| Page Range | 8571-8655 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 8628 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 8626 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 8589 - Delay of Effective Date for Importations of Certain Vehicles and Engines Subject to Federal Antipollution Emission Standards | |
| 82 FR 8590 - Delay of Effective Date for Toxic Substance Control Act Chemical Substance Import Certification Process Revisions | |
| 82 FR 8613 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 82 FR 8647 - Notice of Determinations: Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “ | |
| 82 FR 8629 - Section 512 Study: Extension of Comment Period | |
| 82 FR 8613 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
| 82 FR 8611 - Meeting of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee | |
| 82 FR 8630 - Program-Specific Guidance About Self-Shielded Irradiators | |
| 82 FR 8654 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 8630 - Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB Review | |
| 82 FR 8654 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8819 | |
| 82 FR 8651 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Notice 2009-72 and Notice 2013-12 | |
| 82 FR 8650 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 82 FR 8653 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Notice 2012-41 | |
| 82 FR 8651 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 82 FR 8649 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8874-B | |
| 82 FR 8621 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 8619 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 8652 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8923 | |
| 82 FR 8653 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 82 FR 8606 - Truck and Bus Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part | |
| 82 FR 8599 - Truck and Bus Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances | |
| 82 FR 8605 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Hardwood Plywood Products From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination | |
| 82 FR 8609 - Ocean Exploration Advisory Board | |
| 82 FR 8627 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 82 FR 8614 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 8648 - CSX Transportation, Inc.-Abandonment Exemption-in Greenbrier and Fayette Counties,W. Va. | |
| 82 FR 8617 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 8626 - Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation | |
| 82 FR 8610 - Record of Decision for the Fort Campbell Training Mission and Mission Support Activities Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Fort Campbell, KY | |
| 82 FR 8611 - Intent To Grant an Exclusive License of U.S. Government-Owned Patents | |
| 82 FR 8613 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 82 FR 8629 - Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities; Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 8628 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act | |
| 82 FR 8647 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Past is Present: Revival Jewelry” Exhibition | |
| 82 FR 8629 - Proposal Review Panel for Environmental Biology; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 8647 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Repatriation/Emergency Medical and Dietary Assistance Loan Application | |
| 82 FR 8599 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
| 82 FR 8623 - Certain Air Mattress Systems, Components Thereof, and Methods of Using the Same Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding | |
| 82 FR 8609 - United States Investment Advisory Council: Meeting of the United States Investment Advisory Council | |
| 82 FR 8632 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 8642 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Convert the Listing of the Shares of the SPDR DoubleLine Short Term Total Return Tactical ETF and the SPDR DoubleLine Emerging Markets Fixed Income ETF, Both of Which Are a Series of the SSGA Active Trust, Pursuant to BZX Rule 14.11(i), Managed Fund Shares | |
| 82 FR 8641 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the PowerShares Government Collateral Pledge Portfolio Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 | |
| 82 FR 8632 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Data Fees at Rule 7023 | |
| 82 FR 8645 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of the Shares of the Gabelli All Cap NextShares of the Gabelli NextShares Trust | |
| 82 FR 8636 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Give Up of a Clearing Trading Permit Holder | |
| 82 FR 8631 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt an Options Regulatory Fee | |
| 82 FR 8632 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Options Regulatory Fee | |
| 82 FR 8631 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 8644 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 8641 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 8611 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 8612 - Lock +TM | |
| 82 FR 8612 - Fitzgerald, Brian; Notice of Filing | |
| 82 FR 8649 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 8620 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 8621 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 8618 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 8618 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 8618 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 8619 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 8621 - National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 8649 - Release of Waybill Data | |
| 82 FR 8588 - Regulatory Implementation of the Centers of Excellence and Expertise | |
| 82 FR 8622 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless | |
| 82 FR 8590 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Extension of Temporary Placement of THJ-2201, AB-PINACA and AB-CHMINACA in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act | |
| 82 FR 8593 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA and THJ-2201 Into Schedule I | |
| 82 FR 8571 - Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments for Inflation | |
| 82 FR 8584 - Rules of Practice and Procedure; Rules of Practice and Procedure in Adjudicatory Proceedings; Civil Money Penalty Inflation Adjustments |
Economic Development Administration
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Drug Enforcement Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
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.
Department of Homeland Security.
Final rule.
This Final Rule finalizes the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Interim Final Rule that adjusted DHS civil monetary penalties for inflation. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Act) was signed into law on November 2, 2015. Using the formula in the 2015 Act and guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), DHS calculated adjusted penalties. On July 1, 2016, DHS published an Interim Final Rule setting forth the adjusted civil penalty amounts, effective for civil penalties assessed after August 1, 2016 whose associated violations occurred after November 2, 2015.
Pursuant to the 2015 Act, all agencies must adjust civil monetary penalties annually and publish the adjustment in the
This rule is effective on January 27, 2017.
Megan Westmoreland, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Phone: 202-447-4384.
On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-74 section 701 (Nov. 2, 2105)) (2015 Act).
For the subsequent annual adjustments, the 2015 Act requires agencies to increase the penalty amounts by a cost-of-living adjustment. The 2015 Act directs OMB to provide guidance to agencies each year to assist agencies in making the annual adjustments. The 2015 Act requires agencies to make the annual adjustments no later than January 15 of each year and to publish the adjustments in the
Pursuant to the 2015 Act, DHS undertook a review of the civil penalties that DHS and its components administer.
This rule adopts, as final, the civil monetary penalty adjustment methodology that DHS announced in the IFR. This Final Rule also makes the 2017 annual inflation adjustment pursuant to the 2015 Act and pursuant to guidance OMB issued to agencies on
The IFR established the initial “catch-up” adjustment for all civil penalties that DHS and its components administer. This Final Rule makes the next adjustment to the amounts, pursuant to the 2015 Act and upon OMB guidance. The adjusted penalty amounts will apply to penalties assessed after the effective date of this Final Rule. We discuss civil penalties by DHS component in Section III below. For each component identified in Section III, below, we briefly describe the relevant civil penalty (or penalties), and we provide a table showing the increase in the penalties for 2017. In the table for each component, we show (1) the penalty name, (2) the penalty statutory and/or regulatory citation, (3) the penalty amount as adjusted in the IFR, (4) the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2017 that OMB provided in its December 16, 2016 guidance, and (5) the new 2017 adjusted penalty. For a more complete discussion of the method used for calculating the initial “catch-up” inflation adjustments and a component-by-component breakdown to the nature of the civil penalties and relevant legal authorities, please see the IFR preamble at 81 FR 42987-43000.
In the following sections, we briefly describe the civil penalties that DHS and its components assess. We include tables at the end of each section, which list the individual adjustments for each penalty.
The National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) administers only one civil penalty that the 2015 Act affects. That penalty assesses fines for violations of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS). CFATS is a program that regulates the security of chemical facilities that, in the discretion of the Secretary, present high levels of security risk. DHS established the CFATS program in 2007 pursuant to section 550 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 109-295).
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) assesses civil monetary penalties for certain violations of title 8 of the CFR regarding the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Pub. L. 82-414, as amended) (INA). The INA contains provisions that impose penalties on persons, including carriers and aliens, who violate specified provisions of the INA. CBP's relevant penalty provisions are located in numerous sections of the INA, however CBP has enumerated these penalties in regulation in one location—in 8 CFR 280.53. For a complete list of the INA sections for which penalties are assessed, in addition to a brief description of each violation, see the IFR preamble at 81 FR 42989-42990. Below is a table showing the 2017 adjustment for the penalties that CBP administers.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) assesses civil monetary penalties for certain employment-related violations arising from the INA. ICE's civil penalties are located in title 8 of the CFR.
There are three different sections in the INA that impose civil monetary penalties for violations of the laws that relate to employment actions: Sections 274A, 274B, and 274C. ICE has primary enforcement responsibilities for two of these civil penalty provisions (sections 274A and 274C), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) has enforcement responsibilities for one of these civil penalty provisions (section 274B). The INA, in sections 274A and 274C, provides for imposition of civil penalties for various specified unlawful acts pertaining to the employment eligibility verification process (Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification)
Because both DHS and DOJ implement the three employment-related penalty sections in the INA, both Departments are codifying the civil penalty amounts in their implementing regulations. For a complete description of the civil money penalties assessed and a discussion of DHS's and DOJ's efforts to update the penalties in years past, see the IFR preamble at 81 FR 42991. Below is a table showing the 2017 adjustment for the penalties that ICE administers.
The Coast Guard is authorized to assess close to 150 penalties involving maritime safety and security and environmental stewardship that are critical to the continued success of Coast Guard missions. Various statutes in titles 14, 16, 19, 33, 42, 46, and 49 of the United States Code authorize these penalties. Titles 33 and 46 authorize the vast majority of these penalties as these statutes deal with navigation, navigable waters, and shipping. Beyond titles 33 and 46, the Coast Guard is also authorized to collect civil monetary penalties related to the organization and management of the Coast Guard, aquatic species conservation, obstruction of revenue, and hazardous substances and materials. For a complete discussion of the civil monetary penalties assessed by the Coast Guard, see the IFR preamble at 81 FR 42992.
The Coast Guard has identified the penalties it administers, adjusted those penalties for inflation, and is listing those new penalties in a table located in the CFR—specifically, Table 1 in 33 CFR 27.3. Table 1 in 33 CFR 27.3 identifies the statutes that provide the Coast Guard with civil monetary penalty authority and sets out the inflation-adjusted maximum penalty that the Coast Guard may impose pursuant to each statutory provision. Table 1 in 33 CFR 27.3 provides the current maximum penalty for violations that occurred after November 2, 2015. The applicable civil penalty amounts for violations occurring on or before November 2, 2015 are set forth in previously published regulations amending 33 CFR part 27. To find the applicable penalty amount for a violation that occurred on or before November 2, 2015, look to the prior versions of the CFR that pertain to the date on which the violation occurred. Table 4 below shows the 2017 adjustment for the penalties that the Coast Guard administers.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is updating its civil penalties regulation in accordance with the 2015 Act. Pursuant to its statutory authority in 49 U.S.C. 114(v), TSA may impose penalties for violations of any statute that TSA administers, whether an implementing regulation or order imposes the penalty.
DHS did not receive any public comments on the IFR.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires agencies to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
As discussed in the preamble to the IFR, DHS issued the IFR pursuant to the “good cause” exception in the APA. With respect to this Final Rule and future required annual adjustments, the 2015 Act, specifically instructed that agencies are to make the required annual adjustments notwithstanding section 553 of title 5 of the United States Code.
DHS is promulgating this Final Rule to ensure that the amount of civil penalties that DHS assesses or enforces reflects the statutorily mandated ranges as adjusted for inflation. The 2015 Act provides a clear formula for adjustment of the civil penalties, leaving DHS and its components with little room for discretion. DHS and its components have been charged only with performing ministerial computations to determine the amounts of adjustments for inflation to civil monetary penalties. Accordingly, and as specified in the 2015 Act, the prior public notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements of the APA do not apply to this rule.
As described in Section I above, the 2015 Act requires agencies to make annual adjustments to civil monetary penalties no later than January 15 of each year and to publish the adjustments in the
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. OMB has not designated this Final Rule a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed this rule.
This Final Rule makes nondiscretionary adjustments to existing civil monetary penalties in accordance with the 2015 Act and OMB guidance.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act applies only to rules for which an agency publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). See 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this Final Rule, because a notice of proposed rulemaking was not required for the reasons stated above.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. This Final Rule will not result in such an expenditure.
The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this Final Rule, because this Final Rule does not trigger any new or revised recordkeeping or reporting.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Employment, Fraud, Penalties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Employment, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Immigration, Penalties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Investigations, Law enforcement, Penalties.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, the interim rule amending 6 CFR part 27, 8 CFR parts 270, 274a, and 280, 33 CFR part 27, and 49 CFR part 1503, which was published at 81 FR 42987 on July 1, 2016, is adopted as a final rule with the following changes:
6 U.S.C. 624; Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 599.
(b) * * *
(3) Where the Assistant Secretary determines that a facility is in violation of an Order issued pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section and issues an Order Assessing Civil Penalty pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a chemical facility is liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for each day during which the violation continues, if the violation of the Order occurred on or before November 2, 2015, or $33,333 for each day during which the violation of the Order continues, if the violation occurred after November 2, 2015.
8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, and 1324c; Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 and Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 599.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1324a; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2; Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 599.
(b)
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) First offense—not less than $275 and not more than $2,200 for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom the offense occurred before March 27, 2008; not less than $375 and not exceeding $3,200, for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom the offense occurred occurring on or after March 27, 2008 and on or before November 2, 2015; and not less than $548 and not more than $4,384 for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom the offense occurred occurring after November 2, 2015.
(B) Second offense—not less than $2,200 and not more than $5,500 for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom the second offense occurred before March 27, 2008; not less than $3,200 and not more than $6,500, for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom the second offense occurred on or after March 27, 2008 and on or before November 2, 2015; and not less than $4,384 and not more than $10,957 for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom the second offense occurred after November 2, 2015; or
(C) More than two offenses—not less than $3,300 and not more than $11,000 for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom the third or subsequent offense occurred before March 27, 2008; not less than $4,300 and not exceeding $16,000, for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom the third or subsequent offense occurred on or after March 27, 2008 and on or before November 2, 2015; and not less than $6,575 and not more than $21,916 for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom the third or subsequent offense occurred after November 2, 2015; and
(2) A respondent determined by the Service (if a respondent fails to request a hearing) or by an administrative law judge, to have failed to comply with the employment verification requirements as set forth in § 274a.2(b), shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 for each individual with respect to whom such violation occurred before September 29, 1999; not less than $110 and not more than $1,100 for each individual with respect to whom such violation occurred on or after September 29, 1999 and on or before November 2, 2015; and not less than $220 and not more than $2,191 for each individual with respect to whom such violation occurred after November 2, 2015. In determining the amount of the penalty, consideration shall be given to:
(i) The size of the business of the employer being charged;
(ii) The good faith of the employer;
(iii) The seriousness of the violation;
(iv) Whether or not the individual was an unauthorized alien; and
(v) The history of previous violations of the employer.
8 U.S.C. 1103, 1221, 1223, 1227, 1229, 1253, 1281, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1286, 1322, 1323, 1330; 66 Stat. 173, 195, 197, 201, 203, 212, 219, 221-223, 226, 227, 230; Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 599.
