| Page Range | 43457-43666 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 43665 - Regarding the Proposed Acquisition of Lattice Semiconductor Corporation by China Venture Capital Fund Corporation Limited | |
| 82 FR 43663 - National POW/MIA Recognition Day, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 43661 - National Hispanic Heritage Month, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 43540 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 82 FR 43618 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43517 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 43536 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 82 FR 43541 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43640 - Certification Related to Foreign Military Financing for Colombia Under Section 7045(b)(6) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 43572 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Sharp Clinical Services, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 43541 - Updated OGE Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board | |
| 82 FR 43571 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Halo Pharmaceutical, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 43569 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Catalent Centers, LLC | |
| 82 FR 43572 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 43569 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: AMPAC Fine Chemicals LLC | |
| 82 FR 43571 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Unither Manufacturing LLC | |
| 82 FR 43537 - Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances From New Unit Set-Asides for the 2017 Compliance Year | |
| 82 FR 43494 - Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category | |
| 82 FR 43568 - Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure | |
| 82 FR 43568 - Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure | |
| 82 FR 43637 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 82 FR 43576 - Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB Review | |
| 82 FR 43573 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection, eComments Requested; Crime Data Explorer Feedback Survey | |
| 82 FR 43576 - Information Collection Request: Submission for OMB Review | |
| 82 FR 43609 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE Arca Rule 7.35-E, NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E and NYSE Arca Rule 7.23-E | |
| 82 FR 43627 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees Pursuant to Rule 15.110 | |
| 82 FR 43633 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges | |
| 82 FR 43598 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Transaction Fees | |
| 82 FR 43621 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Permit the Listing and Trading of Managed Portfolio Shares; and To List and Trade Shares of the Following Under Proposed Rule 14.11(k): ClearBridge Appreciation ETF; ClearBridge Large Cap ETF; ClearBridge MidCap Growth ETF; ClearBridge Select ETF; and ClearBridge All Cap Value ETF | |
| 82 FR 43618 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Make Non-Substantive, Clarifying Changes to ISE's Rulebook and Schedule of Fees | |
| 82 FR 43597 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Remove Language From Chapter 19 of the Rulebook | |
| 82 FR 43587 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MSRB Rule G-34, on CUSIP Numbers, New Issue, and Market Information Requirements | |
| 82 FR 43595 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 11.13, Order Execution and Routing, To Account for IEX as a Primary Listing Market and To Amend Certain Rules To Reflect the Name Change of NYSE MKT to NYSE American | |
| 82 FR 43611 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of Calvert Ultra-Short Income NextSharesTM | |
| 82 FR 43575 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Northwest Medical Isotopes; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43575 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Plant Operations and Fire Protection; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43515 - Notice of 108th Commission Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43523 - Upcoming 2018 International Trade Administration Aerospace Industry Trade Mission to Singapore | |
| 82 FR 43567 - Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same; Notice of Request for Statements on the Public Interest | |
| 82 FR 43549 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 43556 - Notice of Availability for Memorandum on Rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals | |
| 82 FR 43555 - Meeting of The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 43554 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Emergency Notification System (ENS) | |
| 82 FR 43568 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Open Platform for NFV Project, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 43553 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Mitigation Grant Programs/e-Grants | |
| 82 FR 43569 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-fd.Io Project, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 43514 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 43548 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 43570 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Specgx LLC | |
| 82 FR 43641 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at the Lehigh Valley International Airport (ABE), Allentown, Pennsylvania | |
| 82 FR 43571 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Specgx LLC | |
| 82 FR 43641 - Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on a Land Use Change From Aeronautical to Non-Aeronautical Use for 4.2 Acres of Airport Land for Solar Farm Use at Newport Airport, Middletown, RI | |
| 82 FR 43577 - Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB Review | |
| 82 FR 43547 - Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-Health Disparities Subcommittee (HDS) | |
| 82 FR 43547 - Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) | |
| 82 FR 43500 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Adjustments to 2017 Northern Albacore Tuna Quota, 2017 North and South Atlantic Swordfish Quotas, and 2017 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Reserve Category Quota | |
| 82 FR 43531 - Notice of Request for Information on Solar Energy Technology Analysis & Data Needs | |
| 82 FR 43516 - Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Italy and Turkey: Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determinations With Final Antidumping Duty Determinations | |
| 82 FR 43516 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review | |
| 82 FR 43525 - Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From India: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015/2017 | |
| 82 FR 43522 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Administrative Review Pursuant to Court Decision | |
| 82 FR 43526 - Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Correction to the Opportunity To Request Administrative Review Notice | |
| 82 FR 43530 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Integrated Partner Management (IPM) System | |
| 82 FR 43531 - Agency Information Collection Extension | |
| 82 FR 43529 - Board of Advisors to the Presidents of the Naval Postgraduate School and the Naval War College; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43642 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 82 FR 43652 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 82 FR 43566 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Arizona | |
