basis.
BOX proposes to amend the PIP and COPIP to make permanent the Pilot Programs that permit the Exchange to have no minimum size requirement for orders entered into the PIP. In addition, BOX proposes to modify the eligibility requirements for the PIP where the NBBO is only $0.01 wide.
The Exchange proposes to amend the PIP eligibility requirements. Currently, a PIP Order may be submitted to BOX with a matching contra order that is equal to the full size of the PIP Order and at a price equal to or better than that of the NBBO at the time of the commencement of the PIP, at any NBBO spread. BOX proposes to amend the PIP to reject any Auction where the quoted NBBO spread
The Exchange has provided the Commission with a summary report containing Auction data for the period between January through June 2015.
The Exchange believes, based on the data, that there is significant price improvement and significant opportunity for price improvement when the NBBO spread is greater than $0.01.
The Exchange has also gathered data on the premature terminations in the PIP. Between January and June 2015, the number of auctions that terminated early was less than 0.05% of all PIP auctions.
With respect to the COPIP Pilot Program, the Exchange notes that between January through June 2015, COPIP volume accounted for 41% of all complex order volume on BOX.
The Exchange has also gathered data on the premature terminations in the COPIP to determine if these could result in a COPIP Order being disadvantaged by the early conclusion of or COPIP. Between January and June 2015, the number of auctions that terminated early was less than 0.09% of all COPIP auctions.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, with Section 6(b) of the Act.
As part of its proposal, the Exchange provided summary data on Exhibit 3 of its filing for the period January through June 2015, which the Exchange and Commission both publicly posted on their respective Web sites. Among other things, this data is useful in assessing the level of price improvement in the auction, in particular for orders for fewer than 50 contracts; the degree of competition for order flow in such auctions; and a comparison of liquidity in the auctions with liquidity on the Exchange generally.
The Commission believes that, particularly for auctions for fewer than 50 contracts when the bid/ask differential is wider than $0.01, the data provided by the Exchange support its proposal to make the Pilot Programs permanent. The data demonstrate that the auction generally provides price improvement opportunities to simple and complex orders, including orders of retail customers and particularly when the bid/ask differential is wider than $0.01, that there is meaningful
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 18, 2016, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) 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. 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.
On December 12, 2016, ISE Mercury, LLC (the “Exchange” or “ISE Mercury”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange adopted PIM as part of its application to be registered as a national securities exchange.
Currently, the PIM may be initiated if certain conditions are met. The Crossing Transaction must be entered only at a price that is equal to or better than the National Best Bid/Offer (“NBBO”) on the opposite side of the market from the Agency Order, and better than the limit order or quote on the ISE Mercury order book on the same side of the Agency Order.
ISE Mercury proposes to amend ISE Mercury Rule 723(b) to require EAMs to provide at least $0.01 price improvement for an Agency Order if that order is for less than 50 option contracts and if the difference between the NBBO is $0.01. For the period beginning January 19, 2017 until a date specified by the Exchange in a Regulatory Information Circular, which date shall be no later than September 15, 2017, ISE Mercury will adopt a member conduct standard to implement this requirement.
Failure to provide such price improvement will subject members to the fines set forth in ISE Rule 1614(d)(4).
The Exchange is also proposing a systems-based mechanism to implement this price improvement requirement, which shall be effective following the migration of a symbol to INET, the platform operated by Nasdaq, Inc. that will also operate the PIM.
The Exchange will retain the current requirements for PIM eligibility in all other instances. Accordingly, if the Agency Order is for 50 option contracts or more or if the difference between the NBBO is greater than $0.01, the Crossing Transaction must be entered only at a price that is equal to or better than the NBBO and better than the limit order or quote on the ISE Mercury order book on the same side as the Agency Order.
The Exchange believes that these changes to PIM may provide additional opportunities for Agency Orders of fewer than 50 option contracts to receive price improvement over the NBBO where the difference in the NBBO is $0.01 and therefore encourage the increased submission of orders of under 50 option contracts.
Two components of the PIM were approved by the Commission on a pilot basis: (1) The early conclusion of the PIM;
During the Pilot period, the Exchange submitted certain data periodically as required by the Commission, to provide supporting evidence that, among other things, there is meaningful competition for all size orders, there is significant price improvement available through the PIM, and that there is an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the Auction mechanism.
Supplemental Material .03 to Rule 723 provides that, as part of the current Pilot, there will be no minimum size requirement for orders to be eligible for the Auction. The Exchange believes that the data gathered since the approval of the Pilot, which it discussed in the Notice, establishes that there is liquidity and competition both within the PIM and outside of the PIM, and that there are opportunities for significant price improvement within the PIM.
The Exchange compiled price improvement data in orders from February through June 2016. For March 2016, where the order was on behalf of a Public Customer, the order was for 50 contracts or less, and ISE Mercury was at the NBBO, the most contracts traded (2,525) occurred when the spread was $0.03, with an average number of two participants.
In comparison, where the order was on behalf of a Public Customer, the order was for greater than 50 contracts, and ISE Mercury was at the NBBO, the most contracts traded (934) occurred when the spread was $0.10 to $0.20. The greatest number of these contracts (429) received $0.05-$0.10 price improvement.
In March 2016, where the order was on behalf of a Public Customer, the order was for 50 contracts or less, and ISE Mercury was not at the NBBO, the most contracts traded (3,772) occurred when the spread was $0.01. Of this category, the greatest number of contracts (3,722) received no price improvement, and 50 contracts received $0.01 price improvement.
In comparison, in March 2016, where the order was on behalf of a Public Customer, the order was for greater than 50 contracts, and ISE Mercury was not at the NBBO, the most contracts traded (1,431) occurred when the spread was $0.02. Of these contracts, the greatest number of contracts (758) received no price improvement.
ISE Mercury believes that the data gathered during the Pilot period indicates that there is meaningful competition in PIM auctions for all size orders, there is an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the auction mechanism, and that there are opportunities for significant price improvement for orders executed through PIM.
Supplemental Material .05 to Rule 723 provides that Rule 723(c)(5) and Rule 723(d)(4), which relate to the termination of the exposure period by unrelated orders shall be part of the current Pilot. Rule 723(c)(5) provides that the exposure period will automatically terminate (i) at the end of the 500 millisecond period,
As with the no minimum size requirement, the Exchange has gathered data on these three conditions to assess the effect of early PIM conclusions on the Pilot. For the period from January 2016 through June 2016, there were a total of 77 early terminated Auctions. The number of orders in early terminated PIM auctions constituted 0.35% of total PIM orders.
Based on the data gathered during the Pilot, the Exchange does not anticipate that any of these conditions will occur with significant frequency, or will otherwise significantly affect the functioning of the PIM.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, with Section 6(b) of the Act.
As part of its proposal, the Exchange provided summary data on Exhibit 3 of its filing for the period January through June 2016, which the Exchange and Commission both publicly posted on their respective Web sites. Among other things, this data is useful in assessing the level of price improvement in the Auction, in particular for orders of fewer than 50 contracts; the degree of competition for order flow in such Auctions; and a comparison of liquidity in the Auctions with liquidity on the Exchange generally.
The Exchange's proposal to modify the Auction eligibility requirements for orders of fewer than 50 contracts and seek permanent approval of the Pilot, as amended with the new provision, will, in the Commission's view, promote opportunities for price improvement for such orders when the NBBO is $0.01 wide, while continuing to provide opportunities for price improvement when spreads are wider than $0.01.
In addition, the Commission has carefully evaluated the Pilot data and
The Commission believes that, particularly for Auctions for fewer than 50 contracts when the bid/ask differential is wider than $0.01, the data provided by the Exchange support its proposal to make the Pilot permanent. The data demonstrate that the Auction generally provides price improvement opportunities to orders, including orders of retail customers and particularly when the bid/ask differential is wider than $0.01; that there is meaningful competition for orders on the Exchange; and that there exists an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the Auction.