(a)
(b)
(1) Section 231(g) of the Act, Penalties for non-compliance with arrival and departure manifest requirements for passengers, crewmembers, or occupants transported on commercial vessels or aircraft arriving to or departing from the United States: From $1,312 to $1,333.
(2) Section 234 of the Act, Penalties for non-compliance with landing requirements at designated ports of entry for aircraft transporting aliens: From $3,563 to $3,621.
(3) Section 240B(d) of the Act, Penalties for failure to depart voluntarily: From $1,502 minimum/$7,512 maximum to $1,527 minimum/$7,635 maximum.
(4) Section 243(c)(1)(A) of the Act, Penalties for violations of removal orders relating to aliens transported on vessels or aircraft, under section 241(d) of the Act, or for costs associated with removal under section 241(e) of the Act: From $3,005 to $3,054;
(5) Penalties for failure to remove alien stowaways under section 241(d)(2): From $7,512 to $7,635.
(6) Section 251(d) of the Act, Penalties for failure to report an illegal landing or desertion of alien crewmen, and for each alien not reported on arrival or departure manifest or lists required in accordance with section 251 of the Act: From $356 to $362; and penalties for use of alien crewmen for longshore work in violation of section 251(d) of the Act: From $8,908 to $9,054.
(7) Section 254(a) of the Act, Penalties for failure to control, detain, or remove alien crewmen: From $891 minimum/$5,345 maximum to $906 minimum/$5,432 maximum.
(8) Section 255 of the Act, Penalties for employment on passenger vessels of aliens afflicted with certain disabilities: From $1,782 to $1,811.
(9) Section 256 of the Act, Penalties for discharge of alien crewmen: From $2,672 minimum/$5,345 maximum to $2,716 minimum/$5,432 maximum.
(10) Section 257 of the Act, Penalties for bringing into the United States alien crewmen with intent to evade immigration laws: From $17,816 maximum to $18,107 maximum.
(11) Section 271(a) of the Act, Penalties for failure to prevent the unauthorized landing of aliens: From $5,345 to $5,432.
(12) Section 272(a) of the Act, Penalties for bringing to the United States aliens subject to denial of admission on a health-related ground: From $5,345 to $5,432.
(13) Section 273(b) of the Act, Penalties for bringing to the United States aliens without required documentation: From $5,345 to $5,432.
(14) Section 274D of the Act, Penalties for failure to depart: From $751 to $763, for each day the alien is in violation.
(15) Section 275(b) of the Act, Penalties for improper entry: From $75 minimum/$376 maximum to $76 minimum/$382 maximum, for each entry or attempted entry.
Secs. 1-6, Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by Sec. 31001(s)(1), Public Law 104-134, as amended by Public Law 114-74; 110 Stat. 1321 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, sec. 2 (106).
Table 1 identifies the statutes administered by the Coast Guard that authorize a civil monetary penalty. The “adjusted maximum penalty” is the maximum penalty authorized by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, as determined by the Coast Guard. The adjusted civil penalty amounts listed in Table 1 are applicable for penalty assessments issued after January 27, 2017, with respect to violations occurring after November 2, 2015. The applicable civil penalty amounts for violations occurring on or before November 2, 2015, are set forth in previously published regulations amending this part.
6 U.S.C. 1142; 18 U.S.C. 6002; 28 U.S.C. 2461 (note); 49 U.S.C. 114, 20109, 31105, 40113-40114, 40119, 44901-44907, 46101-46107, 46109-46110, 46301, 46305, 46311, 46313-46314; Public Law 104-134, as amended by Public Law 114-74.
(a)
(b)
(1) For violations that occurred on or before November 2, 2015, $10,000 per violation, up to a total of $50,000 per civil penalty action, in the case of an individual or small business concern, as defined in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). For
(2) For violations that occurred on or before November 2, 2015, $10,000 per violation, up to a total of $400,000 per civil penalty action, in the case of any other person. For violations that occurred after November 2, 2015, $11,182 per violation, up to a total of $447,280 per civil penalty action, in the case of any other person.
(c)
(1) For violations that occurred on or before November 2, 2015, $10,000 per violation, up to a total of $50,000 per civil penalty action, in the case of an individual or small business concern, as defined in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). For violations that occurred after November 2, 2015, $13,066 per violation, up to a total of 65,333 per civil penalty action, in the case of an individual (except an airman serving as an airman), or a small business concern.
(2) For violations that occurred on or before November 2, 2015, $10,000 per violation, up to a total of $400,000 per civil penalty action, in the case of any other person (except an airman serving as an airman) not operating an aircraft for the transportation of passengers or property for compensation. For violations that occurred after November 2, 2015, $13,066 per violation, up to a total of $522,657 per civil penalty action, in the case of any other person (except an airman serving as an airman) not operating an aircraft for the transportation of passengers or property for compensation.
(3) For violations that occurred on or before November 2, 2015, $25,000 per violation, up to a total of $400,000 per civil penalty action, in the case of a person operating an aircraft for the transportation of passengers or property for compensation (except an individual serving as an airman). For violations that occurred after November 2, 2015, $32,666 per violation, up to a total of $522,657 per civil penalty action, in the case of a person (except an individual serving as an airman) operating an aircraft for the transportation of passengers or property for compensation.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury.
Final rule.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is amending its rules of practice and procedure for national banks and its rules of practice and procedure in adjudicatory proceedings for Federal savings associations to adjust the maximum amount of each civil money penalty within its jurisdiction to administer to account for inflation. These actions implement the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.
This rule is effective on January 27, 2017 and is applicable to penalties assessed after January 15, 2017.
Jean Campbell, Counsel, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, (202) 649-5490, or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, or Alexander Abramovich, Attorney, Enforcement and Compliance Division, (202) 649-6200, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
The final rule changes the maximum amount for each civil money penalty (CMP) within the OCC's jurisdiction to administer to account for inflation pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the 1990 Adjustment Act),
The purpose of the 2015 Adjustment Act was to establish a mechanism to regularly adjust CMPs for inflation; maintain the deterrent effect of CMPs and promote compliance with the law; and improve the collection of CMPs by the Federal government.
The 2015 Adjustment Act also required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue initial guidance to Federal agencies no later February 29, 2016, and subsequent guidance not later than December 15 of each year, beginning on December 15, 2016, on implementing the required inflation adjustments.
In accordance with the 2015 Adjustment Act and OMB's initial guidance, issued on February 29, 2016,
On December 16, 2016, the OMB published additional guidance to assist Federal agencies in calculating the 2017 annual inflation adjustment pursuant to the 2015 Adjustment Act (2016 OMB Guidance).
The 2015 Adjustment Act required Federal agencies to make annual adjustments no later than January 15 of each year, beginning on January 15, 2017
First, the final rule describes the formula used by the OCC to calculate the new maximum inflation-adjusted amount of each CMP. It states that the inflation adjustment is calculated by multiplying the maximum dollar amount of the CMP for the previous calendar year by the cost-of living inflation adjustment multiplier provided annually by OMB and rounding the total to the nearest dollar.
Next, the rule adjusts each CMP that the OCC has jurisdiction to administer in accordance with the formula described above. The OCC calculated the adjusted amounts in the national bank chart at 12 CFR 19.240(b) (national bank chart) and Federal savings association chart at 12 CFR 109.103(c)(2) (Federal savings association chart) by applying the cost-of living inflation adjustment multiplier provided by OMB
The final rule also makes clear that the adjustments in each chart apply to penalties assessed after January 15, 2017, for violations that occurred on or after November 2, 2015, which is the date of enactment of the 2015 Adjustment Act.
The final rule also states that future annual inflation adjustments to the maximum penalty amounts will be published as a notice in the
Furthermore, because the 2015 Adjustment Act does not require annual adjustments to be published in accordance with the APA, the OCC is amending 12 CFR 19.240 and 12 CFR 109.103 by issuing a final rule rather than a notice of proposed rulemaking.
The OCC is correcting a minor technical error in footnote 3 of the national bank chart and Federal savings association chart. Footnote 3 explains that statutes cross-referencing 12 U.S.C. 1818 are adjusted automatically when the penalty in section 1818 is adjusted for inflation. Fifteen U.S.C. 1649e(k) was inadvertently included as an example of a penalty that cross-references 12 U.S.C. 1818. Accordingly, the final rule deletes reference to 15 U.S.C. 1649e(k) in the footnotes, but retains the reference to this statute in the national bank chart and Federal savings association chart.
Section 302 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
The Regulatory Flexibility Act applies only to rules for which an agency publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Administrative practice and procedure, Crime, Equal access to justice, Investigations, National banks, Penalties, Securities.
Administrative practice and procedure, Federal savings associations, Penalties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, parts 19 and 109 of chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 504, 554-557; 12 U.S.C. 93(b), 93a, 164, 481, 504, 1817, 1818, 1820, 1831m, 1831o, 1832, 1884, 1972, 3102, 3108(a), 3110, 3909, and 4717; 15 U.S.C. 78(h) and (i), 78o-4(c), 78o-5, 78q-1, 78s, 78u, 78u-2, 78u-3, 78w, and 1639e; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 330 and 5321; and 42 U.S.C. 4012a.
(a)
(b)
(c)
5 U.S.C. 504, 554-557; 12 U.S.C. 1464, 1467, 1467a, 1468, 1817, 1818, 1820(k), 1829(e), 1832, 1884, 1972, 3349, 4717, 5412(b)(2)(B); 15 U.S.C. 78(
(c)
(2)
(3)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Interim final rule; extension of comment period.
This document provides an additional 60 days for interested parties to submit comments on the interim final rule that amended the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations establishing the Centers of Excellence and Expertise (“Centers”) as a permanent organizational component of the agency and transitioning certain additional trade functions to the Centers. The interim final rule was published in the
The comment period for the interim final rule published December 20, 2016, at 81 FR 92978, effective January 19, 2017, is extended. Comments must be received on or before March 20, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number, by
•
•
Lori Whitehurst, CBP Office of Field Operations by telephone (202) 344-2536 or by email,
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the interim rule. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this interim rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to CBP will reference a specific portion of the interim rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change.
On December 20, 2016, CBP published in the
With the goal of establishing the most effective and transparent procedures as possible for CBP to establish the Centers as a permanent organizational component of the agency, CBP believes that it is very important to have as much public participation as possible in the formulation of the final rule that establishes those procedures for CBP. Therefore, CBP has decided to allow additional time for the public to submit comments on the final rule. Accordingly, the comment period is extended to March 20, 2017.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
On December 27, 2016, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a Final Rule in the
This regulation is effective January 25, 2017. The effective date of the rule amending 19 CFR part 12 published at 81 FR 94974, December 27, 2016 is delayed until March 21, 2017.
For questions related to the filing of EPA forms with CBP, please contact William Scopa, Partner Government Agencies Interagency Collaboration Division, Office of Trade, Customs and Border Protection, at
On December 27, 2016, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a Final Rule in the
On January 20, 2017, the Chief of Staff of the White House released a memorandum to ensure that the President's appointees or designees have the opportunity to review any new or pending regulations. The memorandum asks the heads of executive departments and agencies to temporarily postpone the effective date for 60 days from the date of the memorandum of all regulations that had been published in the
It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a Regulatory Assessment is not required.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this final rule, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
CBP and Treasury, for good cause and the reasons cited above, including the brief length of the extension of the effective date, find that notice and solicitation of comment regarding the extension of the effective date for the final regulation are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
CBP and Treasury have concluded the extension of the effective date does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and Tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
On December 27, 2016, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a Final Rule in the
This regulation is effective January 25, 2017. The effective date of the rule amending 19 CFR parts 12 and 127 published at 81 FR 94980, December 27, 2016 is delayed until March 21, 2017.
For questions related to the filing of EPA forms with CBP, please contact William Scopa, Partner Government Agencies Interagency Collaboration Division, Office of Trade, Customs and Border Protection, at
On December 27, 2016, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a Final Rule in the
On January 20, 2017, the Chief of Staff of the White House released a memorandum to ensure that the President's appointees or designees have the opportunity to review any new or pending regulations. The memorandum asks the heads of executive departments and agencies to temporarily postpone the effective date for 60 days from the date of the memorandum of all regulations that had been published in the
It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a Regulatory Assessment is not required.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this final rule, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
CBP and Treasury, for good cause and the reasons cited above, including the brief length of the extension of the effective date, find that notice and solicitation of comment regarding the extension of the effective date for the final regulation are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). CBP and Treasury also believe that affected entities need to be informed as soon as possible of the extension and its length in order to plan and adjust their implementation process accordingly.
CBP and Treasury have concluded the extension of the effective date does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and Tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Temporary order.
The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is issuing this temporary order to extend the temporary schedule I status of three synthetic cannabinoids pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act. The substances are: [1-(5-Fluoropentyl)-1
This temporary order is effective January 27, 2017. This temporary order will expire on January 29, 2018, or when a permanent scheduling proceeding is completed, whichever occurs first.
Michael J. Lewis, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. The DEA published the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II.
The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while ensuring an adequate supply is available for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.
Under the CSA, every controlled substance is classified into one of five schedules based upon its potential for abuse, its currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the degree of dependence the drug or other substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of all scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308.
Section 201 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811) provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if she finds that such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). In addition, if proceedings to control a substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2).
Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 355. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). The Attorney General has delegated her scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.
On January 30, 2015, the DEA published a final order in the
The Administrator of the DEA, on his own motion pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), has initiated proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) to permanently schedule THJ-2201, AB-PINACA and AB-CHMINACA. The DEA has gathered and reviewed the available information regarding the pharmacology, chemistry, trafficking, actual abuse, pattern of abuse, and the relative potential for abuse for these three synthetic cannabinoids. On August 26, 2015, the DEA submitted a request to the HHS to provide the DEA with a scientific and medical evaluation of available information and a scheduling recommendation for THJ-2201, AB-PINACA and AB-CHMINACA, in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(b) and (c). Upon evaluating the scientific and medical evidence, on November 14, 2016, the HHS submitted to the Administrator of the DEA its three scientific and medical evaluations for these substances. Upon receipt of the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendations from the HHS, the DEA reviewed the documents and all other relevant data, and conducted its own eight-factor analysis of the abuse potential of THJ-2201, AB-PINACA and AB-CHMINACA in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(c). The DEA has published a notice of proposed rulemaking for the placement of THJ-2201, AB-PINACA and AB-CHMINACA into schedule I elsewhere in this issue of the
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2), the Administrator of the DEA orders that the temporary scheduling of THJ-2201, AB-PINACA and AB-CHMINACA, including their optical, positional and geometric isomers, salts, and salts of
In accordance with this temporary order, the schedule I requirements for handling THJ-2201, AB-PINACA and AB-CHMINACA, including their optical, positional and geometric isomers, salts, and salts of isomers, are extended for one year, or until the permanent scheduling proceeding is completed, whichever occurs first.