| 82 FR 43647 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 82 FR 43528 - Air University Board of Visitors Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43651 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 82 FR 43486 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA | |
| 82 FR 43487 - Safety Zone; Recurring Annual Event Held in Coast Guard Sector Boston Captain of the Port Zone | |
| 82 FR 43529 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 43527 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection Number 3038-0062, Off-Exchange Foreign Currency Transactions | |
| 82 FR 43542 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 82 FR 43530 - National Petroleum Council Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43526 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43546 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 82 FR 43544 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 82 FR 43515 - EU-U.S. Privacy Shield; Invitation for Applications for Inclusion on the List of Arbitrators; Correction | |
| 82 FR 43485 - Regattas and Marine Parades; Great Lakes Annual Marine Events | |
| 82 FR 43552 - National Boating Safety Advisory Council | |
| 82 FR 43459 - Protection of Human Subjects | |
| 82 FR 43566 - Agency Information Collection Activities: 287(g) Needs Assessment; New Collection | |
| 82 FR 43637 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New Hampshire | |
| 82 FR 43636 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the State of Florida | |
| 82 FR 43533 - Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
| 82 FR 43551 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 43552 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 43551 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43550 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 43535 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 43533 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 43535 - PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date | |
| 82 FR 43534 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 43535 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 43532 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 43574 - National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 43574 - Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee; meeting | |
| 82 FR 43506 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas; Revisions to Minor New Source Review Program | |
| 82 FR 43573 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act | |
| 82 FR 43565 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS); Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection | |
| 82 FR 43629 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the On-Floor Lead Market-Maker Program | |
| 82 FR 43601 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 975NY and Rule 953NY | |
| 82 FR 43578 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 6.87-O and Rule 6.65-O | |
| 82 FR 43584 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4703(a) To Allow Members To Designate When an Order With a RTFY or SCAN Routing Order Attribute Will Be Activated | |
| 82 FR 43607 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Add a Missing Letter to Section IV, Part D of the Pricing Schedule | |
| 82 FR 43539 - Availability of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Assessment Plans for Nitrate/Nitrite, Chloroform, and Ethylbenzene | |
| 82 FR 43491 - Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations; Consistency Update for California | |
| 82 FR 43487 - Air Plan Approval; Alabama: Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 | |
| 82 FR 43489 - Air Plan Approval; KY; Removal of Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Program | |
| 82 FR 43577 - New Postal Products | |
| 82 FR 43640 - Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board Members | |
| 82 FR 43656 - Notice of Application for Approval To Discontinue or Modify a Railroad Signal System | |
| 82 FR 43654 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 82 FR 43655 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 82 FR 43657 - Notice of Application for Approval To Discontinue or Modify a Railroad Signal System | |
| 82 FR 43655 - Notice of Application for Approval To Discontinue or Modify a Railroad Signal System | |
| 82 FR 43654 - Notice of Application for Approval To Discontinue or Modify a Railroad Signal System | |
| 82 FR 43656 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 82 FR 43541 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities | |
| 82 FR 43541 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 82 FR 43457 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 43658 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Order 13581 | |
| 82 FR 43503 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Pacific Cod in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Correction | |
| 82 FR 43504 - Pears Grown in Oregon and Washington; Increased Assessment Rate for Processed Pears | |
| 82 FR 43482 - New Animal Drugs; Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Change of Sponsor's Address | |
| 82 FR 43511 - NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Revised Voucher and Invoice Submission & Payment Process | |
| 82 FR 43544 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) | |
| 82 FR 43543 - Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee (CLIAC) | |
| 82 FR 43637 - Small Business Size Standards: Class Waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule | |
| 82 FR 43556 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 82 FR 43470 - Safety Standard for Infant Bouncer Seats |
Agricultural Marketing Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Navy Department
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Land Management Bureau
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Information Security Oversight Office
Office of Government Information Services
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that a certain task in the aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) will not accomplish the intent of a candidate certification maintenance requirement (CCMR) for detecting dormant failures of the pitch feel (PF) and rudder travel limiter actuator (RTLA) back-up modules. This AD requires doing an operational test of the flight control unit (FCU) back-up modules, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 23, 2017.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; fax 516-794-5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-06R1, dated April 22, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:
It was discovered that the existing instruction in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) Task 27-61-05-710-801 will not accomplish the intent of the * * * [Canadian Certification Maintenance Requirement (CCMR)] task number 27-61-05-201. This * * * [CCMR] task was required to test the Pitch Feel (PF) and Rudder Travel Limiter Actuator (RTLA) back-up modules in the Flight Control Unit (FCU) to detect dormant failures. If not detected, a dormant failure of both FCU back-up modules, in combination with other failures in the FCU, may result in the inability to maintain the Minimum Control Requirements for the PF and RTLA, which could create hazardous flight control inputs during flight.