The Commission further notes that, as discussed more fully above, ISE Mercury is initially proposing to implement is price improvement requirement for Agency Orders of fewer than 50 option contracts where the difference in the NBBO is $0.01 with a member conduct standard.
Thus, the Commission has determined to approve the Exchange's proposed revisions to ISE Mercury Rule 723(b) and Supplementary Material .03 and .05 to ISE Mercury Rule 723, and to approve the Pilot, as proposed to be modified, on a permanent basis.
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”),
This proposed rule change by OCC would modify the current process for systematically monitoring market conditions and performing adjustments to its margin coverage when current market volatility increases beyond historically observed levels.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
OCC's margin methodology, the System for Theoretical Analysis and Numerical Simulations (“STANS”), is OCC's proprietary risk management system that calculates Clearing Members'
The majority of risk factors utilized in the STANS methodology are total returns on individual equity securities. Other risk factors considered include: returns on equity indices; changes in the calibrated coefficients of a model describing the yield curve for U.S. government securities; “returns” on the nearest-to-expiration futures contracts of various kinds; and changes in foreign exchange rates. For the volatility of each risk factor, the Monte Carlo simulations use the greater of: (i) The short-term volatility level predicted by the model; and (ii) an estimate of its longer-run level. In between the monthly re-estimations of all the models, volatilities are automatically re-scaled to the greater of the short-term or the longer-run levels
An approach employed by OCC to mitigate pro-cyclicality within STANS is to estimate market volatility based on current market conditions (“current market estimate”) and compare this current market estimate to a long-run estimate of market volatility (“long-run market estimate”). This comparison utilizes certain market benchmarks (or factors), which serve as proxies for the overall volatility of an asset class or group of products. If the long-run market estimate for a factor is found to be greater than the current market estimate, the volatility estimates for all products tied to that factor are adjusted (or scaled) up in a manner proportionate to the relationship between the current market volatility and the long-run market volatility for that factor.
Current STANS includes a single factor (“uniform scale factor”), which serves as the proxy for the equity asset class. This uniform scale factor is calibrated based on changes in the volatility of the Standard & Poor's 500® Index (“SPX”) and applied to all “equity-based products” in the manner described above. Currently, the uniform scale factor is the only scale factor used in STANS. The proposed change is intended to enhance the STANS margin calculations by providing for the capability to increase the number of scale factors used within STANS in cases where a more appropriate proxy has been identified for a particular asset class or group of products to measure the relationship between current vs. long-run market volatility.
OCC proposes a number of enhancements to its STANS margin methodology that are designed to more accurately compute Clearing Member margin requirements to reflect the risk of Clearing Member portfolios. Specifically, OCC proposes to: (1) Adjust the longer-run volatility forecast used in OCC's computation of the uniform scale factor so that it would rely only on post-1957 price information (
OCC believes that the current approach to scale factors in STANS would be improved by providing the functionality to establish multiple scale factors intended to more accurately measure the relationship between current and long-run market volatility with proxies that correlate more closely to groups of products within an asset class (
The uniform scale factor for the SPX roughly represents the ratio of OCC's estimates of the long-run market volatility to the forecast market volatility determined by most recent 24-month daily historical returns.
The uniform scale factor is applied to all equity products and is used to adjust individual equity current market volatility estimates on a daily basis based on the comparison of the current market volatility and the long-run volatility estimate, which is updated daily. Should it be observed that the current market volatility is less than the long-run volatility, all products tied to the uniform scale factor will be adjusted higher based on the ratio of the long-run volatility estimate to the current market volatility estimate to account for the observed change in volatility. In addition, the uniform scale factor is also used to account for the fact that the distribution of returns for the SPX has a “fat tail”
The uniform scale factor resulting from the calculations described above is applied as a multiplier to hypothetical returns on a long portfolio of equities produced during the Monte Carlo market scenarios run within STANS. By “scaling up” hypothetical returns in this way, the uniform scale factor relies on an assumption that more recent behavior of SPX returns will provide an appropriate proxy for the volatility in equity price returns that occur between monthly updates of price data for the pending short-run time series. Accordingly, the uniform scale factor helps OCC set margin requirements that account for this proxy to ensure that Clearing Members maintain margin assets that would be sufficient in light of historical volatility of the SPX.
The average longer-run volatility forecast used in OCC's computation of the uniform scale factor currently relies on daily pricing information for component securities of the SPX dating back to January of 1946. This time series predates, however, the 1957 introduction of the SPX. To accurately account for the behavior of SPX returns only since the inception of the index, OCC proposes to adjust the longer-run volatility forecast so that it would rely only on the post-1957 information. OCC believes that this approach would reduce model risk
To more accurately measure the relationship between current and long-run market volatility with proxies that correlate more closely to certain products carried within the equity asset class, OCC proposes to expand the number of scale factors to include: (1) Russell 2000® Index (12/29/1978); (2) Dow Jones Industrial Average Index (9/23/1997); (3) NASDAQ-100 Index (2/4/1985) and (4) S&P 100 Index (1/2/1976).
Consistent with OCC's existing Margin Policy,
In order to mitigate against pro-cyclicality, OCC intends to apply the relevant scale factor to the greater of (i) the estimated variance of the 1-day return scenarios or (ii) the historical variance of the daily return scenarios of a particular instrument, as a floor. OCC believes this floor would mitigate pro-cyclicality in the relevant return scenarios because it would result in a higher estimate of volatility during periods of relatively lower market volatility than if only the estimated variance in (i) above was used.
In addition to implementing the scale factors described above, OCC is also proposing to implement processing changes that would update the statistical models for common factors related to Treasury securities on a daily basis. These model changes would allow OCC to monitor and respond to material changes in the volatility of Treasury securities while also mitigating pro-cyclicality without implementing a scale factor specific to Treasury securities. OCC believes that updating its Treasury securities models on a daily basis is a more appropriate way to monitor and respond to material changes in the volatility of Treasury securities while also mitigating pro-cyclicality since the Treasury yield curve model is relatively less complex, with only three factors, and the structure of the Treasuries securities model does not lend itself to a returns-based scale factor (as is used with equity and volatility derivatives, as described above).
Specifically, OCC is proposing to enhance its existing yield curve model that OCC uses to project U.S. Treasury security returns, which is updated monthly. The model contains underlying data set and time series information for Treasury securities, which run from February 4, 2008 (based on available historical data) and, after implementing the proposed enhancements, the model would be updated on a daily basis as new data and time series information becomes available. The proposed enhancements would promote a more accurate approach to margining within STANS, as it relates to Treasury securities, particularly when markets are volatile because the daily statistical updates would prevent the model from becoming stale between monthly updates.
Based on simulation testing for the period from January 14, 2015, to March 6, 2015, risk margins (
In order to inform Clearing Members of the proposed change, OCC provided a general update at a recent OCC Roundtable
OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
The proposed model changes described above would enhance the manner in which OCC computes margin requirements for Clearing Members. Specifically, the proposed changes to the uniform scale factor for equity-based products to rely only on post-1957 information would reduce model risk and improve the quality of data by avoiding unnecessary assumptions related to the composition of the SPX before its inception. The proposed four new scale factors for equity-based products would more accurately measure the relationship between current and long-run market volatility with proxies that are correlated more closely to certain products within the equity asset class. The proposed daily statistical updates for the Treasury yield curve model would allow OCC to monitor and respond to material changes in the volatility of Treasury securities while also mitigating pro-cyclicality. Taken together, the changes to the uniform scale factor, the addition of new equity-based scale factors, and the introduction of daily statistical updates for the Treasury yield curve model would cause STANS to more accurately compute Clearing Member margin requirements to reflect the risk of Clearing Member portfolios thereby reducing the risk that Clearing Member margin assets would be insufficient should OCC need to use such assets to close-out the positions of a defaulted Clearing Member. Further, the proposed rule change would make it less likely that the default of a Clearing Member would stress the financial resources available to OCC, which include mutualized resource funds deposited by non-defaulting Clearing Members as Clearing Fund.