The CSA provides for an expedited temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h). The Attorney General may, by order, schedule a substance in schedule I on a temporary basis.
To the extent that 21 U.S.C. 811(h) directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued and extended, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) do not apply to this extension of the temporary scheduling action. In the alternative, even assuming that this action might be subject to section 553 of the APA, the Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice and comment requirements of section 553, as any further delays in the process for extending the temporary scheduling order would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Further, the DEA believes that this order extending the temporary scheduling action is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, the DEA is not required by section 553 of the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.
Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
As noted above, this action is an order, not a rule. Accordingly, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) is inapplicable, as it applies only to rules. It is in the public interest to maintain the temporary placement of THJ-2201, AB-PINACA and AB-CHMINACA in schedule I because they pose a public health risk. The temporary scheduling action was taken pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h), which is specifically designed to enable the DEA to act in an expeditious manner to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Under 21 U.S.C. 811(h), temporary scheduling orders are not subject to notice and comment rulemaking procedures. The DEA understands that the CSA frames temporary scheduling actions as orders rather than rules to ensure that the process moves swiftly, and this extension of the temporary scheduling order continues to serve that purpose. For the same reasons that underlie 21 U.S.C. 811(h), that is, the need to place these substances in schedule I because they pose an imminent hazard to public safety, it would be contrary to the public interest to delay implementation of this extension of the temporary scheduling order. Therefore, in accordance with section 808(2) of the CRA, this order extending the temporary scheduling order shall take effect immediately upon its publication. The DEA has submitted a copy of this temporary order to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General, although such filing is not required under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act) (5 U.S.C. 801-808) because, as noted above, this action is an order, not a rule.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Drug Enforcement Administration proposes placing
Interested persons may file written comments on this proposal in accordance with 21 CFR 1308.43(g). Comments must be submitted electronically or postmarked on or before February 27, 2017. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period.
Interested persons, defined at 21 CFR 1300.01 as those “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable pursuant to section 201 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 811),” may file a request for hearing or waiver of hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1308.44 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1316.45 and/or 1316.47, as applicable. Requests for hearing and waivers of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing must be received on or before February 27, 2017.
To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-402” on all electronic and written correspondence, including any attachments.
•
•
•
Michael J. Lewis, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
Please note that all comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record. They will, unless reasonable cause is given, be made available by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for public inspection online at
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify the confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.
Comments containing personal identifying information or confidential business information identified as directed above will be made publicly available in redacted form. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made publicly available. Comments posted to
An electronic copy of this document and supplemental information to this proposed rule are available at
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this action is a formal rulemaking “on the record after opportunity for a hearing.” Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551-559. 21 CFR 1308.41-1308.45; 21 CFR part 1316, subpart D. In accordance with 21 CFR 1308.44(a)-(c), requests for hearing, notices of appearance, and waivers of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing may be submitted only by interested persons, defined as those “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable pursuant to section 201 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 811).” 21 CFR 1300.01. Such requests or notices must conform to the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(a) or (b), and 1316.47 or 1316.48, as applicable, and include a statement of interest of the person in the proceeding and the objections or issues, if any, concerning which the person desires to be heard. Any waiver must conform to the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(c) and may include a written statement regarding the interested person's position on the matters of fact and law involved in any hearing.
Please note that pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), the purpose and subject matter of a hearing held in relation to this rulemaking is restricted to: “(A) find[ing] that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and (B) mak[ing] with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed * * *.” All requests for hearing and waivers of participation must be sent to the DEA using the address information provided above.
The DEA implements and enforces Titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.
Under the CSA, controlled substances are classified into one of five schedules based upon their potential for abuse, their currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the degree of dependence the substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may, by rule, “add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance if he (A) finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and (B) makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed * * *.” The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.
The CSA provides that proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of the scheduling of any drug or other substance may be initiated by the Attorney General (1) on her own motion; (2) at the request of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS);
On January 30, 2015, the DEA published a final order in the
The Administrator of the DEA, on his own motion pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), has initiated proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) to permanently schedule THJ-2201, AB-PINACA and AB-CHMINACA. The DEA has gathered and reviewed the available information regarding the pharmacology, chemistry, trafficking, actual abuse, pattern of abuse, and the relative potential for abuse for these three synthetic cannabinoids. In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(b) and (c), on August 26, 2015, the DEA submitted a request to the HHS to provide the DEA with a scientific and medical evaluation of available information and a scheduling recommendation for THJ-2201, AB-PINACA and AB-CHMINACA. Upon evaluating the scientific and medical evidence, on November 14, 2016, the
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), proceedings to add a drug or substance to those controlled under the CSA may be initiated by the Attorney General, or her delegate, the DEA Administrator. On August 26, 2015, the DEA requested scientific and medical evaluations and scheduling recommendations from the Assistant Secretary of Health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for THJ-2201, AB-PINACA and AB-CHMINACA pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(b). Upon receipt of the scientific and medical evaluations and scheduling recommendations from the HHS dated November 14, 2016, the DEA reviewed the documents and all other relevant data and conducted its own eight-factor analysis of the abuse potential of THJ-2201, AB-PINACA and AB-CHMINACA pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(c). Included below is a brief summary of each factor as analyzed by the HHS and the DEA, and as considered by the DEA in its proposed scheduling action. Please note that both the DEA 8-Factor and HHS 8-Factor analyses and the Assistant Secretary's November 14, 2016, letter, are available in their entirety under the tab “Supporting Documents” of the public docket of this action at
1.
Through epidemiological and case report data, HHS has demonstrated that the ingestion of AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA and/or THJ-2201 in sufficient amounts is creating a hazard to the health and safety of both the individual users and others within the community. Adverse effects observed following the ingestion of synthetic cannabinoids (SCs), including AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA and THJ-2201, include nausea and vomiting, shortness of breath or depressed breathing, hypertension, tachycardia, chest pain, muscle twitching, acute renal failure, anxiety, agitation, psychosis, suicidal ideation, and cognitive impairment. The HHS also stated that SCs like AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA and THJ-2201 are easily accessible and difficult to detect in standard urine drug screens, which contributes to their popularity and high rates of abuse.
The American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) reported 7,779 calls to poison centers about exposures to SCs from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015. This number is significantly higher than the number of calls in all of 2014 (3,682), or all of 2013 (2,668). In 2015, there was a notable increase in calls during April (1,512) and May (1,205), falling to a stable, but higher baseline for the rest of the year: A seasonal pattern not seen in previous years. In 2016, the numbers of exposure calls (2,695) have dropped again, mirroring those of 2013 (2,668). Although the AAPCC does not identify specific cannabinoid substances, their data do support the high prevalence of toxic exposures to SCs in general. In 2015, at least 15 calls to Poison Centers regarding SCs exposures were associated with deaths, which is triple the 5 deaths associated with such calls for all of 2014.
The HHS stated that there are no FDA-approved drug products containing AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA and THJ-2201 in the United States and there appear to be no legitimate sources for these substances as marketed drugs. Therefore, this criterion for assessing the abuse potential of these SCs is not applicable. According to the HHS, because AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA and THJ-2201 are not approved for medical use and are not formulated or available for clinical use, the human use of these substances is assumed to be on an individual's own initiative, rather than on the basis of medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer drugs. Further, published scientific and medical literature, and reports from AAPCC and law enforcement, indicate that individuals are taking these SCs on their own initiative, rather than on the basis of medical advice of a licensed practitioner. As noted by the HHS, pharmacological studies sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) have demonstrated that AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA and THJ-2201 are similar to other schedule I SCs. All three of these substances, similar to schedule I SCs, display high affinity binding and potent agonist functional activity at the cannabinoid (CB1) receptor, while drug discrimination studies have demonstrated the ability of all three substances to substitute for Δ
2.
Based on results from the receptor binding (Ki), CB1 functional assay, and drug discrimination studies, the HHS concluded that AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA and THJ-2201 act as full psychoactive cannabinoid agonists with no antagonist activity, and that these three substances are more potent than Δ
3.
4.
Most users of SCs abuse these substances by smoking the product following application to plant material. Recently, law enforcement has also been encountering new variations of SCs in liquid form. The liquids contain one or more SC(s), including AB-CHMINACA and AB-PINACA, as well as previously controlled substances including AB-FUBINACA and XLR11. Users have been identified as applying the liquid to hookahs (an instrument for vaporizing and smoking a given material whereby the smoke or vapor passes through a water basin prior to inhalation), vaporizers (also known as “vaping” or an “e-cigarette,” which allows the user to administer a liquid to be aerosolized and then inhaled), and hookah pens (a type of vaporizer, often much smaller and intended for increased discretion while smoking). As reported by users, specifically adolescents, this method of vaporizing and inhaling SCs is viewed as being safer than traditional smoking (blunt, pipe, cigarette, etc.). In a recent study, 91% of SC users reported inhalation of the product via a cigarette or blunt, 27% of the respondents also reported using methods that included vaporization, water pipe, bong, or hookah as a delivery method.
5.
6.
Since abusers obtain these drugs through unknown sources, the purity of these drugs is uncertain, thus posing significant adverse health risks to these users. From October 2013 through the present, multiple deaths and severe overdoses have occurred involving AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA and/or THJ-2201.
7.
8.
The CSA establishes five schedules of controlled substances known as
1. AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA and THJ-2201 have a high potential for abuse that is comparable to other schedule I substances such as delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ
2. AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA and THJ-2201 have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and
3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA and THJ-2201 under medical supervision.
Based on these findings, the Administrator of the DEA concludes that N-(1-amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(cyclohexylmethyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (AB-CHMINACA), N-(1-amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (AB-PINACA) and [1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indazol-3-yl](naphthalen-1-yl)methanone (THJ-2201), including their salts, isomers and salts of isomers, whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible, warrant continued control in schedule I of the CSA. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1).
If this rule is finalized as proposed, AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA and THJ-2201 would continue
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take a new inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA and THJ-2201) on hand every two years, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.
6.
7.
8.
9.
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this proposed scheduling action is subject to formal rulemaking procedures performed “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” which are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The CSA sets forth the criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Such actions are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to section 3(d)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in Executive Order 13563.
This proposed regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This proposed rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.
The Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-602, has reviewed this proposed rule and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. On January 30, 2015, the DEA published a final order to temporarily place these three SCs into schedule I of the CSA pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). The DEA estimates that all entities handling or
A review of the 25 registrations indicates that all entities that currently handle AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA or THJ-2201 also handle other schedule I controlled substances, and have established and implemented (or maintain) the systems and processes required to handle AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA or THJ-2201. Therefore, the DEA anticipates that this proposed rule will impose minimal or no economic impact on any affected entities; and thus, will not have a significant economic impact on any of the eight affected small entities. Therefore, the DEA has concluded that this proposed rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not impose a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. This action would not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, the DEA proposes to amend 21 CFR part 1308:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.
The additions to read as follows:
(d) * * *
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that imports of truck and bus tires 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). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. The final dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.
Effective January 27, 2017.
Yang Jin Chun or Andre Gziryan, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5760 and (202) 482-2201, respectively.
The Department published the
The POI is July 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.
The products covered by this investigation are truck and bus tires. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
Two interested parties submitted scope requests shortly before, and after, the
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 issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we verified the U.S. sales and factors of production information submitted by Prinx Chengshan (Shandong) Tire Co., Ltd. (PCT) in October 2016.
Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to our dumping margin calculations.
We preliminarily determined that critical circumstances exist for PCT, the non-selected separate rate respondents, and the PRC-wide entity.
Consistent with
The Department determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
As detailed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, Double Coin Holdings Ltd., a mandatory respondent in this investigation, did not demonstrate that it was entitled to a separate rate.
In accordance with sections 735(c)(4)(A) of the Act, because we continue to find that critical circumstances exist, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of truck and bus tires from the PRC, as described in Appendix I, that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 8, 2016, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), upon the publication of this notice, the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) makes an affirmative final determination,
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days after public announcement of the final determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 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 subject merchandise from the PRC no
This notice will serve as a reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of propriety 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 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 scope of the investigation covers truck and bus tires. Truck and bus tires are new pneumatic tires, of rubber, with a truck or bus size designation. Truck and bus tires covered by this investigation may be tube-type, tubeless, radial, or non-radial.
Subject tires have, at the time of importation, the symbol “DOT” on the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Subject tires may also have one of the following suffixes in their tire size designation, which also appear on the sidewall of the tire:
TR—Identifies tires for service on trucks or buses to differentiate them from similarly sized passenger car and light truck tires; and
HC—Identifies a 17.5 inch rim diameter code for use on low platform trailers.
All tires with a “TR” or “HC” suffix in their size designations are covered by this investigation regardless of their intended use.
In addition, all tires that lack one of the above suffix markings are included in the scope, regardless of their intended use, as long as the tire is of a size that is among the numerical size designations listed in the “Truck-Bus” section of the
Truck and bus tires, whether or not mounted on wheels or rims, are included in the scope. However, if a subject tire is imported mounted on a wheel or rim, only the tire is covered by the scope. Subject merchandise includes truck and bus tires produced in the subject country whether mounted on wheels or rims in the subject country or in a third country. Truck and bus tires are covered whether or not they are accompanied by other parts,
Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are the following types of tires: (1) Pneumatic tires, of rubber, that are not new, including recycled and retreaded tires; (2) non-pneumatic tires, such as solid rubber tires; and (3) tires that exhibit each of the following physical characteristics: (a) The designation “MH” is molded into the tire's sidewall as part of the size designation; (b) the tire incorporates a warning, prominently molded on the sidewall, that the tire is for “Mobile Home Use Only;” and (c) the tire is of bias construction as evidenced by the fact that the construction code included in the size designation molded into the tire's sidewall is not the letter “R.”