The original issue of this [Canadian] AD mandated the performance of an operational test of the FCU back-up modules using the proper AMM task instructions [and repair if necessary].
Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is to correct the model number designation in the Applicability section.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Bombardier, Inc. (Bombardier), and NetJets Aviation Inc. (NetJets), requested that we clarify that task 27-61-05-201 is not a CMR task. Bombardier stated that the task was misidentified as a certification maintenance requirement (CMR) task during the investigation into the cause of the identified unsafe condition. Bombardier further explained that task 27-61-05-201 is a candidate CMR, or CCMR.
We agree that the task type should be clarified. We have confirmed that task 27-61-05-201 is a CCMR task. Therefore, we have revised references to the task throughout this AD accordingly.
Bombardier, Kacalp Flight Operation, and NetJets, requested that we revise the NPRM to reference revised service information. The commenters explained that the temporary revisions (TRs) referenced in the NPRM have been incorporated into the AMM, as have several subsequent revisions. The commenters asserted that the referenced TRs and certain subsequent AMM revisions are not available to operators.
We partially agree with the commenters' requests. We have confirmed that the TRs and subsequent AMM revisions referenced in the NPRM are no longer available. Therefore, we
NetJets requested that we revise the proposed compliance time for FCUs with less than 3,000 total flight hours in paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD to the later of the following:
• Prior to 3,000 total flight hours on the FCU; or
• Within 15 months or 700 flight hours after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs first.
NetJets stated that, for an FCU with 2,999 total flight hours on the effective date of the AD, the proposed AD would require compliance prior to further flight. NetJets pointed out that no justification was given for the more restrictive compliance time. Further, NetJets explained that paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD has a grace period of 15 months or 700 hours flight hours, whichever occurs first for an FCU that has accumulated 3,000 total flight hours or more.
We partially agree with the commenter's request. We agree that a grace period is needed for FCUs having accumulated less than 3,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD, on which an operational test has not been completed. We do not agree that the commenter's proposed grace period is adequate to address the unsafe condition. However, we have revised the compliance time in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD to provide a grace period of within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
Bombardier requested that we correct a typographical error in paragraph (h)(5) of the proposed AD.
We agree that there is a typographical error in paragraph (h)(5) of the proposed AD. However, as explained previously, we have removed the content of paragraph (h) of the proposed AD from this AD. Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We estimate that this AD affects 76 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $19,380, or $255 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective October 23, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 9002 and subsequent.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by a determination that a certain task in the aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) will not accomplish the intent of a candidate certification maintenance requirement (CCMR). This CCMR task tests the pitch feel (PF) and rudder travel limiter actuator (RTLA) back-up modules in the flight control unit (FCU) to detect dormant failures. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct a dormant failure of both FCU back-up modules. This condition, in combination with other failures in the FCU, may result in the inability to maintain the minimum control requirements for the PF and RTLA, which could create hazardous flight control inputs during flight.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For airplanes with an FCU that has accumulated 3,000 total flight hours or more as of the effective date of this AD: Within 15 months or 700 flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, do an operational test of the FCU back-up modules, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA.
(2) For airplanes with an FCU that has accumulated less than 3,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD, and on which an operational test has been accomplished as specified in AMM task 27-61-05-710-801: Within 15 months or 700 flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, do an operational test of the FCU back-up modules, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA.