OCC believes that the proposed rule change is also consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2)
The proposed rule changes are not inconsistent with the existing rules of OCC, including any other rules proposed to be amended.
OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impact or impose any burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed rule change is in the public interest, would be consistent with the requirements of the Act applicable to clearing agencies, and would not impact or impose a burden on competition.
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be 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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2017-001 and should be submitted
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Authority.
On November 29, 2016, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “CBOE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
AIM exposes certain orders electronically to an auction process to provide these orders with the opportunity to receive an execution at an improved price.
Three components of AIM were approved by the Commission on a pilot basis (the “Pilot”): (1) That there is no minimum size requirement for orders to be eligible for the AIM; (2) that the AIM will conclude prematurely anytime there is a quote lock on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 6.45A(d);
In support of its proposal, and in addition to data submitted to the Commission on a monthly and confidential basis since the Pilot's inception, the Exchange has provided the Commission with data for AIM executions from January through June 2015 (the “Report”).
Specifically, the Report contains eight categories of non-customer and customer auction data, as well as three categories of summary auction data, during the period from January through
The summary of all Auctions demonstrates that AIM offers competition and price improvement because the vast majority of contracts traded via AIM received price improvement beyond the NBBO. Specifically, with regards to Customer AIM auctions, of the 54,243,091 contracts traded via AIM during the Report period, 41,278,408 contracts received price improvement beyond the NBBO.
For complex orders that are otherwise eligible for AIM,
In September 2016, there were 5,982 complex orders processed via AIM with an order size of 50 contracts or more (as determined by the size of the smallest leg), and there were 214,986 complex orders processed via AIM with an order size of fewer than 50 contracts (as determined by the size of the smallest leg).
CBOE Rule 6.74A(b)(2)(E) provides that the AIM will conclude prematurely anytime there is a quote lock on the Exchange pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.45A(d). This condition is operating as part of the current Pilot.
As with the no minimum size requirement, the Exchange has gathered data on the number of times an AIM auction was terminated early because of a quote lock on the Exchange pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.45A(d). From January through June 2015, for example, there were less than two Auctions ended early per month because of a quote lock. Thus, for both simple and complex orders, due to the infrequency with which a quote lock terminates an AIM auction, the Exchange believes permanent approval of the pilot program to end AIM auctions early when there is a quote lock on the Exchange will have a
Currently, in order to initiate a FLEX AIM auction, the initiating Trading Permit Holder must stop the entire Agency Order as principal or with a solicited order at the better of the BBO or the Agency Order's limit price. For purposes of CBOE Chapter XXIVB, the term “BBO” means the best bid or offer, or both, as applicable, entered in response to a Request for Quotes (“RFQ”) or resting in the electronic book.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, with Section 6(b) of the Act.
As part of its proposal, the Exchange provided summary data on Exhibit 3 of its filing for the period January through June 2015, which the Exchange and Commission both publicly posted on their respective Web sites. Among other things, this data is useful in assessing the level of price improvement in the Auction, in particular for orders of fewer than 50 contracts; the degree of competition for order flow in such Auctions; and a comparison of liquidity in the Auctions with liquidity on the Exchange generally.
The Commission believes that the data provided by the Exchange support its proposal to make the Pilot permanent. The data demonstrate that the Auction generally provides price improvement opportunities to orders, including orders of retail customers; that there is meaningful competition for orders on the Exchange; and that there exists an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the Auction.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including 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 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 30th day after the date of publication of the notice of Amendment No. 1 in the
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal for the Exchange's equity options platform (“EDGX Options”) concerning a price improvement mechanism operated by EDGX Options, the Bats Auction Mechanism (“BAM” or “BAM Auction”), which was recently approved by the Commission.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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 III 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 make permanent an aspect of BAM that is operating as a Pilot by removing Interpretation and Policy .05 from Rule 21.19.
The Exchange proposed BAM in September of 2016 as a price improvement mechanism on the Exchange.
One component of BAM as approved by the Commission is currently operating as a Pilot, which is set to expire on January 18, 2017. The Pilot concerns that there is no minimum size requirement for orders to be eligible for a BAM Auction. The Exchange now seeks to remove Interpretation and Policy .05 from Rule 21.19 so that the Pilot may operate on a permanent basis.
Pursuant to the Pilot, there is no minimum size requirement for orders to be eligible for a BAM Auction. During this Pilot, the Exchange agreed to submit certain data, periodically as required by the Commission, to provide supporting evidence that, among other things, there is meaningful competition for all size orders and that there is an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the Auction mechanism. The Exchange proposed to adopt this provision on a pilot basis based on the fact that multiple other options exchanges have a similar provision with respect to their own price improvement mechanisms and such provisions have been operating on a pilot basis.
The Exchange believes BAM process will promote meaningful competition because it is open to all Members of the Exchange and, thus, all Members will have an equal opportunity to respond with their best prices during a BAM Auction. Since the Exchange considers all interest present in the Exchange's system, and not solely BAM responses, for execution against Agency Orders, those participants who are not explicit responders to a BAM Auction will expect executions via BAM as well.
Similarly, the Exchange believes there will continue to be an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the auction mechanism for the same reason noted above, namely that an Initiating Order may not be a solicited order for the account of an Options Market Maker.
Finally, the Exchange believes that there will be opportunities for price improvement for orders executed through BAM, including for smaller sized Agency Orders when the difference between the NBB and NBO is $0.01. Pursuant to BAM, if any Agency Order is for less than 50 option contracts and the difference between the NBB and NBO is $0.01, the Initiating Member must stop the entire Agency Order at one minimum price improvement increment better than the NBBO, which increment shall be determined by the Exchange but may not be smaller than $0.01.
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to continue the no minimum size requirement on a permanent basis.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that BAM, including the Pilot, results in increased liquidity available at improved prices, with competitive final pricing out of the Initiating Member's complete control. The Exchange believes that BAM promotes and fosters competition and affords the opportunity for price improvement to more options contracts. The Exchange believes that allowing BAM to continue without a minimum size requirement is consistent with the Act based on similar pilots operated by other options exchanges with respect to similar price improvement mechanisms and the recent filings to operate such mechanisms and certain aspects thereof on a permanent basis.
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. In this regard, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed in order to continue BAM without a minimum size requirement. BAM itself was a competitive response to analogous programs offered by other options exchanges but was only recently approved and launched. At the same time, other options exchanges that have been operating similar price improvement mechanisms for longer periods of time recently filed to operate such mechanisms on a permanent basis, including with regard to the fact that such mechanisms to not have a minimum size requirement.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written
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.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsEDGX-2017-05. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, with Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Commission notes that BAM is designed to provide customers with an opportunity for price improvement to orders, including orders of fewer than 50 contracts. The Commission also notes that BAM currently requires price improvement for Agency Orders of fewer than 50 contracts when the NBBO has a bid/ask differential of $0.01, a situation in which an Agency Order may be less likely to receive price improvement due to the limited spread.
The Exchange has requested that the Commission find good cause for approving the proposed rule change prior to the 30th day after publication of the notice thereof in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 16, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (“Exchange” or “NYSE MKT”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
CUBE is an electronic crossing mechanism for single-leg orders that is designed to provide the opportunity for price improvement for paired orders of any size.