The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4011.20.1015 and 4011.20.5020. Tires meeting the scope description may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 4011.69.0020, 4011.69.0090, 4011.70.00, 4011.90.80, 4011.99.4520, 4011.99.4590, 4011.99.8520, 4011.99.8590, 8708.70.4530, 8708.70.6030, 8708.70.6060, and 8716.90.5059.
While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Effective January 27, 2017.
Justin Neuman at (202) 482-0486, or Matthew Renkey at (202) 482-2312, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On December 8, 2016, the Department of Commerce (Department) initiated the countervailing duty investigation of certain hardwood plywood products (hardwood plywood) from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a countervailing duty investigation within 65 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, in
In the instant investigation, Petitioners made a timely request, on January 17, 2017, that we postpone the preliminary CVD determination.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
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 truck and bus tires from the People's Republic of China (PRC). For information on the estimated subsidy rates,
Effective January 27, 2017.
Jennifer Shore or Mark Kennedy, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2778 or (202) 482-7883, respectively.
The Department published the
The products covered by this investigation are truck and bus tires from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of the investigation,
Since the
The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised by parties, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix II.
In making this final determination, the Department relied, in part, on facts available and, because the Government of China and a respondent company did not act to the best of their abilities in responding to the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, pursuant to section 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act). For further information, see the section “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Based on our analysis of information requested and received from the GOC and the company respondents since the
In the
We determine that countervailable subsidies are being provided with respect to the manufacture, production, or exportation of the subject merchandise. In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we calculated a CVD rate for each individually-investigated producer/exporter of the subject merchandise. In accordance with section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, for companies not individually examined, we apply an “all-others” rate, which is normally calculated by weighting the subsidy rates of the mandatory respondents by those companies' exports of the subject merchandise to the United States. Under section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, the all-others rate should exclude zero and
We determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be:
As a result of our
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order and 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. On the basis of our final affirmative critical circumstances determination, we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation on entries of truck and bus tires from China for all other companies effective April 6, 2016. 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 relating 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 that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve 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/
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The scope of the investigation covers truck and bus tires. Truck and bus tires are new pneumatic tires, of rubber, with a truck or bus size designation. Truck and bus tires covered by this investigation may be tube-type, tubeless, radial, or non-radial.
Subject tires have, at the time of importation, the symbol “DOT” on the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Subject tires may also have one of the following suffixes in their tire size designation, which also appear on the sidewall of the tire:
TR—Identifies tires for service on trucks or buses to differentiate them from similarly sized passenger car and light truck tires; and
HC—Identifies a 17.5 inch rim diameter code for use on low platform trailers.
All tires with a “TR” or “HC” suffix in their size designations are covered by this investigation regardless of their intended use.
In addition, all tires that lack one of the above suffix markings are included in the scope, regardless of their intended use, as long as the tire is of a size that is among the numerical size designations listed in the “Truck-Bus” section of the
Truck and bus tires, whether or not mounted on wheels or rims, are included in the scope. However, if a subject tire is imported mounted on a wheel or rim, only the tire is covered by the scope. Subject merchandise includes truck and bus tires produced in the subject country whether mounted on wheels or rims in the subject country or in a third country. Truck and bus tires are covered whether or not they are accompanied by other parts,
Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are the following types of tires: (1) Pneumatic tires, of rubber, that are not new, including recycled and retreaded tires; (2) non-pneumatic tires, such as solid rubber tires; and (3) tires that exhibit each of the following physical characteristics: (a) The designation “MH” is molded into the tire's sidewall as part of the size designation; (b) the tire incorporates a warning, prominently molded on the sidewall, that the tire is for “Mobile Home Use Only;” and (c) the tire is of bias construction as evidenced by the fact that the construction code included in the size designation molded into the tire's sidewall is not the letter “R.”
The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4011.20.1015 and 4011.20.5020. Tires meeting the scope description may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 4011.69.0020, 4011.69.0090, 4011.70.00, 4011.90.80, 4011.99.4520, 4011.99.4590, 4011.99.8520, 4011.99.8590, 8708.70.4530, 8708.70.6030, 8708.70.6060, and 8716.90.5059.
While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting.
The United States Investment Advisory Council (Council) will hold a meeting on Friday, February 17, 2017. The Council was chartered on April 6, 2016, to advise the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the promotion and retention of foreign direct investment in the United States. At the meeting, members will be provided substantive briefings on key Administration priorities moving forward and deliberate and vote on a letter to the Secretary of Commerce, aimed at communicating the value of FDI to continued economic growth and job-creation. The agenda may change to accommodate Council business. The final agenda will be posted on the Department of Commerce Web site for the Council at
Friday, February 17, 2017, 2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. EST. The deadline for members of the public to register, including requests to make comments during the meeting and for auxiliary aids, or to submit written comments for dissemination prior to the meeting, is 5:00 p.m. EST on February 10, 2017.
The meeting will be held via teleconference. Requests to register (including to speak or for auxiliary aids) and any written comments should be submitted to: United States Investment Advisory Council, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 3855, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230,
Danielle Fumagalli, United States Investment Advisory Council, Room 3855, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 202-482-2486, email:
The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible to people with disabilities. All guests are required to register in advance by the deadline identified under the DATES caption. Requests for auxiliary aids must be submitted by the registration deadline. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. There will be fifteen (15) minutes allotted for oral comments from members of the public joining the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments may be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must submit a request at the time of registration, as well as the name and address of the proposed speaker. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the International Trade Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to submit a written copy of their prepared remarks by 5:00 p.m. EST on February 10, 2017 for inclusion in the meeting records and for circulation to the members of the Council.
In addition, any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the Council's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to Danielle Fumagalli at the contact information indicated above. To be considered during the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on February 10, 2017, to ensure transmission to the Council members prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date and time will be distributed to the members but may not be considered during the meeting. Statements will be posted on the United States Investment Advisory Council Web site (
Copies of Council meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.
Office of Ocean Exploration and Research (OER), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of public meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Ocean Exploration Advisory Board (OEAB). OEAB members will discuss and provide advice on Federal ocean exploration programs, with a particular emphasis on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Ocean Exploration and Research (OER) activities; the use of ships and other platforms in ocean exploration, including by non-for-profit organizations and the private sector; and other matters as described in the agenda found on the OEAB Web site at
The announced meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 22, 2017 from 12:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m. CST, and Thursday, February 23 from 8:30 a.m.-6:00 p.m. CST.
The meeting will be held at the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics, Research Office Complex, Building 196, Second Floor Conference Room, J.J. Pickle Research Campus, 10601 Exploration Way, Austin, TX 78758.
The meeting will be open to the public with a 15-minute public comment period on Thursday, February 23, 2017 from 11:45 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. CST (please check the agenda on the Web site to confirm the time). The public may listen to the meeting and provide comments during the public comment period via teleconference. Dial-in information may be found on the meeting agenda posted to the OEAB Web site.
The OEAB expects that public statements at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to David McKinnie, Designated Federal Officer (see below) by February 15, 2017.
Mr. David McKinnie, Designated Federal Officer, Ocean Exploration Advisory Board, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115, (206) 526-6950.
NOAA established the OEAB under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and legislation that gives the agency statutory authority to operate an ocean exploration program and to coordinate a national program of ocean exploration. The OEAB advises NOAA leadership on strategic planning, exploration priorities, competitive ocean exploration grant programs and other matters as the NOAA Administrator requests.
OEAB members represent government agencies, the private sector, academic institutions, and not-for-profit institutions involved in all facets of ocean exploration—from advanced technology to citizen exploration.
In addition to advising NOAA leadership, NOAA expects the OEAB to help to define and develop a national program of ocean exploration—a network of stakeholders and partnerships advancing national priorities for ocean exploration.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of availability.
The Department of the Army and Fort Campbell announce the decision to conduct proposed training mission and mission support activities at Fort Campbell, KY. The action was the preferred alternative identified in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Training, Mission and Mission Support Activities at Fort Campbell. The Record of Decision (ROD) explains the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with the selected action, which includes implementing site-specific projects in support of Soldier training, using Adaptable Use Zones for future facility siting, streamlining review of routine range and training land actions, and pursuing reactivation of the airspace previously designated as the R3703 A, B, and C restricted airspace. The selected alternative best meets the Army's need to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Campbell to ensure that its Soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations. As part of the implementation of this decision, the Army will take practical measures to mitigate impacts to protect and sustain the environment.
The ROD can be accessed and downloaded from
Please contact Mr. Gene Zirkle, NEPA/Wildlife Program Manager, Environmental Division, 270-798-9854, during normal working business hours Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. CST; or by email to
Fort Campbell covers 105,068 acres in Kentucky and Tennessee. Fort Campbell is home to the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), the 5th Special Forces Group, 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, and other tenant units. The mission of Fort Campbell is primarily to support and train the units stationed on the installation in preparation for a variety of assigned combat and combat related missions. Fort Campbell is committed to providing Soldiers with a high quality training environment. The selected alternative allows the Army to take the necessary actions to support high quality training at an environmentally sustainable Fort Campbell, including range construction, modernization, and maintenance; land management activities; and reactivation of restricted airspace. The selected alternative best meets the Army's need to build, update, and operate military training ranges and other facilities on Fort Campbell to ensure that its Soldiers are proficiently trained across the full spectrum of military operations.
The selected alternative includes continuing existing military training on Fort Campbell, constructing and operating site-specific projects in support of Soldier training, creating adaptable use zones to facilitate future modernization and range facility construction, implementing routine range and training land actions and environmental stewardship practices, and pursuing reactivation of the airspace previously designated as the R3703 A, B, and C restricted airspace. The ROD incorporates analysis contained in the Final PEIS for Fort Campbell including comments provided during formal comment and review periods. There were no comments received during the waiting period, a period that was initiated when the Notice of Availability for the Final PEIS was published in the
Implementing this decision is not expected to result in significant impacts; however, moderate adverse impacts could occur to soils, biological resources, and water resources, including potential impacts to the Northern Long Eared Bat. To minimize the potential adverse impacts, the Army will mitigate these effects through a variety of strategies as described in the ROD.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
The comment period for the Intent to Grant an Exclusive License of U.S. Government-Owned Patents published in the
Mr. Barry Datlof, Office of Research & Technology Assessment, (301) 619-0033. For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808, both at telefax (301) 619-5034.
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by February 27, 2017.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission announces that the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) will meet in open session on Monday, February 13, 2017 and Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at the U.S. Access Board in Washington, DC.
The meeting will be held on Monday, February 13, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., Eastern time, and Tuesday, February 14, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Eastern time (estimated based on speed of business).
The meeting will take place at the U.S. Access Board, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004-1111; (202) 272-0080. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must notify Myesha Steadman by c.o.b. Monday, February 6, 2017, per instructions under the
Patricia Wilburg, NIST Voting Program, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930, telephone: (301) 975-6994 or
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, as amended, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2, notice is hereby given that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission's (EAC) Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) will meet in open session on Monday, February 13, 2017 and Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at the U.S. Access Board in Washington, DC.
Discussions at the meeting will include the following topics: (1) Relating Lessons Learned from 2016 Election to the VVSG; (2) The Working Group and Constituency Group Activities since the September TGDC Meeting that include Interoperability, Cyber Security, Human Factors, and Testing; (3) the scope of the VVSG that includes VVSG Discussion and Final Agreement on Scope; (4) Testing in the Real World as applied to Voting System Test Labs and Manufacturers; (5) DHS—Designation of Critical Infrastructure; and (6) Standards Board/Board of Advisors, Next TGDC Meeting & Wrap-Up. The full meeting agenda will be posted in advance at
Anyone wishing to attend this meeting must pre-register by c.o.b. Monday, February 6, 2017, in order to attend. To register, contact Myesha Steadman, NIST Voting Program, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930, telephone: (301) 975-3258 or
Members of the public may submit relevant written statements to the TGDC with respect to the meeting no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Monday, February 6, 2017. Statements may be sent via email at
The TGDC was established in accordance with the requirements of Section 221, of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-252, codified at 42 U.S.C 15361), to act in the public interest to assist the Executive Director of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in the development of voluntary voting system guidelines. Details regarding the TGDC's activities are available at
This meeting will be open to the public.
Take notice that on January 12, 2017, Brian Fitzgerald filed an application for authorization to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b), Part 45 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45, and Commission Order No. 664, 112 FERC 61,298.
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.
k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.
l.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at
m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
n.
o.
p. You may also register online at
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has adopted the Federal Regulatory Commission's FEIS No. 20160180, filed 07/29/2016 with the U.S. EPA. DOE was a cooperating agency for this project. Therefore, recirculating the document is not necessary under Section 1506.3(c) of the CEQ Regulations.
Revision to the FR Notice Published 12/09/2016: Extending Comment Period from 01/23/2017 to 02/07/2017; and Change Contact Phone No. to 917-790-8722.
Revision to the FR Notice Published 12/16/2016; Extending Comment Period from 01/17/2017 to 02/01/2017.
Federal Election Commission.
Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This Meeting Will be Open to the Public.
Public Hearing on Internet Communication Disclaimers.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Dayna C. Brown, Acting Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
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
1.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission).
Notice.
The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The FTC seeks public comments on its proposal to extend, for three years, the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements contained in its Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures Rule. That clearance expires on April 30, 2017.
Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comments part of the
Requests for copies of the collection of information and supporting documentation should be addressed to Christine M. Todaro, Attorney, Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., CC-8528, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3711.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, federal agencies must get OMB approval for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements to submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing PRA clearance for the information collection requirements associated with the Commission's Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures Rule (the Dispute Settlement Rule or the Rule), 16 CFR 703 (OMB Control Number 3084-0113).
The FTC invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) 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. All comments must be received on or before March 28, 2017.
The Dispute Settlement Rule is one of three rules
The Dispute Settlement Rule contains standards for IDSMs, including requirements concerning the mechanism's structure (
The Dispute Settlement Rule applies only to those firms that choose to require consumers to use an IDSM. Neither the Rule nor the Act requires warrantors to set up IDSMs. A warrantor is free to set up an IDSM that does not comply with the Rule as long as the warranty does not contain a prior resort requirement.