(3) For airplanes with an FCU that has accumulated less than 3,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD, and on which an operational test has not been accomplished as specified in AMM task 27-61-05-710-801: Before the FCU accumulates 3,000 total flight hours or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform an operational test of the FCU back-up modules, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA.
If any FCU fails any operational test required by this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-06R1, dated April 22, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; fax 516-794-5531.
None.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Final rule.
On January 19, 2017, the Federal departments and agencies that are subject to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (referred to as the Common Rule) published a final rule amending the Common Rule. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) adopts the Common Rule.
The rule is effective on January 19, 2018. The compliance date for this rule, except for § 1028.114(b) (cooperative research), is January 19, 2018. The compliance date for § 1028.114(b) (cooperative research) is January 20, 2020.
Alice Thaler, Associate Executive Director for Health Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850: 301-987-2240, or by email to:
On June 18, 1991, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a rule setting forth the Common Rule requirements for the protection of human subjects. (56 FR 28003). The HHS regulations are codified at 45 CFR part 46. At that time, 15 other agencies, including CPSC, joined HHS in adopting a uniform set of rules for the protection of human subjects, identical to subpart A of 45 CFR part 46. The Common Rule is codified in CPSC's regulations at 16 CFR part 1028. The basic provisions of the Common Rule include, among other things, requirements related to the review of human subjects research by an institutional review board, obtaining and documenting informed consent of human subjects, and submitting written assurance of institutional compliance with the Common Rule.
On September 8, 2015 (80 FR 53933), HHS, on behalf of many of the same agencies that were signatories to the original Common Rule, proposed revisions to the Common Rule to modernize and strengthen the rule. Although CPSC was not a signatory to the Common Rule NPR, CPSC proposed to amend the Commission's regulations at 16 CFR part 1028, to cross-reference the HHS regulations in 45 CFR part 46, subpart A. 80 FR 57548 (Sept. 24, 2015). In addition, CPSC directed that any comments on the proposed Common Rule be sent to the HHS docket for the proceeding at HHS-OPHS-2015-0008.
On January 19, 2017, HHS issued a final rule on the Common Rule, which, among other things, establishes new requirements regarding the information that must be given to prospective research subjects as part of the informed consent process. 82 FR 7149. HHS also reviewed and addressed more than 2,100 comments. Although CPSC instructed that any comment on the Common Rule be submitted in the HHS docket, 22 comments were submitted, instead, to the CPSC docket. CPSC reviewed the comments and determined that all of the substantive issues were addressed in the Common Rule final rule.
Because CPSC's current regulations on the protection of human subjects, codified at 16 CFR part 1028, follow the
Human research subjects, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Consumer Product Safety Commission amends Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations by revising part 1028 to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(a) Except as detailed in § 1028.104, this policy applies to all research involving human subjects conducted, supported, or otherwise subject to regulation by any Federal department or agency that takes appropriate administrative action to make the policy applicable to such research. This includes research conducted by Federal civilian employees or military personnel, except that each department or agency head may adopt such procedural modifications as may be appropriate from an administrative standpoint. It also includes research conducted, supported, or otherwise subject to regulation by the Federal Government outside the United States. Institutions that are engaged in research described in this paragraph and institutional review boards (IRBs) reviewing research that is subject to this policy must comply with this policy.
(b) [Reserved]
(c) Department or agency heads retain final judgment as to whether a particular activity is covered by this policy and this judgment shall be exercised consistent with the ethical principles of the Belmont Report.
(d) Department or agency heads may require that specific research activities or classes of research activities conducted, supported, or otherwise subject to regulation by the Federal department or agency but not otherwise covered by this policy comply with some or all of the requirements of this policy.
(e) Compliance with this policy requires compliance with pertinent federal laws or regulations that provide additional protections for human subjects.
(f) This policy does not affect any state or local laws or regulations (including tribal law passed by the official governing body of an American Indian or Alaska Native tribe) that may otherwise be applicable and that provide additional protections for human subjects.
(g) This policy does not affect any foreign laws or regulations that may otherwise be applicable and that provide additional protections to human subjects of research.
(h) When research covered by this policy takes place in foreign countries, procedures normally followed in the foreign countries to protect human subjects may differ from those set forth in this policy. In these circumstances, if a department or agency head determines that the procedures prescribed by the institution afford protections that are at least equivalent to those provided in this policy, the department or agency head may approve the substitution of the foreign procedures in lieu of the procedural requirements provided in this policy. Except when otherwise required by statute, Executive Order, or the department or agency head, notices of these actions as they occur will be published in the
(i) Unless otherwise required by law, department or agency heads may waive the applicability of some or all of the provisions of this policy to specific research activities or classes of research activities otherwise covered by this policy, provided the alternative procedures to be followed are consistent with the principles of the Belmont Report.