Two aspects of the CUBE were approved by the Commission on a pilot basis (“CUBE Pilot”): (1) Rule 971.1NY(b)(1)(B), which establishes the permissible range of executions for CUBE Auctions for fewer than 50 contracts;
As described more fully below, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 971.1NY to provide that CUBE Orders for fewer than 50 contracts entered when the NBBO is $0.01 wide will be rejected, unless the Initiating Participant guarantees the CUBE Order price improvement. With this proposed modification to CUBE Auctions for fewer than 50 contracts, the Exchange proposes that the CUBE Pilot be made permanent. In support of its proposal, the Exchange has provided the Commission with data for CUBE executions for the period from January through June 2015 (“CUBE Data”),
The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 971.1NY to require price improvement for CUBE Orders for fewer than 50 contracts when the NBBO is $0.01 wide. Currently, Rule 971.1NY(b)(6) provides that CUBE Orders for fewer than 50 contracts that are submitted when the Exchange best bid and offer (“BBO”) is $0.01 wide will be rejected. This requirement will be retained. The Exchange, however, proposes to amend Rule 971.1NY(b)(6) to add that CUBE Orders for fewer than 50 contracts entered when the NBBO is $0.01 wide also will be rejected (
Although the Exchange continues to believe that the CUBE Auction provides opportunities for price improvement of CUBE Orders of fewer than 50 contracts when the NBBO has a bid/ask differential of $0.01, the Exchange states that the data have not demonstrated significant price improvement in this narrow circumstance.
The Exchange has analyzed the CUBE Data and believes that it indicates that there is meaningful competition in CUBE Auctions for all size orders, regardless of the size of the order or the bid/ask differential of the NBBO.
The Exchange also believes that the CUBE Data reveals that there is an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the CUBE Auction.
As discussed above, the Exchange continues to believe that the CUBE Auction provides opportunities for price improvement of CUBE Orders of fewer than 50 contracts when the NBBO has a bid/ask differential of $0.01 (for one reason, because the market conditions may change during the CUBE Auction). However, because the data have not demonstrated significant price improvement in this circumstance,
The Exchange believes, however, that CUBE Auctions for fewer than 50 contracts have served as a valuable tool in providing price improvement when the NBBO has a bid/ask differential of greater than $0.01. The Exchange notes that, for CUBE Auctions of fewer than 50 contracts, the CUBE Data indicates that when the NBBO has a bid/ask differential between $0.02 and $0.05, contracts executed in CUBE Auctions received, on average, price improvement of $0.0114, and, in wider markets (
Based on its analysis of the CUBE Data, including the data regarding CUBE Auctions where the NBBO spread is $0.01, the Exchange believes that the CUBE Auction, as modified by the proposed revision to Rule 971.1NY(b)(6), would allow the Exchange to continue to provide meaningful competition for all size orders—including small orders—as well as to continue to offer an active and liquid market outside of the CUBE Auction.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, with Section 6(b) of the Act.
As part of its proposal, the Exchange provided summary data on Exhibit 3 of its filing for the period January through June 2015, which the Exchange and Commission both publicly posted on their respective Web sites. Among other things, this data is useful in assessing the level of price improvement in the auction, in particular for orders of fewer than 50 contracts; the degree of competition for order flow in such auctions; and a comparison of liquidity in the auctions with liquidity on the Exchange generally.
The Exchange's proposal to modify the auction eligibility requirements for orders of fewer than 50 contracts and seek permanent approval of the CUBE Pilot, as amended with the new provision, will, in the Commission's view, promote opportunities for price improvement for such orders when the NBBO is $0.01 wide, while continuing to provide opportunities for price improvement when spreads are wider than $0.01.
The Commission believes that, particularly for auctions for fewer than 50 contracts when the bid/ask differential is wider than $0.01, the data provided by the Exchange support its proposal to make the CUBE Pilot permanent. The data demonstrate that the auction generally provides price improvement opportunities to orders, including orders of retail customers and particularly when the bid/ask differential is wider than $0.01, that there is meaningful competition for orders on the Exchange; and that there exists an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the auction.
The Exchange has requested that the Commission find good cause for approving the proposed rule change prior to the 30th day after publication of the notice thereof in the
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is (i) extending certain temporary exemptive relief originally provided by the Commission in connection with the revision of the definition of “security” in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) to encompass security-based swaps (“Temporary Exemptions”);
The expiration dates in the Extension Order distinguished between: (i) The Temporary Exemptions related to pending security-based swap rulemakings (“Linked Temporary Exemptions”); and (ii) the Temporary Exemptions that generally were not directly related to a specific security-based swap rulemaking (“Unlinked Temporary Exemptions”). The expiration dates for the Linked Temporary Exemptions established by the Extension Order were the compliance dates for the specific rulemakings to which they were “linked,” and the expiration date for the Unlinked Temporary Exemptions was three years following the effective date of the Extension Order (
As described in more detail below, the Commission is extending the expiration date for the Unlinked Temporary Exemptions until February 5, 2018. This approach provides the Commission flexibility to determine whether continuing relief should be provided for any Unlinked Temporary Exemptions while the Commission continues to consider the relevant rules mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the definition of “security” under the Exchange Act to expressly encompass security-based swaps.
On July 1, 2011, the Commission issued the Exchange Act Exemptive Order granting temporary exemptive relief from compliance with certain provisions of the Exchange Act in connection with the revision of the Exchange Act definition of “security” to encompass security-based swaps.
The Commission also, on June 15, 2011, issued an exemptive order granting temporary relief from compliance with certain provisions added to the Exchange Act by subtitle B of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act with which compliance would have otherwise been required as the Effective Date. In that order, the Commission provided guidance regarding the provisions of the Exchange Act that were added by Title VII with which compliance was required as of the Effective Date.
The Commission also provided a temporary exemption within the Exchange Act Exemptive Order for Sections 5 and 6 of the Exchange Act and linked the expiration date of that exemptive relief until the earliest compliance date set forth in any of the final rules regarding registration of security-based swap execution facilities.
The Exchange Act Exemptive Order further provided that no security-based swap contract entered into on or after July 16, 2011 shall be void or considered voidable by reason of Section 29(b) of the Exchange Act because any person that is a party to the contract violated a provision of the Exchange Act for which the Commission has provided exemptive relief in the Exchange Act Exemptive Order, until such time as the underlying exemptive relief expires. By extending the underlying Unlinked Temporary Exemptions until February 5, 2018, this order will also extend the relevant Section 29(b) relief until that same date.
The overall approach of the Exchange Act Exemptive Order was directed toward maintaining the
As described above, the Commission most recently extended the expiration date of the Unlinked Temporary Exemptions until the earlier of the time that the Commission issues an order or rule determining whether continuing exemptive relief is appropriate, or until three years after the effective date of the Extension Order.
Since the issuance of the Extension Order, the Commission has implemented a substantial portion of the regulatory regime for security-based swaps required by Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act.
Accordingly, pursuant to its authority under Section 36 of the Exchange Act,
The Commission is providing interested parties the opportunity to comment on whether any relief should be granted with respect to any specific Unlinked Temporary Exemption(s) beyond February 5, 2018. To the extent that interested parties request specific relief for any of the Unlinked Temporary Exemptions beyond February 5, 2018, any request should be detailed as to the circumstances in which the Exchange Act provision or rule applies to security-based swaps or security-based swap market participants, and why relief would be necessary.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St. NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
By the Commission.
On December 12, 2016, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the “Exchange” or the “ISE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange established PIM in December 2004 as a price improvement mechanism.
Currently, the PIM may be initiated if certain conditions are met. The Crossing Transaction must be entered only at a price that is equal to or better than the National Best Bid/Offer (“NBBO”) on the opposite side of the market from the Agency Order, and better than the limit order or quote on the ISE order book on the same side of the Agency Order.
ISE proposes to amend ISE Rule 723(b) to require EAMs to provide at least $0.01 price improvement for an Agency Order if that order is for less than 50 option contracts and if the difference between the NBBO is $0.01. For the period beginning January 19, 2017 until a date specified by the Exchange in a Regulatory Information Circular, which date shall be no later than July 15, 2017, ISE will adopt a member conduct standard to implement this requirement.