The primary burden from the Dispute Settlement Rule comes from the recordkeeping requirements that apply to IDSMs that are incorporated into a consumer product warranty through a prior resort clause. A review of the annual audits completed since the prior submission to OMB in 2014 (audits for calendar years 2013 through 2015) indicates that there are two IDSMs operating under the Rule: The BBB AUTO LINE and the National Center for Dispute Settlement (NCDS).
In its 2014 submission to OMB, staff estimated a total annual hours burden of approximately 8,318 hours (derived from 5,757 hours for recordkeeping + 1,919 hours for reporting + 642 hours for disclosures). Although the Rule's information collection requirements have not changed since 2014, staff has adjusted its previous estimates downward for its 2017 calculations because the annual audits filed by the two IDSMs currently operating under the Rule indicate that, on average, fewer disputes have been handled since the previous submission to OMB (11,514 disputes/year in 2014; 10,727 disputes/year in 2017). This factor results in a decreased annual hours burden estimate for the IDSMs. The calculations underlying staff's new estimates follow.
The amount of work required will depend on the number of dispute resolution proceedings undertaken in each IDSM. The BBB AUTO LINE audits from calendar years 2013 through 2015 indicate that it handled an average of 9,398 disputes each year.
Based on the above figures, staff estimates that the average number of disputes handled annually by IDSMs covered by the Rule is approximately 10,727 (an average of 9,398 disputes handled by BBB AUTO LINE + an average of 1,329 disputes handled by NCDS).
The Rule requires warrantors that incorporate the use of an IDSM into their warranties to disclose in their warranties a statement about the availability of the IDSM, the contact information for the IDSM, and any “prior resort requirement.”
First, the Rule requires that warrantors include, either in the warranty or in a separate document accompanying the warranted product, more detailed information concerning the IDSM. Among other things, this information may include: A form addressed to the IDSM, filled out by the consumer, that provides the IDSM with information needed to resolve consumer disputes, a brief description of IDSM procedures, the time limits adhered to by the IDSM, and the types of information the IDSM might require for prompt resolution of the consumer dispute.
Second, the Rule requires that warrantors take steps reasonably calculated to make consumers aware of the IDSM's existence at the time consumers experience warranty disputes.
Under the Rule, a portion of the disclosure burden would be borne by the IDSM itself, which is required to provide to interested consumers, upon request, copies of the various types of information the IDSM possesses, including its annual audits. In addition, consumers who have filed disputes with the IDSM also have a right to copies of their records. IDSMs are permitted to charge for providing both types of
Accordingly, the total PRA-related annual hours burden attributed to the Rule is approximately 7,841 (5,364 hours for recordkeeping + 1,788 hours for reporting + 510 hours for warrantors' disclosures + 179 hours for IDSM disclosures).
In addition, staff assumes that IDSMs use clerical support at an hourly rate of $15 to reproduce records and, therefore, the labor cost associated with the 179 annual hours of disclosure burden for IDSMs is approximately $2,685 (179 burden hours × $15 per hour).
Accordingly, the combined total annual labor cost for PRA-related burden under the Rule is approximately $159,265 ($80,460 for recordkeeping + $26,820 for reporting + $51,985 for disclosures).
The Rule imposes only one additional cost on IDSMs operating under the Rule that would not apply to other IDSMs: The annual audit requirement. According to representatives of the IDSMs, the vast majority of costs associated with this requirement consist of the fees paid to the auditors and their staffs to perform the annual audit. Representatives of the IDSMs previously estimated a combined cost of $300,000 for both IDSMs currently operating under the Rule. Staff retains that estimate.
Staff also estimates that a very small minority of consumers request a copy of the annual audit. Staff bases this assumption on (1) the number of consumer requests received by the IDSMs in the past; and (2) the fact that the IDSMs' annual audits are available online. For example, annual audits are available on the FTC's Web site, where consumers may view and or print pages as needed, at no cost to the IDSM. In addition, the Better Business Bureau makes available on its Web site the annual audit of the BBB AUTO LINE. Therefore, staff conservatively estimates that only five percent of consumers using an IDSM covered by the Rule will request a copy of the IDSM's audit report (approximately 536 audit reports).
Thus, the total annual copying cost for dispute-related files is approximately $5,255 (35 pages per file × $.07 per page × 2,145 disputes) and the total annual copying cost for annual audit reports is approximately $7,504 (200 pages per audit report × $.07 per page × 536 audit reports). Accordingly, the total cost attributed to copying under the Rule is approximately $12,759. Thus, the total non-labor cost under the Rule is approximately $312,759 ($300,000 for auditor fees + $12,759 for copying costs).
You can file a comment online or on paper. Write “Warranty Rules: Paperwork Comment, FTC File No. P044403” 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, like 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
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 must follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, the Commission encourages you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Warranty Rules: Paperwork Comment, FTC File No. P044403” 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. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chap. 35), 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, 330 C Street SW., Washington DC 20201. 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 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.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Angela Y Ng, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6200, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1715,
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications/contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications/contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588 or send an email to
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to: Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 12-07, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-2265 (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 or send an email to
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) has determined to review in part the final initial determination (“ID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“section 337”), in the above-referenced investigation on November 18, 2016.
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on November 20, 2015, based on a complaint filed by Select Comfort Corporation of Minneapolis, Minnesota and Select Comfort SC Corporation of Greenville, South Carolina (collectively, “Select Comfort,” or “Complainants”). 80 FR 72738 (Nov. 20, 2015). 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 air mattress systems, components thereof, and methods of using the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,904,172 (“the `172 patent”) and 7,389,554 (“the `554 patent”).
Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the Commission ordered that the presiding ALJ:
The evidentiary hearing on the question of violation of section 337 was
The ALJ did not recommend that the Commission issue a cease and desist order in this investigation. The ALJ further recommended a zero bond during the period of Presidential review.
All parties to this investigation filed timely petitions for review of various portions of the final ID, as well as timely responses to the petitions.
On December 19, 2016, both Complainants and Respondents filed their respective Public Interest Statement pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4). Responses from public were likewise received by the Commission pursuant to notice.
Having examined the record in this investigation, including the final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. In particular, the Commission has determined as follows:
(1) To review the ID's findings that the P5000, P6000, and Arco products do not meet “guides and stops” limitation in claim 2 of the `172 patent, and that these products do not meet the same claim limitation in claim 12 of the `172 patent and for that reason do not infringe that claim;
(2) to review the ID's finding that the `172 Accused Products do not meet claim limitation “pressure monitor means being operably coupled to the processor and being in fluid communications with the at least one bladder for continuously monitoring the pressure in the at least one bladder” in claims 2, 6, 20, 22, and 24 of the `172 patent;
(3) to review the ID's finding that the `172 Accused Products do not infringe claim 9 of the `172 patent;
(4) to review, in part, the ID's analysis regarding whether the `172 Accused Products infringe claim 2 of the `172 patent for the limited purpose of taking no position on the ALJ's discussion in the last paragraph of page 20 and in the first paragraph of page 21 of the ID;
(5) to review the ID's finding that claim 16 of the `554 patent is not infringed because Complainants did not establish that the accused products practice the “air posturizing sleep surface” limitation;
(6) to review the ID's finding that the `554 Domestic Industry Products do not practice the `554 patent;
(7) to review the ID's finding that Complainants did not satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to both the `172 and `554 patents.
The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the ID.
The parties are requested to brief their positions on only the following issues, with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary record:
1. The ID finds that: “Because Select Comfort asserts that guides and stops of the P5000, P6000, and Arco products are screws and screw bores, the undersigned finds that Select Comfort has failed to establish that these products meet this limitation.” ID at 27.
a. Does the record support a finding that “Select Comfort asserts that guides and stops of the P5000, P6000, and Arco products are screws and screw bores?”
b. Does the record show that P5000, P6000, and Arco products meet the guides and stops limitation in claims 2 and 12 of the `172 patent?
2. The ID finds that because Complainants did not establish that the `172 Accused Products continuously monitor pressure using a processor in conjunction with the transducer, the `172 Accused Products do not meet claim limitation “and pressure monitor means being operably coupled to the processor and being in fluid communications with the at least one bladder for continuously monitoring the pressure in the at least one bladder.” ID at 32;
a. To the extent not already briefed to the Commission, please discuss whether the record supports the ID's finding (with supporting citations to the record evidence).
3. The ID finds that: “Claim 9, like claim 2, includes the term `continuously monitoring.' For the reasons stated above in the discussion of claim 2, claim 9 is not infringed because Select Comfort did not establish that the `172 Accused Products `continuously monitor' pressure.” ID at 32.
a. Does the record show that claim 9 of the `172 patent is not infringed because Select Comfort did not establish that the `172 Accused Products “continuously monitor” pressure?
4. The ID finds that: “Claim 16, like claim 1, includes the term `air posturizing sleep surface.' For the reasons stated above in the discussion of claim 1, claim 16 is not infringed because Select Comfort did not establish that the accused products practice the `air posturizing sleep surface' limitation.” ID at 70.
a. Does the record show that the accused products infringe the “air posturizing sleep surface” limitation of claim 16 of the `554 patent?
5. Does the record show that the `554 Domestic Industry Products practice the `554 patent?
6. The ID finds that: “Claim 16, like claim 1, includes the term `air posturizing sleep surface.' For the reasons stated above in the discussion of claim 1, the `554 DI products do not practice claim 16 because they do not meet the `air posturizing sleep surface' limitation.” ID at 75.
a. Does the record show that the `554 DI products practice the “air posturizing sleep surface” limitation of claim 16 of the `554 patent?
7. With respect to Complainants' investment in plant and equipment alleged under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A) the ID finds that:
a. Do Commission and judicial precedents and the record in the present investigation support the ID's finding?
b. Please explain with citation to the record what portion of the asserted domestic investment in plant and equipment, in terms of the dollar amount and percentage, can be allocated to the articles that practice the `172 patent.
c. Does the record show that Complainants' investment in plant and equipment under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A) is significant with respect to the articles that practice the `172 patent?
d. Please explain with citation to the record what portion of the asserted domestic investment in plant and equipment, in terms of the dollar amount and percentage, can be allocated to the articles that practice the `554 patent.
e. Does the record show that Complainants' investment in plant and equipment under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A) is significant with respect to the articles that practice the `554 patent?
8. With respect to Complainants' employment of labor or capital alleged under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(B) the ID finds that:
a. Do Commission and judicial precedents and the record in the present investigation support the ID's finding?
b. Please explain with citation to the record what portion of the asserted domestic employment of labor or capital, in terms of the dollar amount and percentage, can be allocated to the articles that practice the `172 patent.
c. Does the record show that Complainants' employment of labor or capital under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(B) is significant with respect to the articles that practice the `172 patent?
d. Please explain with citation to the record what portion of the asserted domestic employment of labor or capital, in terms of the dollar amount and percentage, can be allocated to the articles that practice the `554 patent.
e. Does the record show that Complainants' employment of labor or capital under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(B) is significant with respect to the articles that practice the `554 patent?
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the respondent being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or are likely to do so. For background, see
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action.
Complainants are further requested to provide the expiration date of the `172 and `554 patents, the HTSUS numbers under which the accused articles are imported, and any known importers of the accused products. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than the close of business on February 6, 2017. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on February 13, 2017. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-971”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.
By Order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
February 7, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 22, 2016, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Nokia Technologies Oy of Espoo, Finland. Supplements to the complaint were filed on January 3 and 4, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic devices, including mobile phones, tablet computers, and components thereof by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,415,247 (“the '247 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,270,301 (“the '301 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,393,260 (“the '260 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,036,619 (“the '619 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,826,391 (“the '391 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,480,700 (“the '700 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,473,602 (“the '602 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 7,653,366 (“the '366 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is 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., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2016).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic devices, including mobile phones, tablet computers, and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 18, 19, 21, and 23 of the '247 patent; claims 1-11, 13-41, and 43-122 of the '301 patent; claims 6, 8, 10, and 11 of the '260 patent; claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 18-21, 23, 24, 31, 37, 38, 46-51, 53, 54, 58-61, 68-74, 76-80, 82, and 83 of the '619 patent; claims 1-14, 16-21, 23, and 24 of the '391 patent; claims 1-6, 10, and 16 of the '700 patent; claims 1, 6-15, 17, 18, 22, and 27-36 of the '602 patent; and claims 1, 2, 4-7, 11-14, 17-21, and 23 of the '366 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties and other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Nokia Technologies Oy, Karaportti 3, FIN-02610, Espoo, Finland.
(b) The respondent is the following entity alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party upon which the complaint is to be served: Apple Inc., a/k/a Apple Computer, Inc., 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014.
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Notwithstanding any Commission Rules to the contrary, which are hereby waived, the presiding Administrative Law Judge may, by order, sever part of this investigation so as to create two or more smaller investigations. If the presiding Administrative Law Judge severs part of the investigation, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, in his discretion, may reassign the original and/or the severed investigations to different presiding Administrative Law Judges. If the investigation is severed,
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of the respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to 19 CFR 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies ULC on January 24, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain graphics systems, components thereof, and consumer products containing the same . The complaint names as respondents LG Electronics, Inc. of South Korea; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, NJ; LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. of San Diego, CA; VIZIO, Inc. of Irvine, CA; MediaTek Inc. of Taiwan; MediaTek USA Inc. of San Jose, CA; and Sigma Designs, Inc. of Fremont, CA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3194”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
February 8, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
On January 19, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a Third Modified Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed this lawsuit under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
The Third Modified Consent Decree (“TMCD”) requires the Commission to implement the CSO abatement projects recommended in the 2014 CSO Plan. The TMCD also requires the Commission to implement a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges to the Commission's storm sewer system and to implement plans to improve management, operation, and maintenance of its sanitary sewage and other facilities. The TMCD also requires the Commission to pay a civil penalty of $125,000.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the TMCD. 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:
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Extension of comment period.
The United States Copyright Office is extending the deadlines for the submission of written comments and empirical research studies in response to its November 8, 2016 request for additional comments (“Second Notice”) regarding the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) safe harbor provisions contained in 17 U.S.C. 512.
Written responses to the questions outlined in the Second Notice are now due no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on February 21, 2017. Empirical research studies are due no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on March 22, 2017.