(j) Federal guidance on the requirements of this policy shall be issued only after consultation, for the purpose of harmonization (to the extent appropriate), with other Federal departments and agencies that have adopted this policy, unless such consultation is not feasible.
(k) [Reserved]
(l) Compliance dates and transition provisions:
(1) For purposes of this section, the
(2) For purposes of this section, the
(3) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 1028.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt before January 19, 2018, shall comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that an institution engaged in such research on or after January 19, 2018, may instead comply with the 2018 Requirements if the institution determines that such ongoing research will comply with the 2018 Requirements and an IRB documents such determination.
(4) Research initially approved by an IRB, for which such review was waived pursuant to § 1028.101(i), or for which a determination was made that the research was exempt on or after January 19, 2018, shall comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(m)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)(1)
(i) Obtains information or biospecimens through intervention or interaction with the individual, and uses, studies, or analyzes the information or biospecimens; or
(ii) Obtains, uses, studies, analyzes, or generates identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) Federal departments or agencies implementing this policy shall:
(i) Upon consultation with appropriate experts (including experts in data matching and re-identification), reexamine the meaning of “identifiable private information,” as defined in paragraph (e)(5) of this section, and “identifiable biospecimen,” as defined in paragraph (e)(6) of this section. This reexamination shall take place within 1 year and regularly thereafter (at least every 4 years). This process will be conducted by collaboration among the Federal departments and agencies implementing this policy. If appropriate and permitted by law, such Federal departments and agencies may alter the interpretation of these terms, including through the use of guidance.
(ii) Upon consultation with appropriate experts, assess whether there are analytic technologies or techniques that should be considered by investigators to generate “identifiable private information,” as defined in paragraph (e)(5) of this section, or an “identifiable biospecimen,” as defined in paragraph (e)(6) of this section. This assessment shall take place within 1 year and regularly thereafter (at least every 4 years). This process will be conducted by collaboration among the Federal departments and agencies implementing this policy. Any such technologies or techniques will be included on a list of technologies or techniques that produce identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens. This list will be published in the
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(1) Scholarly and journalistic activities (
(2) Public health surveillance activities, including the collection and testing of information or biospecimens, conducted, supported, requested, ordered, required, or authorized by a public health authority. Such activities are limited to those necessary to allow a public health authority to identify, monitor, assess, or investigate potential public health signals, onsets of disease outbreaks, or conditions of public health importance (including trends, signals, risk factors, patterns in diseases, or increases in injuries from using consumer products). Such activities include those associated with providing timely situational awareness and priority setting during the course of an event or crisis that threatens public health (including natural or man-made disasters).
(3) Collection and analysis of information, biospecimens, or records by or for a criminal justice agency for activities authorized by law or court order solely for criminal justice or criminal investigative purposes.
(4) Authorized operational activities (as determined by each agency) in support of intelligence, homeland security, defense, or other national security missions.
(m)
(a) Each institution engaged in research that is covered by this policy, with the exception of research eligible for exemption under § 1028.104, and that is conducted or supported by a Federal department or agency, shall provide written assurance satisfactory to the department or agency head that it will comply with the requirements of this policy. In lieu of requiring submission of an assurance, individual department or agency heads shall accept the existence of a current assurance, appropriate for the research in question, on file with the Office for Human Research Protections, HHS, or any successor office, and approved for Federal-wide use by that office. When the existence of an HHS-approved assurance is accepted in lieu of requiring submission of an assurance, reports (except certification) required by this policy to be made to department and agency heads shall also be made to the Office for Human Research Protections, HHS, or any successor office. Federal departments and agencies will conduct or support research covered by this policy only if the institution has provided an assurance that it will comply with the requirements of this policy, as provided in this section, and only if the institution has certified to the department or agency head that the research has been reviewed and approved by an IRB (if such certification is required by paragraph (d) of this section).
(b) The assurance shall be executed by an individual authorized to act for the institution and to assume on behalf of the institution the obligations imposed by this policy and shall be filed in such form and manner as the department or agency head prescribes.
(c) The department or agency head may limit the period during which any assurance shall remain effective or otherwise condition or restrict the assurance.