To enforce this requirement, ISE also proposes to add ISE Rule 1614(d)(4), which will provide that any member who enters an order into PIM for less than 50 contracts, while the difference between the NBBO is $0.01, must provide price improvement of at least one minimum price improvement increment better than the NBBO on the opposite side of the market from the Agency Order, which increment may not be smaller than $0.01. Failure to provide such price improvement will result in members being subject to the following fines: $500 for the second offense, $1,000 for the third offense, and $2,500 for the fourth offense. Subsequent offenses will subject the member to formal disciplinary action. The Exchange will review violations on a monthly cycle to assess these violations. This provision shall also be in effect for the period beginning January 19, 2017 until a date specified by the Exchange in a Regulatory Information Circular, which date shall be no later than September 15, 2017.
The Exchange is also proposing a systems-based mechanism to implement this price improvement requirement, which shall be effective following the migration of a symbol to INET, the platform operated by Nasdaq, Inc. that will also operate the PIM.
The Exchange will retain the current requirements for PIM eligibility in all other instances. Accordingly, if the Agency Order is for 50 option contracts or more or if the difference between the NBBO is greater than $0.01, the Crossing Transaction must be entered only at a price that is equal to or better than the NBBO and better than the limit order or quote on the ISE order book on the same side as the Agency Order.
The Exchange believes that these changes to PIM may provide additional opportunities for Agency Orders of fewer than 50 option contracts to receive price improvement over the NBBO where the difference in the NBBO is $0.01.
Two components of the PIM were approved by the Commission on a pilot basis: (1) The early conclusion of the PIM;
During the Pilot period, the Exchange submitted certain data periodically as required by the Commission, to provide supporting evidence that, among other things, there is meaningful competition for all size orders, there is significant price improvement available through the PIM, and that there is an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the Auction mechanism.
Supplemental Material .03 to Rule 723 provides that, as part of the current Pilot, there will be no minimum size requirement for orders to be eligible for the Auction. The Exchange believes that the data gathered since the approval of
The Exchange compiled price improvement data in simple PIM orders from January through June 2016. For January 2016, where the order was on behalf of a Public Customer, the order was for 50 contracts or less, and ISE was at the NBBO, the most contracts traded (194,249) occurred when the spread was between $0.05 and $0.10.
In comparison, in January 2016, where the order was on behalf of a Public Customer, and the order was for greater than 50 contracts, and ISE was at the NBBO, the most contracts traded (14,078) occurred where the spread was between $0.10 and $0.20. Of those contracts, the greatest number of contracts (6,254) received price improvement of $0.05 to $0.10, and 44 contracts received no price improvement.
In January 2016, where the order was on behalf of a Public Customer, the order was for 50 contracts or less, and ISE was not at the NBBO, the most contracts traded (76,326) occurred when the spread was between $0.05 and $0.10. Of these contracts, the greatest number of contracts (18,008) received no price improvement.
In comparison, in January 2016, where the order was on behalf of a Public Customer, the order was for greater than 50 contracts, and ISE was not at the NBBO, the most contracts traded (10,541) occurred when the spread was between $0.10 and $0.20. Of these contracts, the greatest number (3,738) received price improvement of $0.05 to $0.10.
In January 2016, the greatest number of complex orders traded (2,139) traded when the spread was at $0.05. Of those orders, 181 represented orders of 50 or fewer contracts. During that period, the highest percentage (29.30%) of orders of greater than 50 contracts received $0.01 price improvement, and the highest percentage (20.4%) received no price improvement.
ISE believes that the data gathered during the Pilot period indicates that there is meaningful competition in PIM auctions for all size orders, there is an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the auction mechanism, and that, coupled with the proposed requirements for price improvement for options orders of under 50 contracts, there are opportunities for significant price improvement for orders executed through PIM.
Supplemental Material .05 to Rule 723 provides that Rule 723(c)(5) and Rule 723(d)(4), which relate to the termination of the exposure period by unrelated orders shall be part of the current Pilot. Rule 723(c)(5) provides that the exposure period will automatically terminate (i) at the end of the 500 millisecond period,
As with the no minimum size requirement, the Exchange has gathered data on these three conditions to assess the effect of early PIM conclusions on the Pilot. For the period from January 2016 through June 2016, there were a total of 673 early terminated Auctions. The number of orders in early terminated PIM auctions constituted 0.15% of total PIM orders.
Based on the data gathered during the Pilot, the Exchange does not anticipate that any of these conditions will occur with significant frequency in either simple or complex orders, or will otherwise significantly affect the functioning of the PIM.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, with Section 6(b) of the Act.
As part of its proposal, the Exchange provided summary data on Exhibit 3 of its filing for the period January through June 2016, which the Exchange and Commission both publicly posted on their respective Web sites. Among other things, this data is useful in assessing the level of price improvement in the Auction, in particular for orders for fewer than 50 contracts; the degree of competition for order flow in such Auctions; and a comparison of liquidity in the Auctions with liquidity on the Exchange generally.
The Exchange's proposal to modify the Auction eligibility requirements for orders of fewer than 50 contracts and seek permanent approval of the Pilot, as amended with the new provision, will, in the Commission's view, promote opportunities for price improvement for such orders when the NBBO is $0.01 wide, while continuing to provide opportunities for price improvement when spreads are wider than $0.01.
In addition, the Commission has carefully evaluated the Pilot data and has determined that it would be beneficial to customers and to the options market as a whole to approve on a permanent basis the provisions concerning early conclusion of the PIM. The Commission notes that there have been few instances of early termination of the PIM.
The Commission believes that, particularly for Auctions for fewer than 50 contracts when the bid/ask differential is wider than $0.01, the data provided by the Exchange support its proposal to make the Pilot permanent. The data demonstrate that the Auction generally provides price improvement opportunities to orders, including orders of retail customers and particularly when the bid/ask differential is wider than $0.01; that there is meaningful competition for orders on the Exchange; and that there exists an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the Auction.
The Commission further notes that, as discussed more fully above, ISE is initially proposing to implement is price improvement requirement for Agency Orders of fewer than 50 option contracts where the difference in the NBBO is $0.01 with a member conduct standard.
Thus, the Commission has determined to approve the Exchange's proposed revisions to ISE Rule 723(b), Supplementary Material .03 and .05 to ISE Rule 723, and ISE Rule 1614(d), and to approve the Pilot, as proposed to be modified, on a permanent basis.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 25, 2016, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (“MIAX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
PRIME is a process by which a MIAX Member may electronically submit for execution an order it represents as agent (“Agency Order”) against principal interest and/or an Agency Order against solicited interest.
In November 2014, MIAX established a pilot program (the “Pilot”) to permit orders of any size to initiate a PRIME Auction at a price that is at or better than the national best bid or offer (“NBBO”).
The Exchange proposes to make the Pilot permanent. The Exchange further proposes to adopt new Rule 515A(a)(1)(iii) to state that if, at the time of receipt of an Agency Order of fewer than 50 contracts, the NBBO has a bid/ask differential of $0.01, the System
In support of its proposal, the Exchange has provided the Commission with data for PRIME executions from January 2015 through January 2016.
The Exchange also believes that the data show that there is an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the PRIME.
While the Exchange continues to believe that opportunities remain for price improvement of Agency Orders with a size of less than 50 contracts when the NBBO has a bid/ask differential of $0.01 (
In addition to seeking permanent approval of the Pilot, the Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 515A(a)(1)(iii) to require that if, at the time of receipt of an Agency Order of fewer than 50 contracts, the NBBO has a bid/ask differential of $0.01,
The Exchange does believe, however, that based on the data there is significant price improvement, and significant opportunity for price improvement, for all Agency Orders submitted when the NBBO bid/ask differential is greater than $0.01.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, with Section 6(b) of the Act.