For reasons of government efficiency, the Copyright Office is using the
Cindy Abramson, Assistant General Counsel, by email at
The United States Copyright Office is conducting a study to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the DMCA safe harbor provisions contained in 17 U.S.C. 512. The Office published an initial Notice of Inquiry on December 31, 2015, seeking written comments to thirty questions covering eight categories of topics.
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities will hold a meeting of the Arts and Artifacts Domestic Indemnity Panel.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 21, 2017, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held by teleconference originating at the National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506.
Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW., Room 4060, Washington, DC 20506, (202) 606 8322;
The purpose of the meeting is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation on applications for Certificates of Indemnity submitted to the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, for exhibitions beginning on or after April 1, 2017. Because the meeting will consider proprietary financial and commercial data provided in confidence by indemnity applicants, and material that is likely to disclose trade secrets or other privileged or confidential information, and because it is important to keep the values of objects to be indemnified, and the methods of transportation and security measures confidential, I have determined that that the meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(4) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code. I have made this determination under the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings, dated April 15, 2016.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft NUREG; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is revising its licensing guidance for materials licenses for self-shielded irradiators. The NRC is requesting public comment on draft NUREG-1556, Volume 5, Revision 1, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance About Self-Shielded Irradiators.” The document has been updated from the original version to include information on safety culture, security of radioactive materials, protection of sensitive information, and changes in regulatory policies and practices. This document is intended for use by applicants, licensees, and the NRC staff.
Submit comments by March 10, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practicable to do so, but the NRC is only able to assure consideration of comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Celimar Valentin-Rodriguez, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7124; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0095 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0095 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want 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 submissions into ADAMS.
This NUREG provides guidance and assists applicants and licensees in preparing applications for materials licensees for self-shielded irradiators. This NUREG also provides NRC reviewers criteria for evaluating such a license application. The purpose of this notice is to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on draft NUREG-1556, Volume 5, Revision 1, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance About Self-Shielded Irradiators.” These comments will be considered in the final version or subsequent revisions.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peace Corps.
30-day notice and request for comments.
The Peace Corps will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The purpose of this notice is to allow 30 days for public comment in the
Submit comments on or before February 27, 2017.
Comments should be addressed to Denora Miller, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer. Denora Miller can be contacted by telephone at 202-692-1236 or email at
Denora Miller at Peace Corps address above.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form N-CSR (17 CFR 249.331 and 274.128) is a combined reporting form used by registered management investment companies (“funds”) to file certified shareholder reports under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
Form N-CSR is filed semi-annually, and the Commission estimates that there are 3,449 respondents with 11,642 portfolios. The Commission further estimates that the hour burden for preparing and filing a report on Form N-CSR is 7.21 hours per portfolio. The total annual hour burden for Form N-CSR, therefore, is estimated to be 167,878 hours. We estimate that the cost burden of preparing and filing a report on Form N-CSR is $132.35 and therefore estimate that the total annual cost burden associated with Form N-CSR is $3,081,637.
Estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of information requirements of Form N-CSR is mandatory. Responses to the collection of information will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site:
On July 20, 2016, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
On January 10, 2017, the Exchange withdrew the proposed
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.
Rule 18f-1 (17 CFR 270.18f-1) enables a registered open-end management investment company (“fund”) that may redeem its securities in-kind, by making a one-time election, to commit to make cash redemptions pursuant to certain requirements without violating section 18(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-18(f)). A fund relying on the rule must file Form N-18F-1 (17 CFR 274.51) to notify the Commission of this election. The Commission staff estimates that 38 funds file Form N-18F-1 annually, and that each response takes one hour. Based on these estimates, the total annual burden hours associated with the rule is estimated to be 38 hours.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. The collection of information required by rule 18f-1 is necessary to obtain the benefits of the rule. Responses to the collection of information will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
On July 20, 2016, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
On January 10, 2017, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-BatsBZX-2016-42).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's data fees at Rule 7023 to: (i) Increase the monthly Nasdaq Level 2 Non-Professional Subscriber fee (“Level 2 Non-Professional Fee”) from $9 to $14; and (ii) increase the monthly Nasdaq Level 2 Professional Subscriber fee (“Level 2 Professional Fee”) from
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to: (i) Increase the monthly Level 2 Non-Professional Fee from $9 to $14; and (ii) increase the monthly Level 2 Professional Fee from $60 to $70 for any Display Usage, or for Non-Display Usage based upon Indirect Access. The fee increases will set the Level 2 Non-Professional Fee equal to the TotalView fee for Non-Professional Subscribers under Rule 7023(b)(2)(A), and will set the Level 2 Professional Fee equal to the TotalView fee for Professional Subscribers set forth under Rule 7023(b)(2)(B).
The proposed change will equate the price of Level 2 with TotalView in anticipation of retiring Level 2 as a separate product, which will occur on a date to be determined by Nasdaq, based on an analysis of customer demand. Until Level 2 is retired, Nasdaq will continue to support this legacy product in tandem with its full-depth product, TotalView.
Nasdaq Level 2 provides best-price orders and quotes from each market participant in the Nasdaq Market Center for Nasdaq-listed securities. It was introduced in 1983 as the Nasdaq Quotation Dissemination Service, and was the first product to provide best-price orders and quotes for Nasdaq market participants. Level 2, like all of Nasdaq's depth-of-book data products, is entirely optional.
As part of Nasdaq's continuing efforts to augment its depth-of-book products, Nasdaq created TotalView, a premier product designed to substantially enhance the amount of data available to the investor. TotalView provides all orders and quotes from all Nasdaq members displayed in the Nasdaq Market Center for Nasdaq-listed securities. This allows the user to view approximately 20 times more information about market liquidity than Level 2, which provides only the best-price orders and quotes for each market participant. In addition to a deeper view of orders and quotes, TotalView also provides other information not available on Level 2, such as the Net Order Imbalance Indicator, which supplies data on the daily auctions that take place at the open and close of the market.
Along with Level 2 and TotalView, Nasdaq also offers OpenView, which provides the depth-of-book information available in TotalView, except that OpenView provides information for securities not listed on Nasdaq. OpenView is typically purchased as an add-on to TotalView or Level 2.
Nasdaq intends to offer TotalView as its main depth-of-book product. The purpose of the proposed change is to equate the prices of Level 2 and TotalView in anticipation of retiring Level 2. In response to feedback from Distributors, the Exchange will continue to offer Level 2 for those Distributors that require time to transition their systems from Level 2 to TotalView, rather than retire Level 2 abruptly. The price increase will compensate Nasdaq for offering both the Level 2 and TotalView data feeds during this transition period.
Nasdaq anticipates retiring Level 2 for three reasons.
First, demand for Level 2 has fallen over the last two years. Nasdaq incurs a cost to support multiple depth-of-book products, and maintaining such an expenditure is not viable in view of falling demand.
Second, Level 2 has become less viable as a stand-alone product as industry standards have changed. While there was a market for Level 2 when it was first introduced, the market has moved toward either high-level products such as Nasdaq Basic (which offers best bid and offer and last sale information), or full depth-of-book data similar to TotalView. The market niche for intermediate products such as Level 2 is disappearing.
Third, the usefulness of Level 2 will continue to decrease over time as full depth-of-book products continue to add more features, such as the Net Order Imbalance Indicator in TotalView. Nasdaq plans to continue enhancing TotalView with additional features, which will further widen the gap in functionality between TotalView and Level 2.
Level 2 will not be retired immediately. There may be customers who, because of special circumstances, continue to use Level 2 for the time being. Nasdaq will monitor customer demand to identify an appropriate retirement date. Until Level 2 is retired, Nasdaq will continue to support this legacy product in tandem with its full-depth product, TotalView.
Because of the price increase for Level 2, the Exchange proposes three conforming changes to market data rules that reference Level 2.
First, under Rule 7023(c)(1), a Distributor that is also a broker-dealer may pay a monthly fee of $25,000 for the right to provide Nasdaq TotalView and Nasdaq OpenView for Display Usage for Internal Distribution, or for External Distribution to Non-Professional Subscribers with whom the firm has a brokerage relationship. Payment of this optional enterprise license fee allows the purchaser to obtain TotalView and OpenView at the previous Level 2 rate because, under Rule 7023(c)(1), the Enterprise License shall not apply to relevant Level 1 and Nasdaq Level 2 fees.
Because the proposed language equates Level 2 fees with the price of TotalView, Distributors that purchase the $25,000 Enterprise License would be required to pay the monthly per-subscriber fees at the new, higher rate, unless the language is adjusted. To maintain the current price structure, the Exchange proposes to delete the reference to Level 1 and Level 2 fees, and replace it with a set fee that reflects the current fee for Level 2. The proposal would require Distributors to pay a monthly fee of $9 for each Non-Professional Subscriber and a monthly fee of $60 for each Professional Subscriber for Display Usage based upon Direct or Indirect Access, in addition to the $25,000 monthly
Second, under Rule 7023(c)(2), a Distributor that is also a broker-dealer may pay a monthly fee of $100,000 for the right to provide Nasdaq TotalView and Nasdaq OpenView for Display Usage for Internal Distribution, or for External Distribution to both Professional and Non-Professional Subscribers with whom the firm has a brokerage relationship. Payment of this optional enterprise license fee allows the purchaser to obtain TotalView and OpenView at the previous Level 2 rate because, under Rule 7023(c)(2), the Enterprise License shall not apply to relevant Level 1 and Nasdaq Level 2 fees.
As was the case for the $25,000 Enterprise License under Rule 7023(c)(1), the proposed increase in the price of Level 2 would require Distributors that purchase the $100,000 Enterprise License to pay the monthly per-subscriber fees at the new, higher rate, unless the language is adjusted. To maintain the prior price structure, the Exchange proposes to delete the reference to Level 1 and Level 2, and replace it with a set fee for Professional and Non-Professional Subscribers. The proposal would require Distributors to pay a monthly fee of $9 for each Non-Professional Subscriber and a monthly fee of $60 for each Professional Subscriber for Display Usage based upon Direct or Indirect Access, in addition to the $100,000 monthly enterprise license. This change preserves the current per-subscriber fees associated with the $100,000 enterprise license. As previously noted, deleting the reference to Level 1 has no effect because it is not a Nasdaq product.
Third, the Exchange proposes to remove a sentence from Rule 7023(e) that has been rendered meaningless. That rule currently provides a 30-day fee waiver for a trial offer of TotalView, provided that the waiver does not include incremental fees for the Nasdaq Level 2-only service. Because the proposal removes the price differential between Level 2 and TotalView, no incremental fees will exist, and the Exchange therefore proposes deleting that sentence.
The Level 2 Professional and Non-Professional fees are entirely optional, in that they apply only to Subscribers that opt to purchase Level 2. They do not impact or raise the cost of any other Nasdaq product, except for those subscribers who opt to purchase OpenView together with Level 2, for whom the price of the combined product will rise by the same amount as Level 2.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .”
The Exchange believes that the proposals to increase the monthly Level 2 Non-Professional Fee and the Level 2 Professional Fee—which will be implemented in anticipation of retiring Level 2 as a separate product—are reasonable. The Exchange is providing time for Distributors to transition from Level 2 to TotalView feeds, and the price increase compensates Nasdaq for providing both feeds during that transition period. The fees for Level 2, like all proprietary data fees, are constrained by the Exchange's need to compete for order flow, and are subject to competition from other products and among broker-dealers for customers. If Nasdaq is incorrect in its assessment of the Level 2 market, there are no barriers to entry for competitors with substantially similar products.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes are an equitable allocation and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will apply the same fee to all similarly-situated subscribers.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
The proposed fees will: (i) Increase the monthly Level 2 Non-Professional Fee from $9 to $14; and (ii) increase the monthly Level 2 Professional Fee from $60 to $70. If the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market
Specifically, market forces constrain fees for Level 2 in three respects. First, all fees related to Level 2 are constrained by competition among exchanges and other entities attracting order flow. Firms make decisions regarding Level 2 and other proprietary data based on the total cost of interacting with the Exchange, and order flow would be harmed by the supracompetitive pricing of any proprietary data product. Second, the price of Level 2 is constrained by the existence of substitutes that are offered, or may be offered, by entities that offer proprietary data. Third, competition among Distributors for customers will further constrain the cost of Level 2. An example of the impact of market forces on the price of proprietary data is the decrease in the Nasdaq Basic enterprise license fee for broker-dealers distributing such information to subscribers in the context of a brokerage relationship, which was recently decreased from $350,000 to $100,000.
Fees related to Level 2 are constrained by competition among exchanges and other entities seeking to attract order flow. Order flow is the “life blood” of the exchanges. Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their order flow, including self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) markets, as well as internalizing broker-dealers (“BDs”) and various forms of alternative trading systems (“ATSs”), including dark pools and electronic communication networks (“ECNs”). Each SRO market competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities (“TRFs”) compete to attract internalized transaction reports. The existence of fierce competition for order flow implies a high degree of price sensitivity on the part of BDs, which may readily reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues.
The level of competition and contestability in the market for order flow is demonstrated by the numerous examples of entrants that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and BATS/Direct Edge. A proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume. For a variety of reasons, competition from new entrants, especially for order execution, has increased dramatically over the last decade.
Each SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD that competes for order flow is permitted to produce proprietary data products. Many currently do or have announced plans to do so, including NYSE, NYSE Amex, NYSE Arca, BATS, and IEX. This is because Regulation NMS deregulated the market for proprietary data. While BDs had previously published their proprietary data individually, Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and BDs to produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before possible. Order routers and market data vendors can facilitate production of proprietary data products for single or multiple BDs. The potential sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless.
The markets for order flow and proprietary data are inextricably linked: A trading platform cannot generate market information unless it receives trade orders. As a result, the competition for order flow constrains the prices that platforms can charge for proprietary data products. Firms make decisions on how much and what types of data to consume based on the total cost of interacting with Nasdaq and other exchanges. Data fees are but one factor in a total platform analysis. If the cost of the product exceeds its expected value, the broker-dealer will choose not to buy it. A supracompetitive increase in the fees charged for either transactions or proprietary data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. In this manner, the competition for order flow will constrain prices for proprietary data products.
The price of depth-of-book data is constrained by the existence of competition from other exchanges, such as NYSE and BATS, which sell proprietary depth-of-book data. While a small number of highly sophisticated traders purchase depth-of-book products from multiple exchanges, most customers do not. Because most customers would not pay an excessive price for Level 2 when substitute data is available from other proprietary sources, the Exchange is constrained in its pricing decisions.