(d) Certification is required when the research is supported by a Federal department or agency and not otherwise waived under § 1028.101(i) or exempted under § 1028.104. For such research, institutions shall certify that each proposed research study covered by the assurance and this section has been reviewed and approved by the IRB. Such certification must be submitted as prescribed by the Federal department or agency component supporting the research. Under no condition shall research covered by this section be initiated prior to receipt of the certification that the research has been reviewed and approved by the IRB.
(e) For nonexempt research involving human subjects covered by this policy (or exempt research for which limited IRB review takes place pursuant to § 1028.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), or (d)(7) or (8)) that takes place at an institution in which IRB oversight is conducted by an IRB that is not operated by the institution, the institution and the organization operating the IRB shall document the institution's reliance on the IRB for oversight of the research and the responsibilities that each entity will undertake to ensure compliance with the requirements of this policy (
(a) Unless otherwise required by law or by department or agency heads, research activities in which the only involvement of human subjects will be in one or more of the categories in paragraph (d) of this section are exempt from the requirements of this policy, except that such activities must comply with the requirements of this section and as specified in each category.
(b) Use of the exemption categories for research subject to the requirements of 45 CFR part 46, subparts B, C, and D: Application of the exemption categories to research subject to the requirements of 45 CFR part 46, subparts B, C, and D, is as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(c) [Reserved.]
(d) Except as described in paragraph (a) of this section, the following categories of human subjects research are exempt from this policy:
(1) Research, conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, that specifically involves normal educational practices that are not likely to adversely impact students' opportunity to learn required educational content or the assessment of educators who provide instruction. This includes most research on regular and special education instructional strategies, and research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods.
(2) Research that only includes interactions involving educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures, or observation of public behavior (including visual or auditory recording) if at least one of the following criteria is met:
(i) The information obtained is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the human subjects cannot readily be ascertained, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects;
(ii) Any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research would not reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, educational advancement, or reputation; or
(iii) The information obtained is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the human subjects can readily be ascertained, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects, and an IRB conducts a limited IRB review to make the determination required by § 1028.111(a)(7).
(3)(i) Research involving benign behavioral interventions in conjunction with the collection of information from an adult subject through verbal or written responses (including data entry) or audiovisual recording if the subject prospectively agrees to the intervention and information collection and at least one of the following criteria is met:
(A) The information obtained is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the human subjects cannot readily be ascertained, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects;
(B) Any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research would not reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, educational advancement, or reputation; or
(C) The information obtained is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the human subjects can readily be ascertained, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects, and an IRB conducts a limited IRB review to make the determination required by § 1028.111(a)(7).
(ii) For the purpose of this provision, benign behavioral interventions are brief in duration, harmless, painless, not physically invasive, not likely to have a significant adverse lasting impact on the subjects, and the investigator has no reason to think the subjects will find the interventions offensive or embarrassing. Provided all such criteria are met, examples of such benign behavioral interventions would include having the subjects play an online game, having them solve puzzles under various noise conditions, or having them decide how to allocate a nominal amount of received cash between themselves and someone else.
(iii) If the research involves deceiving the subjects regarding the nature or purposes of the research, this exemption is not applicable unless the subject authorizes the deception through a prospective agreement to participate in research in circumstances in which the subject is informed that he or she will be unaware of or misled regarding the nature or purposes of the research.
(4) Secondary research for which consent is not required: Secondary research uses of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, if at least one of the following criteria is met:
(i) The identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens are publicly available;
(ii) Information, which may include information about biospecimens, is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the human subjects cannot readily be ascertained directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects, the investigator does not contact the subjects, and the investigator will not re-identify subjects;
(iii) The research involves only information collection and analysis involving the investigator's use of identifiable health information when that use is regulated under 45 CFR parts 160 and 164, subparts A and E, for the purposes of “health care operations” or “research” as those terms are defined at 45 CFR 164.501 or for “public health activities and purposes” as described under 45 CFR 164.512(b); or
(iv) The research is conducted by, or on behalf of, a Federal department or agency using government-generated or government-collected information obtained for nonresearch activities, if the research generates identifiable private information that is or will be maintained on information technology that is subject to and in compliance with section 208(b) of the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3501 note, if all of the identifiable private information collected, used, or generated as part of the activity will be maintained in systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and, if applicable, the information used in the research was collected subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
(5) Research and demonstration projects that are conducted or supported by a Federal department or agency, or otherwise subject to the approval of department or agency heads (or the approval of the heads of bureaus or other subordinate agencies that have been delegated authority to conduct the research and demonstration projects), and that are designed to study, evaluate, improve, or otherwise examine public benefit or service programs, including procedures for obtaining benefits or services under those programs, possible changes in or alternatives to those programs or procedures, or possible changes in methods or levels of payment for benefits or services under those programs. Such projects include, but are not limited to, internal studies by Federal employees, and studies under contracts or consulting arrangements, cooperative agreements, or grants. Exempt projects also include waivers of otherwise mandatory requirements using authorities such as sections 1115 and 1115A of the Social Security Act, as amended.