As part of its proposal, the Exchange provided summary data on Exhibit 3 of its filing for the period January through June 2015, which the Exchange and Commission both publicly posted on their respective Web sites. Among other things, this data is useful in assessing the level of price improvement in the Auction, in particular for orders for fewer than 50 contracts; the degree of competition for order flow in such Auctions; and a comparison of liquidity in the Auctions with liquidity on the Exchange generally.
The Commission believes that, particularly for Auctions for fewer than 50 contracts when the bid/ask differential is wider than $0.01, the data provided by the Exchange support its proposal to make the Pilot permanent. The data demonstrate that the Auction generally provides price improvement opportunities to orders, including orders of retail customers and particularly when the bid/ask differential is wider than $0.01, that there is meaningful competition for orders on the Exchange; and that there exists an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the Auction.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 12, 2016, ISE Gemini, LLC (the “Exchange” or “ISE Gemini”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange adopted PIM as part of its application to be registered as a national securities exchange under its previous name of Topaz Exchange, LLC (“Topaz”).
Currently, the PIM may be initiated if certain conditions are met. The Crossing Transaction must be entered only at a price that is equal to or better than the National Best Bid/Offer (“NBBO”) on the opposite side of the market from the Agency Order, and better than the limit order or quote on the ISE Gemini order book on the same side of the Agency Order.
ISE Gemini proposes to amend ISE Gemini Rule 723(b) to require EAMs to provide at least $0.01 price improvement for an Agency Order if that order is for less than 50 option contracts and if the difference between the NBBO is $0.01. For the period beginning January 19, 2017 until a date specified by the Exchange in a Regulatory Information Circular, which date shall be no later than April 15, 2017, ISE Gemini will adopt a member conduct standard to implement this
Failure to provide such price improvement will subject members to the fines set forth in ISE Rule 1614(d)(4).
The Exchange is also proposing a systems-based mechanism to implement this price improvement requirement, which shall be effective following the migration of a symbol to INET, the platform operated by Nasdaq, Inc. that will also operate the PIM.
The Exchange will retain the current requirements for PIM eligibility in all other instances. Accordingly, if the Agency Order is for 50 option contracts or more or if the difference between the NBBO is greater than $0.01, the Crossing Transaction must be entered only at a price that is equal to or better than the NBBO and better than the limit order or quote on the ISE Gemini order book on the same side as the Agency Order.
The Exchange believes that these changes to PIM may provide additional opportunities for Agency Orders of fewer than 50 option contracts to receive price improvement over the NBBO where the difference in the NBBO is $0.01 and therefore encourage the increased submission of orders of under 50 option contracts.
Two components of the PIM were approved by the Commission on a pilot basis: (1) The early conclusion of the PIM;
During the Pilot period, the Exchange submitted certain data periodically as required by the Commission, to provide supporting evidence that, among other things, there is meaningful competition for all size orders, there is significant price improvement available through the PIM, and that there is an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the Auction mechanism.
Supplemental Material .03 to Rule 723 provides that, as part of the current Pilot, there will be no minimum size requirement for orders to be eligible for the Auction. The Exchange believes that the data gathered since the approval of the Pilot, which it discussed in the Notice, establishes that there is liquidity and competition both within the PIM and outside of the PIM, and that there are opportunities for significant price improvement within the PIM.
The Exchange compiled price improvement data in orders from January through June 2016. For January 2016, where the order was on behalf of a Public Customer, the order was for 50 contracts or less, and ISE Gemini was at the NBBO, the most contracts traded (4,192) occurred when the spread was between $0.05 and $0.10.
In comparison, in January 2016, where the order was on behalf of a Public Customer, and the order was for greater than 50 contracts, and ISE Gemini was at the NBBO, the most contracts traded (1,495) occurred where the spread was $0.02. Of those contracts, the greatest number of contracts (979) received $0.01 price improvement, and 456 contracts received no price improvement.
In January 2016, where the order was on behalf of a Public Customer, the order was for 50 contracts or less, and ISE Gemini was not at the NBBO, the most contracts traded (1,403) occurred when the spread was between $0.05 and $0.10. Of this category, the greatest number of contracts (570) received
In comparison, in January 2016, where the order was on behalf of a Public Customer, and order was for greater than 50 contracts, and ISE Gemini was not at the NBBO, the most contracts traded (4,846) occurred where the spread was $0.05—$0.10. Of those contracts, the greatest number of contracts (1,234) received $0.01 price improvement, and 1,008 contracts received no price improvement.
ISE Gemini believes that the data gathered during the Pilot period indicates that there is meaningful competition in PIM auctions for all size orders, there is an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the auction mechanism, and that there are opportunities for significant price improvement for orders executed through PIM.
Supplemental Material .05 to Rule 723 provides that Rule 723(c)(5) and Rule 723(d)(4), which relate to the termination of the exposure period by unrelated orders shall be part of the current Pilot. Rule 723(c)(5) provides that the exposure period will automatically terminate (i) at the end of the 500 millisecond period,
As with the no minimum size requirement, the Exchange has gathered data on these three conditions to assess the effect of early PIM conclusions on the Pilot. For the period from January 2016 through June 2016, there were a total of 65 early terminated Auctions. The number of orders in early terminated PIM auctions constituted 0.08% of total PIM orders.
Based on the data gathered during the Pilot, the Exchange does not anticipate that any of these conditions will occur with significant frequency, or will otherwise significantly affect the functioning of the PIM.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, with Section 6(b) of the Act.
As part of its proposal, the Exchange provided summary data on Exhibit 3 of its filing for the period January through June 2016, which the Exchange and Commission both publicly posted on their respective Web sites. Among other things, this data is useful in assessing the level of price improvement in the Auction, in particular for orders of fewer than 50 contracts; the degree of competition for order flow in such Auctions; and a comparison of liquidity in the Auctions with liquidity on the Exchange generally.
The Exchange's proposal to modify the Auction eligibility requirements for orders of fewer than 50 contracts and seek permanent approval of the Pilot, as amended with the new provision, will, in the Commission's view, promote opportunities for price improvement for such orders when the NBBO is $0.01 wide, while continuing to provide opportunities for price improvement when spreads are wider than $0.01.
In addition, the Commission has carefully evaluated the Pilot data and has determined that it would be beneficial to customers and to the options market as a whole to approve on a permanent basis the provisions concerning early conclusion of the PIM. The Commission notes that there have been few instances of early termination of the PIM.
The Commission believes that, particularly for Auctions for fewer than 50 contracts when the bid/ask differential is wider than $0.01, the data provided by the Exchange support its proposal to make the Pilot permanent. The data demonstrate that the Auction generally provides price improvement opportunities to orders, including orders of retail customers and particularly when the bid/ask differential is wider than $0.01; that there is meaningful competition for orders on the Exchange; and that there
The Commission further notes that, as discussed more fully above, ISE Gemini is initially proposing to implement is price improvement requirement for Agency Orders of fewer than 50 option contracts where the difference in the NBBO is $0.01 with a member conduct standard.
Thus, the Commission has determined to approve the Exchange's proposed revisions to ISE Gemini Rule 723(b) and Supplementary Material .03 and .05 to ISE Gemini Rule 723, and to approve the Pilot, as proposed to be modified, on a permanent basis.
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 its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (
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 make a number of amendments to its Order Routing Subsidy (ORS) and Complex Order Routing Subsidy (CORS) Programs (collectively “Programs”). By way of background, the ORS and CORS Programs allow CBOE to enter into subsidy arrangements with any CBOE Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) (each, a “Participating TPH”) or Non-CBOE TPH broker-dealer (each a “Participating Non-CBOE TPH”) that meet certain criteria and provide certain order routing functionalities to other CBOE TPHs, Non-CBOE TPHs and/or use such functionalities themselves.