Competition among Distributors provides another form of price discipline for proprietary data products. If the price of Level 2 were set above competitive levels, Distributors purchasing Level 2 would be at a disadvantage relative to their competitors, and would therefore either purchase a substitute or forego the product altogether.
In summary, market forces constrain the price of depth-of-book data such as Level 2 through competition for order flow, competition from substitute products, and in the competition among vendors for customers. For these reasons, the Exchange has provided a substantial basis demonstrating that the fee is equitable, fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory, and therefore consistent with and in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange 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 Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules governing the give up of a Clearing Participant by a Participant on Exchange Transactions. The text of the proposed rule change is 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 augment its requirements in C2 Rule 6.30 related to the give up of a Clearing Participant by a Participant on Exchange transactions. By way of background, to enter transactions on the Exchange, a Participant must either be a Clearing Participant or must have a Clearing Participant agree to accept financial responsibility for all of its transactions. Additionally, Rule 6.30 currently provides that when a Participant executes a transaction on the Exchange, it must give up the name of the Clearing Participant (the “Give Up”) through which the transaction will be cleared (
The Exchange seeks to amend Rule 6.30 to provide that a Participant may only give up a “Designated Give Up” or its “Guarantor.” The Exchange proposes to introduce and define the term “Designated Give Up.” For purposes of Rule 6.30, a “Designated Give Up,” is any Clearing Participant that a Participant (other than a Market-Maker
The Exchange also proposes to define the term “Guarantor” in the proposed rule text. For purposes of proposed Rule 6.30, a “Guarantor” shall refer to a Clearing Participant that has issued a Letter of Guarantee or Letter of Authorization for the executing Participant under the C2 Rule 3.10 (Letters of Guarantee and Authorization) that is in effect at the time of the execution of the applicable trade. An executing Participant may give up its Guarantor without having to first designate it to the Exchange as a “Designated Give Up.”
As noted above, the proposed rule change seeks to provide that a Participant may give up only (i) the name of a Clearing Participant that has previously been identified and processed by the Exchange as a Designated Give Up for that Participant, if not a Market-Maker or (ii) its Guarantor. This limitation shall be enforced by the Exchange's trading systems. Specifically, the Exchange will configure its trading systems to only accept orders from a Participant which identify a Designated Give Up or Guarantor for that Participant and will reject any order entered by a Participant which designates a Give Up that is not at the time a Designated Give Up or Guarantor of the Participant. The Exchange notes that it will notify a Participant in writing when an identified Designated Give Up becomes “effective” (
The Exchange next proposes to permit a Designated Give Up and a Guarantor to, in certain circumstances, determine not to accept a trade on which its name was given up. If a Designated Give Up or Guarantor determines not to accept a trade, it may reject the trade in accordance with the procedures described more fully below.
A Designated Give Up may determine to not accept a trade on which its name was given up so long as it believes in good faith that it has a valid reason not to accept the trade. Examples of valid reasons may be that the Designated Give Up does not have a customer for that particular trade or that another Clearing Participant agrees to be the Give Up on the trade and has notified the Exchange and executing Participant in writing of its intent to accept the trade. If a Designated Give Up determines to not accept (and thereby reject) a trade on which its name was given up, the executing Participant's Guarantor or another Clearing Participant that agrees to be the Give Up on the trade shall become the Give Up. Next, the Exchange proposes to provide that a Guarantor may not accept (and thereby reject) a non-Marker-Maker trade on which its name was given up only if another Clearing Participant agrees to be the Give Up on the trade and has notified the Exchange and executing Participant in writing of its intent to accept the trade. The Exchange notes that only a Designated Give Up or Guarantor whose name was initially given up on a trade is permitted to not accept the trade, subject to the conditions noted above (
The Exchange has incorporated into proposed Rule 6.30 procedures that must be followed in order for a Designated Give Up to reject a trade. A trade may only be rejected on (i) the trade date or (ii) the business day following the trade date (“T+1”) (except that transactions in expiring options series may not be rejected on T+1).
If a Designated Give Up decides to reject a trade on the trade date, it must first notify, in writing, the executing Participant or its designated agent, as soon as possible and attempt to resolve the disputed give up. This requirement puts the executing Participant on notice that the Give Up on the trade may be changed and provides the executing Participant and Designated Give Up an opportunity to resolve the dispute in a manner agreeable to each party. The Exchange notes that a Designated Give Up may request from the Exchange the contact information of the executing Participant or its designated agent for any trade it wishes to reject.
Following notification to the executing Participant on the trade date, a Designated Give Up may request the ability from the Exchange to change the Give Up on the trade. This request must be made by completing and submitting a standardized form (“Give Up Change Form”) to the Exchange. A copy of the proposed Give Up Change Form is included with this filing in Exhibit 3. So long as the Exchange is able to process the request prior to the trade input cutoff time established by the Clearing Corporation (or fifteen minutes thereafter, so long as the Exchange receives and is able to process a request to extend its time of final trade submission to the Clearing Corporation) (“Trade Date Cutoff Time”), the Exchange will provide the Designated Give Up the ability to make the change to the Give Up on the trade to either (1) another Clearing Participant or (2) the executing Participant's Guarantor.
A Designated Give Up may change the Give Up to another Clearing Participant (“New Clearing Participant”) (
The Exchange also seeks to provide that a Designated Give Up may alternatively change the Give Up to the executing Participant's Guarantor. The Guarantor does not need to notify the Exchange of its intent to accept the trade nor does it need to submit any notification or form. The Designated Give Up however, must first provide written notice to the Guarantor that it will be making this change. A Guarantor that becomes the Give Up on a trade as a result of the Designated Give Up rejecting the trade is prohibited from not accepting the trade/rejecting the trade. This prohibition provides finality to the trade and ensures that the trade is not repeatedly reassigned from one Clearing Participant to another.
A Guarantor may also reject a non-Market-Maker trade for which its name was the initial given up by a Participant, but only if another Clearing Participant has first agreed to be the Give Up on the trade and has notified the Exchange and executing Participant in writing of its intent to accept the trade. If a Guarantor of a Participant decides to reject a trade on the trade date, it must follow the same procedures to change the Give Up as would be followed by a Designated Give Up. The ability to make any changes, either by the Designated Give Up or Guarantor, to the Give Up pursuant to this procedure will end at the Trade Date Cutoff Time.
Finally, once the Give Up has been changed, the Designated Give Up or Guarantor making the change must immediately thereafter notify the Exchange, the parties to the trade and the New Clearing Participant of the change in writing.
The Exchange next acknowledges that some clearing firms may not reconcile their trades until after the Trade Date Cutoff Time. A clearing firm therefore, may not realize that a valid reason exists to not accept a particular trade until after the close of the trading day or until the following morning. Accordingly, the Exchange seeks to establish a procedure for a Designated Give Up or Guarantor of a Participant that is not a Market-Maker to reject a trade on the following trade day (“T+1”). The Exchange notes that a separate procedure must be established for T+1 changes because to effectively change the Give Up on a trade on T+1, an offsetting reversal has to occur (as opposed to merely identifying a different Clearing Participant on the trade). More specifically, a buy side must be entered by one Clearing Participant and the sell side must be entered by the other Clearing Participant in order to effect the moving of the position from one Clearing Participant to another.
A Designed [sic] Give Up that wishes to reject a trade on T+1 must first notify the executing Participant, in writing, to try to attempt and resolve the dispute. Following notification to the Participant, a Designated Give Up may contact the Exchange and request the ability to enter trade records into the Exchange's trading system on behalf of itself and either the New Clearing Participant or the executing Participant's Guarantor, which would effect a transfer of the trade to the new Give Up. So long as the Exchange is able to process the request prior to 12:00 p.m. (CT) on T+1 (“T+1 Cutoff Time”), the Exchange shall provide the Designated Give Up the ability to do so. The request must be made in writing using a standardized form (
An executing Participant's Guarantor that was the initial Give Up on a trade may also reject the trade on T+1, but may only change the Give Up to another Clearing Participant that has first agreed to be the Give Up on the trade and has notified the Exchange (by submitting the Give Up Change Form) and executing Participant in writing of its intent to accept the trade. If a Guarantor of a Participant decides to reject a non-Market-Maker trade on T+1, it must follow the same procedures outlined in subparagraph (f)(iii). The Exchange again notes that only a Guarantor whose name was initially given up is permitted to reject a trade (
The ability for either a Designated Give Up or Guarantor to make these changes shall end at the T+1 Cutoff Time. The Exchange notes that that the T+1 Cutoff Time is 12:00 p.m. (CT) to provide finality and certainty as to which Clearing Participant will be the Clearing Participant for the trade.
Once the change to the Give Up has been made, the Designated Give Up or Guarantor making the change must immediately thereafter notify the Exchange, the parties to the trade and the New Clearing Participant of the change in writing. The Exchange notes that the T+1 procedure is not applicable to trades in expiring options series that take place on the last trading day prior to their expiration. Rather, a Designated Give Up and Guarantor may only reject these transactions on the trade date until the Trade Date Cutoff Time in accordance with the trade date procedures described above.
As discussed above, the Exchange is allowing Participant s [sic] that are not Market-Makers to identify any Clearing Participant as a Designated Give Up. Also as discussed, the Exchange has determined not to take instructions from a Clearing Participant not to permit a particular Participant from giving up their name so that the Exchange will not be placed in the position of arbiter between a Clearing Participant, a Participant and a customer. The Exchange recognizes, however, that Participants should not be given the ability to give up any Clearing Participant without also providing a method of recourse to those Clearing Participants which, for the prescribed reasons discussed above, should not be obligated to clear certain trades for which they are given up. The Exchange accordingly is seeking to provide Designated Give Ups and Guarantors the ability to, where appropriate, reject a trade. Ultimately, however, the trade must clear with a clearing firm and there must be finality to the trade. The Exchange believes that the executing Participant's Guarantor, absent a Clearing Participant that agrees to accept the trade, should become the Give Up on any trade which a Designated Give Up determines to reject in accordance with these proposed rule provisions, because the Guarantor, by virtue of having issued a Letter of Guarantee or Authorization, has already accepted financial responsibility for all Exchange transactions made by the executing Participant. The Exchange
The Exchange seeks to codify in its proposed rule three scenarios in which a Give Up on a transaction may be changed without Exchange involvement. First, if an executing Participant has the ability through an Exchange system to do so, it may change the Give Up on a trade to another Designated Give Up or its Guarantor. The Exchange notes that Participants often make these changes when, for example, there was a keypunch error (
Next, the proposed rule provides that, if a Designated Give Up has the ability to do so, it may change the Give Up on a transaction for which it was given up to (i) another Clearing Participant affiliated with the Designated Give Up or (ii) a Clearing Participant that is a back office agent for the Designated Give Up. The ability to make such a change will end at the Trade Date Cutoff Time. The procedures in proposed subparagraph (f) of Rule 6.30 that were previously described will not apply in these instances. The Exchange notes that often Clearing Participants themselves have the ability to change a Give Up on a trade for which it was given up to another Clearing Participant affiliate or Clearing Participant for which the Designated Give Up is a back office agent. Therefore, Exchange involvement in these instances is not necessary.
Lastly, the proposed rule provides that if both a Designated Give Up and a Clearing Participant have the ability through an Exchange system to do so, the Designated Give Up and Clearing Participant may each enter trade records into the Exchange's systems on T+1 that would effect a transfer of the trade in a non-expired option series from that Designated Give Up to that Clearing Participant. Likewise, if a Guarantor of a Participant trade that is not a Market-Maker trade and a Clearing Participant have the ability through an Exchange system to do so, the Guarantor and Clearing Participant may each enter trade records into the Exchange's systems on T+1 that would effect a transfer of the trade in a non-expired option series from that Guarantor to that Clearing Participant. The Designated Give Up or Guarantor shall not make any such change after the T+1 Cutoff Time. The Exchange notes that a Designated Give Up (or Guarantor) must notify, in writing, the Exchange and all the parties to the trade, of any such change made pursuant to this provision. This notification alerts the parties and the Exchange that a change to the Give Up has been made. Finally, the Designated Give Up (or Guarantor) will be responsible for monitoring the trade and ensuring that the other Clearing Participant has entered its side of the transaction timely and correctly. If either a Designated Give Up (or Guarantor) or Clearing Participant cannot themselves enter trade records into the Exchange's systems to effect a transfer of the trade from one to the other, the Designated Give Up (or Guarantor) may request the ability from the Exchange to enter both sides of the transaction in accordance with this amended Rule 6.30 and pursuant to the procedures set forth in subparagraph (f)(iii) of that Rule.