(i) Each Federal department or agency conducting or supporting the research and demonstration projects must establish, on a publicly accessible Federal Web site or in such other manner as the department or agency head may determine, a list of the research and demonstration projects that the Federal department or agency conducts or supports under this
(ii) [Reserved]
(6) Taste and food quality evaluation and consumer acceptance studies:
(i) If wholesome foods without additives are consumed, or
(ii) If a food is consumed that contains a food ingredient at or below the level and for a use found to be safe, or agricultural chemical or environmental contaminant at or below the level found to be safe, by the Food and Drug Administration or approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
(7) Storage or maintenance for secondary research for which broad consent is required: Storage or maintenance of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens for potential secondary research use if an IRB conducts a limited IRB review and makes the determinations required by § 1028.111(a)(8).
(8) Secondary research for which broad consent is required: Research involving the use of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens for secondary research use, if the following criteria are met:
(i) Broad consent for the storage, maintenance, and secondary research use of the identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens was obtained in accordance with § 1028.116(a)(1) through (4), (a)(6), and (d);
(ii) Documentation of informed consent or waiver of documentation of consent was obtained in accordance with § 1028.117;
(iii) An IRB conducts a limited IRB review and makes the determination required by § 1028.111(a)(7) and makes the determination that the research to be conducted is within the scope of the broad consent referenced in paragraph (d)(8)(i) of this section; and
(iv) The investigator does not include returning individual research results to subjects as part of the study plan. This provision does not prevent an investigator from abiding by any legal requirements to return individual research results.
(a) Each IRB shall have at least five members, with varying backgrounds to promote complete and adequate review of research activities commonly conducted by the institution. The IRB shall be sufficiently qualified through the experience and expertise of its members (professional competence), and the diversity of its members, including race, gender, and cultural backgrounds and sensitivity to such issues as community attitudes, to promote respect for its advice and counsel in safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects. The IRB shall be able to ascertain the acceptability of proposed research in terms of institutional commitments (including policies and resources) and regulations, applicable law, and standards of professional conduct and practice. The IRB shall therefore include persons knowledgeable in these areas. If an IRB regularly reviews research that involves a category of subjects that is vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, such as children, prisoners, individuals with impaired decision-making capacity, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons, consideration shall be given to the inclusion of one or more individuals who are knowledgeable about and experienced in working with these categories of subjects.
(b) Each IRB shall include at least one member whose primary concerns are in scientific areas and at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas.
(c) Each IRB shall include at least one member who is not otherwise affiliated with the institution and who is not part of the immediate family of a person who is affiliated with the institution.
(d) No IRB may have a member participate in the IRB's initial or continuing review of any project in which the member has a conflicting interest, except to provide information requested by the IRB.
(e) An IRB may, in its discretion, invite individuals with competence in special areas to assist in the review of issues that require expertise beyond or in addition to that available on the IRB. These individuals may not vote with the IRB.
(a) In order to fulfill the requirements of this policy each IRB shall:
(1) Have access to meeting space and sufficient staff to support the IRB's review and recordkeeping duties;
(2) Prepare and maintain a current list of the IRB members identified by name; earned degrees; representative capacity; indications of experience such as board certifications or licenses sufficient to describe each member's chief anticipated contributions to IRB deliberations; and any employment or other relationship between each member and the institution, for example, full-time employee, part-time employee, member of governing panel or board, stockholder, paid or unpaid consultant;
(3) Establish and follow written procedures for:
(i) Conducting its initial and continuing review of research and for reporting its findings and actions to the investigator and the institution;
(ii) Determining which projects require review more often than annually and which projects need verification from sources other than the investigators that no material changes have occurred since previous IRB review; and
(iii) Ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB of proposed changes in a research activity, and for ensuring that investigators will conduct the research activity in accordance with the terms of the IRB approval until any proposed changes have been reviewed and approved by the IRB, except when necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to the subject.