The Exchange first proposes to exclude customer orders from the Programs and eliminate the customer order subsidy. The Exchange also proposes to increase the subsidy for non-customer orders from $0.06 per contract to $0.07 per contract under both ORS and CORS. The Exchange notes that another Exchange with a similar subsidy program also does not provide subsidies for customer orders.
The Exchange next proposes to amend one of the system requirements under the Programs. Specifically, the Exchange notes that to qualify for the subsidy arrangement under ORS and CORS, a Participant's order routing functionality has to, among other things, cause CBOE to be the default destination exchange for simple (under ORS) and complex (under CORS) orders, but allow any user to manually override CBOE as the default destination on an order-by-order basis. As the Exchange is proposing to eliminate subsidies for customer orders, the Exchange does not believe it's necessary to require that CBOE be set as the default destination exchange for customer orders. As such, the Exchange proposes to amend the Fees Schedule to provide that under the ORS and CORS programs, CBOE must be set as the default exchange for non-customer orders only (and still allow any user to manually override CBOE as the default destination on an order-by-order basis).
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed amendments to the ORS and CORS Programs are reasonable because the proposed changes still affords Participants an opportunity to receive payments to subsidize the costs associated with providing certain order routing functionalities that would otherwise go unsubsidized. Additionally, the Exchange believes the increased $0.07 per contract subsidy for non-customer orders is reasonable because it is within the range of subsidies paid by another exchange under a similar subsidy program.
The Exchange believes the elimination of the requirement to set CBOE as the default destination for customer orders is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will no longer be providing a subsidy for such orders.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impose an unnecessary burden on intramarket competition because they will apply equally to all participating parties. Although the subsidy for orders routed to CBOE through a Participant's system only applies to Participants of the Programs, the subsidies are designed to encourage the sending of more orders to the Exchange, which should provide greater liquidity and trading opportunities for all market participants. Additionally, although customer orders will no longer be eligible for subsidies under the programs, customer orders are eligible for other rebates, discounts or fee caps.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
CHX proposes to amend the Rules of the Exchange (“CHX Rules”) to modify the examination requirement for CHX Market Maker Authorized Traders (“MMATs”). The text of this proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at (
In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes [sic] 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 CHX 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 CHX Rules to modify the examination requirement for CHX Market Maker Authorized Traders (“MMATs”). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the requirement that prospective MMATs successfully complete the CHX Market Maker Authorized Trader Exam, which is an examination currently maintained and administered by the Exchange for prospective MMATs. In lieu of the CHX Market Maker Authorized Trader Exam, the Exchange proposes to require prospective MMATs to successfully complete the Series 57 Securities Trader Examination
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change would harmonize the Exchange's MMAT examination requirement with the MMAT examination requirements of other national securities exchanges that require prospective MMATs (or equivalents) to successfully complete the Series 57 Securities Trader Examination.
Current Article 16, Rule 3(b) provides the registration requirements for MMATs. Thereunder, current paragraph (b)(2) provides that to be eligible for registration as an MMAT, a person must be registered with the Exchange as provided in Article 6 and complete any other training and/or certification programs as may be required. Moreover, current paragraph .01(b) of the Interpretations and Policies of Article 6, Rule 3 provides that prior to the Exchange approving a Participant's request to register an individual as an MMAT, such individual must successfully complete the Market Maker Authorized Trader Exam.
In order to further streamline and bring consistency to the qualification and registration requirements for MMATs (or equivalents) across different markets, the Exchange now proposes to eliminate the Market Maker Authorized Trader Exam and instead require prospective MMATs to successfully complete the Series 57 Securities Trader Examination in order to satisfy the Exchange's MMAT examination requirement. To this end, the Exchange proposes to delete current paragraph .01(b) of the Interpretations and Policies of Article 6, Rule 3 in its entirety and amend current Article 16, Rule 3(b)(2) to provide as follows:
To be eligible for registration as a MMAT, a person must successfully complete the Series 57 Securities Trader Examination and any other training and/or certification programs as may be required by the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by promoting consistency and uniformity among different markets
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will reduce the regulatory burden placed on market participants engaged in market making activities across different markets. The Exchange believes that the harmonization of the MMAT examination requirements across the various markets will reduce burdens on competition by removing impediments to participation in the national market system.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Exchange notes that the proposal meets the required qualifications for effectiveness on filing under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest while not imposing any significant burden on competition because it will make the Chx's qualification and registration requirements for MMATs consistent with the qualification requirements of the other markets. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be operative on January 9, 2017.
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) of the Act 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 proposal 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 Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) options facility. While changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the changes will become operative on January 9, 2017. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet 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 Section III (Complex Order Transaction Fees) to specify that all Complex Order transactions executed through the Exchange's auction mechanisms will be subject to Section I (Exchange Fees) and II (Liquidity Fees and Credits) of the BOX Fee Schedule. The Exchange recently amended its rules to permit Complex Order
Generally, Complex Order transactions are subject to the fees and credits set forth in Section III (Complex Order Transaction Fees) of the BOX Fee Schedule while transactions executed through the Facilitation and Solicitation auction mechanisms are subject to Sections I (Exchange Fees) and II (Liquidity Fees and Credits). The Exchange proposes to add language that clarifies that Complex Order transactions executed through Auction Mechanisms
Under Section I (Exchange Fees), the Exchange proposes the following fees for Complex Order transactions executed through the Solicitation auction mechanism. For Agency Orders
The Exchange then proposes to treat Complex Order transactions executed through the Solicitation mechanism in the same manner as single legged Solicitation transactions for liquidity fees and credits, which are applied in addition to any applicable exchange fees as described in Section I of the Fee Schedule. The fee structure for liquidity fees and credits for Complex Orders executed through the Solicitation mechanisms will be as follows:
Complex Order transactions executed through the Solicitation mechanism will be assessed a “removal” credit only if the Agency Order does not trade with their contra order. Responses to Complex Order transactions executed through the Solicitation mechanism shall be charged the “add” fee.
Finally, the Exchange is proposing to make additional non-substantive changes to the Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange is renumbering certain footnotes to accommodate the above proposed changes to the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposal to specify that Complex Order transactions executed through the Exchange's Auction Mechanisms are subject to fees and credits in Sections I (Exchange Fees) and II (Liquidity Fees and Credits) is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The new ability for Complex Order transactions to execute through the Solicitation Auction mechanism is similar to Complex Orders executing through the COPIP and Facilitation Auction mechanisms. As such, the Exchange believes it is reasonable for the fees for Complex Orders executed through the Solicitation mechanism to mimic the current COPIP and Facilitation mechanism transaction fees.
Currently, for Facilitation Orders, the Exchange assesses a $0.15 per contract fee for Professional Customers, Broker Dealers and Market Makers in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Classes and does not assess a fee for Public Customers. The Exchange proposes to assess the same fees for Solicitation Orders. The Exchange believes that charging Professional Customers and Broker Dealers and Market Makers more than Public Customers for Solicitation Orders is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The securities markets generally, and BOX in particular, have historically aimed to improve markets for investors and develop various features within the market structure for Public Customer benefit. The Exchange believes that charging lower fees to Public Customers in Facilitation and Solicitation transactions is reasonable and, ultimately, will benefit all Participants trading on the Exchange by attracting Public Customer order flow.
Currently, for Responses in the Facilitation Auction mechanism, the Exchange assesses a $0.25 fee in Penny Pilot Classes and a $0.40 fee in Non-Penny Pilot Classes, regardless of account type. The Exchange proposes to assess the same fees for Responses in the Solicitation Auction mechanism. The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge higher exchange fees for responders to Complex Orders in the Solicitation auction than for initiators of these orders. Moreover, the higher fees for responders to Complex Orders are similar with fees charged by another options exchange.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to establish different fees for Solicitation transactions in Penny Pilot Classes compared to transactions in Non-Penny Pilot Classes. The Exchange makes this distinction throughout the BOX Fee Schedule, including the Exchange Fees for PIP and COPIP Transactions. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to establish higher fees for Non-Penny Pilot Classes because these Classes are typically less actively traded and have wider spreads.