For purposes of the Rules of the Exchange, a Clearing Participant will be financially responsible for all trades for which it is the Give Up at the Applicable Cutoff Time (for purposes of the proposed rule, the “Applicable Cutoff Time” shall refer to the T+1 Cutoff Time for non-expiring option series and to the Trade Date Cutoff Time for expiring option series). The Exchange notes however, that nothing in the proposed rule shall preclude a different party from being responsible for the trade outside of the Rules of the Exchange pursuant to OCC Rules, any agreement between the applicable parties, other applicable rules and regulations, arbitration, court proceedings or otherwise. Moreover, in processing a request to provide a Designated Give Up the ability to change a Give Up on a trade, the Exchange will not consider or validate whether the Designated Give Up has satisfied the requirements of this Rule in relation to having a good faith belief that it has a valid reason not to accept a trade or having notified the executing Participant and attempting to resolve the disputed Give Up prior to changing the Give Up. Rather, upon request, the Exchange shall always provide a Designated Give Up or Guarantor the ability to change the give up or to reject a trade pursuant to the proposed rule so long as the Designated Give Up or Guarantor, and New Clearing Participant if applicable, have provided a completed Give Up Change Forms within the prescribed time period. The Exchange notes that given the inherent time constraints in making a change to a Give Up on a transaction, the Exchange would not be able to adequately consider the above-mentioned requirements and make a determination within the prescribed period of time. Rather, the Exchange will examine trades for which a Give Up was changed pursuant to subparagraphs (e) and (f) after the fact to ensure that requirements set forth in amended Rule 6.30 were complied with. Particularly, the Exchange notes that the Give Up Change Forms that Designated Give Ups, Guarantors and New Clearing Participants must submit, will help to ensure that the Exchange obtains, in a uniform format, the information that it needs to monitor and regulate this rule and these give up changes in particular. This information, for example, will better allow the Exchange to determine whether the Designated Give Up had a valid reason to reject the trade, as well as assist the Exchange in cross checking and confirming that what the Designated Give Up or Guarantor said it was going to do is what it actually did (
The Exchange proposes to announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory Circular, to be published no later than thirty (30) days following the date of filing. The implementation date will be no later than ninety (90) days following publication of the Regulatory Circular. The Exchange notes this additional time gives Participants time to provide their lists of all Clearing Participants that they would like to designate as “Designated Give Ups” and gives the Exchange time to process those lists and configure its system accordingly.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
First, detailing in the rules how Participants will give up Clearing Participants and how Clearing Participants may “reject” a trade provides transparency and operational certainty. The Exchange believes additional transparency removes a potential impediment to, and will contribute to perfecting, the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, will protect investors and the public interest. Moreover, the Exchange notes that amended Rule 6.30 requires standardized forms to be used in the designation of Designated Give Ups to ensure a seamless administration of the Rule. The Rule also requires that Clearing Participants submit standardized forms when requesting the ability to reject a trade and that all notifications relating to a change in Give Up are in writing. These requirements will aid the Exchange's efforts to monitor and regulate Participants and Clearing Participants as they relate to amended Rule 6.30 and changes in give ups, thereby protecting investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange notes that in evaluating its give up rule provisions, it solicited feedback from a variety of market participants. The Exchange believes that its proposed give up rule strikes the right balance between the various views and interests across the industry. For example, although the rule allows Participants that are not Market-Makers to identify any Clearing Participant as a Designated Give Up, it also provides that Clearing Participants will receive notice of any Participant that has designated it as a Designated Give Up and provides for a procedure for a Clearing Participant to “reject” a trade in accordance with the Rules, both on the trade date and T+1. The Exchange recognizes that Participants should not be given the ability to give up any Clearing Participant without also providing a method of recourse to those Clearing Participants which, for the prescribed reasons discussed above, should not be obligated to clear certain trades for which they are given up. The Exchange believes that providing Designated Give Ups the ability to reject a trade within a reasonable amount of time is consistent with the Act as, pursuant to the proposed rule, the Designated Give Ups may only do so if they have a valid reason and because ultimately, the trade can always be assigned to the Guarantor of the executing Participant. A trade must clear with a clearing firm and there must be finality to the trade. The Exchange believes that the executing Participant's Guarantor, absent a Clearing Participant that agrees to accept the trade, should become the Give Up on any trade which a Designated Give Up determines to reject in accordance with the proposed rule provisions, because the Guarantor, by virtue of having issued a Letter of Guarantee or Authorization, has already accepted financial responsibility for all Exchange transactions made by the executing Participant. Therefore, amended Rule 6.30 is reasonable and provides certainty that a Clearing Participant will always be responsible for a trade, which protects investors and the public interest.
Lastly, the Exchange notes that amended Rule 6.30 does not preclude a different party than the party given up from being responsible for the trade outside of the Rules of the Exchange pursuant to OCC Rules, any agreement between the applicable parties, other applicable rules and regulations, arbitration, court proceedings or otherwise. The Exchange acknowledges that it will not consider whether the Designated Give Up has satisfied the requirements of this Rule in relation to having a good faith belief that it has a valid reason not to accept a trade or having notified the executing Participant and attempting to resolve the disputed Give Up prior to changing the Give Up, due to inherent time restrictions. However, the Exchange believes investor and public interest are still protected as the Exchange will still examine trades for which a Give Up was changed pursuant to subparagraphs (e) and (f) of amended Rule 6.30 after the fact to ensure that the requirements set forth in the Rule were complied with. As noted above, the use of standardized forms and the requirement that certain notices be in writing will assist monitoring any give up changes and enforcing amended Rule 6.30. Finally, the Exchange notes that the Rule does not preclude these factors from being considered in a different forum (
C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose an unnecessary burden on intramarket competition because it will apply equally to all similarly situated Participants. The Exchange also notes that, should the proposed changes make C2 more attractive for trading, market participants trading on other exchanges can always elect to become Participants on C2 to take advantage of the trading opportunities.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On July 6, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On January 17, 2017, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2016-97).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 12(d)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) generally prohibits registered investment companies (“funds”), and companies controlled by funds, from purchasing securities issued by a registered investment adviser, broker, dealer, or underwriter (“securities-related businesses”). Rule 12d3-1 (“Exemption of acquisitions of securities issued by persons engaged in securities related businesses” (17 CFR 270.12d3-1)) permits a fund to invest up to five percent of its assets in securities of an issuer deriving more than fifteen percent of its gross revenues from securities-related businesses, but a fund may not rely on rule 12d3-1 to acquire securities of its own investment adviser or any affiliated person of its own investment adviser.
A fund may, however, rely on an exemption in rule 12d3-1 to acquire securities issued by its subadvisers in circumstances in which the subadviser would have little ability to take advantage of the fund, because it is not in a position to direct the fund's securities purchases. The exemption in rule 12d3-1 is available if (i) the subadviser is not, and is not an affiliated person of, an investment adviser that provides advice with respect to the portion of the fund that is acquiring the securities, and (ii) the advisory contracts of the subadviser, and any subadviser that is advising the purchasing portion of the fund, prohibit them from consulting with each other concerning securities transactions of the fund, and limit their responsibility in providing advice to providing advice with respect to discrete portions of the fund's portfolio.
Based on an analysis of third-party information, the staff estimates that approximately 319 fund portfolios enter into subadvisory agreements each year.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. Complying with this collection of information requirement is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on rule 12d3-1. Responses will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to convert the shares of the SPDR DoubleLine Short Term Total Return Tactical ETF and the SPDR DoubleLine Emerging Markets Fixed Income ETF (collectively, the “Funds”), both of which are a series of the SSGA Active Trust (the “Trust”), from listing pursuant to Rule 14.11(i) and approval orders issued by the Commission to listing pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) as provided in Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C).
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 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 convert the listing of the shares of the Funds (the “Shares”) from listing pursuant to approval orders issued by the Commission to listing pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) as provided in Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C). The Shares began trading on the Exchange on April 14, 2016 after the Commission issued orders approving the listing and trading of the Shares on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposal to allow the Funds to be listed on the Exchange pursuant to the generic listing standards under Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C) will have no impact on competition.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 201 is a short sale-related circuit breaker rule that, if triggered, imposes a restriction on the prices at which securities may be sold short. Rule 200(g) provides that a broker-dealer may mark certain qualifying sell orders “short exempt.” The information collected under Rule 201's written policies and procedures requirement applicable to trading centers, the written policies and procedures requirement of the broker-dealer provision of Rule 201(c), the written policies and procedures requirement of the riskless principal provision of Rule 201(d)(6), and the “short exempt” marking requirement of Rule 200(g) enable the Commission and self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) to examine and monitor for compliance with the requirements of Rule 201 and Rule 200(g).
In addition, the information collected under Rule 201's written policies and procedures requirement applicable to trading centers helps ensure that trading centers do not execute or display any impermissibly priced short sale orders, unless an order is marked “short exempt,” in accordance with the rule's requirements. Similarly, the information collected under the written policies and procedures requirement of the broker-dealer provision of Rule 201(c) and the riskless principal provision of Rule 201(d)(6) helps to ensure that broker-dealers comply with the requirements of these provisions. The information collected pursuant to the “short exempt” marking requirement of Rule 200(g) also provides an indication to a trading center when it must execute or display a short sale order without regard to whether the short sale order is at a price that is less than or equal to the current national best bid.
It is estimated that SRO and non-SRO respondents registered with the Commission and subject to the collection of information requirements of Rule 201 and Rule 200(g) incur an aggregate annual burden of 2,908,309 hours to comply with the rules and an aggregate annual external cost of $120,000.
Any records generated in connection with Rule 201's requirements that trading centers and broker-dealers (with respect to the broker-dealer and riskless principal provisions) establish written policies and procedures must be preserved in accordance with, and for the periods specified in, Exchange Act Rules 17a-1 for SRO trading centers and 17a-4(e)(7) for non-SRO trading centers and registered broker-dealers. The
Compliance with Rule 201 and Rule 200(g) is mandatory. We expect that the information collected pursuant to Rule 201's required policies and procedures for trading centers will be communicated to the members, subscribers, and employees (as applicable) of all trading centers. In addition, the information collected pursuant to Rule 201's required policies and procedures for trading centers will be retained by the trading centers and will be available to the Commission and SRO examiners upon request, but not subject to public availability. The information collected pursuant to Rule 201's broker-dealer provision and the riskless principal exception will be retained by the broker-dealers and will be available to the Commission and SRO examiners upon request, but not subject to public availability. The information collected pursuant to the “short exempt” marking requirements in Rule 200(g) and Rule 200(g)(2) will be submitted to trading centers and will be available to the Commission and SRO examiners upon request. The information collected pursuant to the “short exempt” marking requirement may be publicly available because it may be published, in a form that would not identify individual broker-dealers, by SROs that publish on their Web sites aggregate short selling volume data in each individual equity security for that day and, on a one-month delayed basis, information regarding individual short sale transactions in all exchange-listed equity securities.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Nasdaq proposes a proposed rule change with respect to the Gabelli All Cap NextShares (the “Fund”), a series of Gabelli NextShares Trust (the “Trust”).
The proposed rule change is being filed to reflect a proposed revision to the Fund's name and modify its proposed investments (which are set forth in an order previously granted by the Commission
The text of the proposed rule change is available 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 shares of the Fund will be offered by the Trust. The Trust is registered with the Commission as an open-end investment company and has filed a registration statement on Form N-1A (“Registration Statement”) with the Commission.
The Commission previously approved the listing and trading on the Exchange of the shares of the Fund under Nasdaq Rule 5745, which governs the listing and trading of NextShares
In this proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to change the Fund's name and modify its proposed investments.
As proposed, the Fund will be renamed Gabelli Food of All Nations NextShares and, under normal market conditions, will invest at least 80% of its net assets, plus borrowings for investment purposes, in common stocks and preferred stocks of domestic and foreign companies of all capitalization ranges in the food and beverages industries.
Beyond the changes described above, there are no changes to any other information included in the Prior Release; and all other facts presented and representations made in the Prior Release remain true and in effect. The Trust confirms that the Fund will continue to comply with all initial and continued listing requirements under Nasdaq Rule 5745.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Fund will continue to comply with all the initial and continued listing requirements under Nasdaq Rule 5745.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to change the Fund's name and to modify its proposed investments does not alter any of the arguments contained in the Prior Release in support of the original approval order that permitted the listing and trading of shares of the Fund and all other representations made in the Prior Release remain unchanged. The Exchange believes this proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange's efforts to protect investors and the public interest through the disclosure of updated and correct information regarding the Fund.
For the above reasons, Nasdaq believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In fact, the Exchange believes that the introduction of the Fund will promote competition by making available to investors an actively managed investment strategy in a structure that offers the cost and tax efficiencies and shareholder protections of ETFs, while removing the requirement for daily portfolio holdings disclosure to ensure a tight relationship between market trading prices and NAV.
Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed method of trading in NextShares will provide investors with transparency of trading costs, and the ability to control trading costs using limit orders, that is not available for conventionally traded ETFs.
These developments could significantly enhance competition to the benefit of the markets and investors.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given 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 of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to March 28, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Derek Rivers, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Overseas Citizens Services (CA/OCS/PMO), U.S. Department of State, SA-17, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20036, who may be reached at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 subpart F-
CSXT has certified that: (1) No local freight traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) because the Line is not a through route, no overhead traffic has operated; and, therefore, none needs to be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line is either pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(c) (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on February 28, 2017, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to CSXT's representative: Louis E. Gitomer, Law Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, LLC, 600 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
CSXT has filed environmental and historic reports that address the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by February 3, 2017. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling OEA at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), CSXT shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the Line. If consummation has not been effected by CSXT's filing of a notice of consummation by January 27, 2018, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from Neville Peterson LLP on behalf of Trinity Industries, Inc. (WB17-04-1/18/17) for permission to use certain data from the Board's 2015 Carload Waybill Sample. A copy of this request may be obtained from the Office of Economics.
The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
Tennessee Valley Authority.
60-Day notice of submission of information collection approval and request for comments.
The proposed information collection described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The Tennessee Valley Authority is soliciting public comments on this renewal of an existing information collection.
Requests for information, including copies of the information collection proposed and supporting documentation, should be directed to the Senior Privacy Program Manager: Christopher A. Marsalis, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 W. Summit Hill Dr. (WT 5D), Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1401; telephone (865) 632-2467 or by email at
Comments should be sent to the Agency Clearance Officer no later than March 28, 2017.
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. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8874-B, Notice of Recapture Event for New Markets Credit.
Written comments should be received on or before March 28, 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 Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
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)).
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
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 REG-209020-86, Foreign Tax Credit; Notification of Foreign Tax Redeterminations.
Written comments should be received on or before March 28, 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 Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 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.
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. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning final regulations concerning updating of employer identification numbers.
Written comments should be received on or before March 28, 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
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. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Notice 2009-72 and Notice 2013-12, Qualifying Advanced Energy Project Credit.
Written comments should be received on or before March 28, 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 LaNita Van Dyke at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all 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. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning TD 8816, Roth IRAs.
Written comments should be received on or before March 28, 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 regulation should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
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)).
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. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8923, Mine Rescue Team Training Credit.
Written comments should be received on or before March 28, 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 Sara Covington at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
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)).
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. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final regulation regarding excise taxes on excess benefit transactions.
Written comments should be received on or before March 28, 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 regulation should be directed to Sara Covington at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
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)).
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 Notice 2012-41, Extension of Relief and Procedures Under Notice 2010-30 and Notice 2011-16 for Spouses of U.S. Servicemembers Who are Working In or Claiming Residence or Domicile In a U.S. Territory Under the Military Spouses Residency Relief Act.
Written comments should be received on or before March 28, 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 this notice should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 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.
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. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8819, Dollar Election Under Section 985.
Written comments should be received on or before March 28, 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 Sara Covington, 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.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget
Comments should be received on or before February 27, 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 Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained by emailing
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
| 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 |