The Exchange believes the proposed liquidity fees and credits for Complex Orders executed through the Solicitation auction mechanism are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Specifically, the Exchange believes the liquidity fees and credits fee structure aims to attract order flow to the Solicitation mechanism, potentially providing greater liquidity within the overall BOX Market to the benefit of all BOX market participants. The Exchange notes that the proposed fees and credits for Complex Order transactions executed through the Solicitation mechanism offset one another in any particular transaction.
The Exchange continues to believe it is reasonable to establish different fees and credits for Solicitation transactions in Penny Pilot Classes compared to transactions in Non-Penny Pilot Classes. The Exchange makes this distinction throughout the BOX Fee Schedule, including the liquidity fees and credits for PIP and COPIP Transactions. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to establish higher fees and credits for Non-Penny Pilot Classes because these Classes are typically less actively traded and have wider spreads. The Exchange believes that offering a higher rebate will incentivize order flow in Non-Penny Pilot issues on the Exchange, ultimately benefitting all Participants trading on BOX.
Further, the Exchange continues to believe it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to only assess liquidity fees and credits on Agency Orders that do not trade with their contra order, and the Responses to these Orders. As stated above, liquidity fees and credits are meant to incentivize order flow, and the Exchange believes incentives are not necessary for internalized orders in these mechanisms that only trade against their contra order. Additionally, other Exchanges also make this distinction in their Solicitation auction mechanism.
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing exchanges. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
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 proposed change is designed to provide greater specificity and precision within the Fee Schedule with respect to the fees that will be applicable to Complex Order transactions executed through the Exchange's Solicitation auction mechanism.
The Exchange believes that adopting these fees will not impose a burden on competition among various Exchange Participants. The proposed fees are meant to mimic the fees currently assessed for Complex Orders executed through the Facilitation auction mechanism. Submitting an order through an auction mechanism is entirely voluntary and Participants can determine which type of order they wish to submit, if any, to the Exchange.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees will enhance competition between exchanges because it is designed to allow the Exchange to better compete with other exchanges for Complex Order flow. In this regard, the new feature which allows Complex Order transactions to execute through the Solicitation mechanism is being introduced by the Exchange and BOX is unable to absolutely determine the impact that the proposed fees proposed herein will have on trading. That said, however, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further 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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 15.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4285-DR), dated 10/10/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of NORTH CAROLINA, dated 10/10/2016 is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 01/23/2017.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
60 Day Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Small Business Administration's intentions to request approval on a new and/or currently approved information collection.
Submit comments on or before March 27, 2017.
Send all comments regarding whether this information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, whether the burden estimates are accurate, and if there are ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the collections, to Jamie Davenport, Supervisory Financial Analyst, Office of Economic Opportunity, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416.
Jamie Davenport, Supervisory Financial Analyst, 202-207-7516
This revised information collection is submitted to SBA by lenders that are applying for participation in SBA's Community Advantage Pilot Program. SBA uses the information to evaluate the lenders' eligibility and qualifications for participation in the pilot program.
SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 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,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 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,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 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,
For further information, including an object list, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
On December 29, 2016, Dakota Southern Railway Company (DSRC), a Class III rail carrier, filed a notice for a modified certificate of public convenience and necessity, pursuant to 49 CFR pt. 1150 subpart C—
DSRC states that the entire rail line from Napa, S.D. (MP 0.0) to Platte, S.D. (MP 83.3), which includes the Line, was authorized for abandonment in 1980 by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois following the issuance of a report by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) recommending abandonment.
Effective December 1, 2016, DSRC leased the Line from the South Dakota Department of Transportation and agreed to assume all common carrier obligations related to the operation of the Line. (
The Line qualifies for a modified certificate of public convenience and necessity.
DSRC states that no subsidy is involved and that there are no preconditions for shippers to meet to receive rail service. DSRC has also provided a certificate of liability insurance for commercial general liability and excess railroad liability insurance.
This notice will be served on the Association of American Railroads (Car Service Division) as agent for all railroads subscribing to the car-service and car-hire agreement at 425 Third Street SW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20024; and on the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association at 50 F Street NW., Suite 7020, Washington, DC 20001.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is updating the identifying information for one person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the following authorities: Executive Order (E.O.) E.O. 13304.
OFAC's actions described in this notice were effective on January 18, 2017, as further specified below.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202-622-2410.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's Web site (
On January 18, 2017, the Associate Director of the Office of Global Targeting updated the SDN List for the individual listed below, whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13304, “Termination of Emergencies With Respect to Yugoslavia and Modification of Executive Order 13219 of June 26, 2001”:
DODIK, Milorad, Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina; DOB 12 Mar 1959; Gender Male (individual) [BALKANS].
DODIK, Milorad, Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina; DOB 12 Mar 1959; Gender Male (individual) [BALKANS].
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 6524, Office of Chief Counsel— Application.
Written comments should be received on or before March 27, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning S Corporation Guidance under AJCA of 2004.
Written comments should be received on or before March 27, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Tuawana Pinkston at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The reporting burden contained in § 301.6501(c)-1(f) is reflected in the burden for Form 709, U.S. Gift (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning residence of trusts and estates—7701.
Written comments should be received on or before March 27, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Kerry Dennis at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Department of the Treasury, Departmental Offices; United States Trade Representative, Services and Investment.
Notice of Availability; Final Legal Text of Bilateral Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on Prudential Measures Regarding Insurance and Reinsurance (Covered Agreement).
By this Notice, the Federal Insurance Office of the Department of the Treasury (FIO) and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announce the availability of the final legal text of a Covered Agreement entered into between the United States and the European Union regarding certain prudential measures with respect to insurance and reinsurance.
The Covered Agreement text is available on Treasury's Web site at
Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 313-314, the Federal Insurance Office Act of 2010 (FIO Act) authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury (Treasury) and the USTR jointly to negotiate a covered agreement with one or more foreign governments, authorities, or regulatory entities. A covered agreement is a “written bilateral or multilateral agreement regarding prudential measures with respect to the business of insurance or reinsurance . . . .”
The FIO Act provides that a covered agreement may enter into force only if Treasury and USTR jointly submit to the Financial Services and Ways and Means Committees of the House of Representatives and the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and Finance Committees of the Senate a copy of the final legal text of the agreement on a day in which both Houses of Congress are in session and a period of ninety calendar days beginning on the date of submission has expired. On January 13, 2017, Treasury and USTR submitted a copy of the final legal text of the Covered Agreement to these four committees.
Text of the Covered Agreement is available in its entirety on Treasury's Web site at
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2) that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Structural Safety of Department of Veterans Affairs Facilities will be held on February 22-23, 2017, in Room 6W.306, 425 I Street NW., Washington, DC. On February 22, the session will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m.; and on February 23, the session will start at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at 1:00 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on matters of structural safety in the construction and remodeling of VA facilities and to recommend standards for use by VA in the construction and alteration of its facilities.
On February 22-23, the Committee will receive appropriate briefings and presentations on current seismic, natural hazards, and fire safety issues that are particularly relevant to facilities owned and leased by the Department. The Committee will also discuss appropriate structural and fire safety recommendations for inclusion in VA's construction standards.
No time will be allocated for receiving oral presentations from the public. However, the Committee will accept written comments. Comments should be sent to Donald Myers, Director, Facilities Standards Service, Office of Construction & Facilities Management (003C2B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 425 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001, or via email at
| 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 |