(4) Establish and follow written procedures for ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB; appropriate institutional officials; the department or agency head; and the Office for Human Research Protections, HHS, or any successor office, or the equivalent office within the appropriate Federal department or agency of
(i) Any unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others or any serious or continuing noncompliance with this policy or the requirements or determinations of the IRB; and (ii) Any suspension or termination of IRB approval.
(b) Except when an expedited review procedure is used (as described in § 1028.110), an IRB must review proposed research at convened meetings at which a majority of the members of the IRB are present, including at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas. In order for the research to be approved, it shall receive the approval of a majority of those members present at the meeting.
(a) An IRB shall review and have authority to approve, require modifications in (to secure approval), or disapprove all research activities covered by this policy, including exempt research activities under § 1028.104 for which limited IRB review is a condition of exemption (under § 1028.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), or (d)(7) or (8)).
(b) An IRB shall require that information given to subjects (or legally authorized representatives, when appropriate) as part of informed consent is in accordance with § 1028.116. The IRB may require that information, in addition to that specifically mentioned in § 1028.116, be given to the subjects when in the IRB's judgment the information would meaningfully add to the protection of the rights and welfare of subjects.
(c) An IRB shall require documentation of informed consent or may waive documentation in accordance with § 1028.117.
(d) An IRB shall notify investigators and the institution in writing of its decision to approve or disapprove the proposed research activity, or of modifications required to secure IRB approval of the research activity. If the IRB decides to disapprove a research activity, it shall include in its written notification a statement of the reasons for its decision and give the investigator an opportunity to respond in person or in writing.
(e) An IRB shall conduct continuing review of research requiring review by the convened IRB at intervals appropriate to the degree of risk, not less than once per year, except as described in paragraph (f) of this section.
(f)(1) Unless an IRB determines otherwise, continuing review of research is not required in the following circumstances:
(i) Research eligible for expedited review in accordance with § 1028.110;
(ii) Research reviewed by the IRB in accordance with the limited IRB review described in § 1028.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), or (d)(7) or (8);
(iii) Research that has progressed to the point that it involves only one or both of the following, which are part of the IRB-approved study:
(A) Data analysis, including analysis of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, or
(B) Accessing follow-up clinical data from procedures that subjects would undergo as part of clinical care.
(2) [Reserved.]
(g) An IRB shall have authority to observe or have a third party observe the consent process and the research.
(a) The Secretary of HHS has established, and published as a Notice in the
(b)(1) An IRB may use the expedited review procedure to review the following:
(i) Some or all of the research appearing on the list described in paragraph (a) of this section, unless the reviewer determines that the study involves more than minimal risk;
(ii) Minor changes in previously approved research during the period for which approval is authorized; or
(iii) Research for which limited IRB review is a condition of exemption under § 1028.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), and (d)(7) and (8).
(2) Under an expedited review procedure, the review may be carried out by the IRB chairperson or by one or more experienced reviewers designated by the chairperson from among members of the IRB. In reviewing the research, the reviewers may exercise all of the authorities of the IRB except that the reviewers may not disapprove the research. A research activity may be disapproved only after review in accordance with the nonexpedited procedure set forth in § 1028.108(b).
(c) Each IRB that uses an expedited review procedure shall adopt a method for keeping all members advised of research proposals that have been approved under the procedure.
(d) The department or agency head may restrict, suspend, terminate, or choose not to authorize an institution's or IRB's use of the expedited review procedure.
(a) In order to approve research covered by this policy the IRB shall determine that all of the following requirements are satisfied:
(1) Risks to subjects are minimized:
(i) By using procedures that are consistent with sound research design and that do not unnecessarily expose subjects to risk, and
(ii) Whenever appropriate, by using procedures already being performed on the subjects for diagnostic or treatment purposes.
(2) Risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, to subjects, and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result. In evaluating risks and benefits, the IRB should consider only those risks and benefits that may result from the research (as distinguished from risks and benefits of therapies subjects would receive even if not participating in the research). The IRB should not consider possible long-range effects of applying knowledge gained in the research (
(3) Selection of subjects is equitable. In making this assessment the IRB should take into account the purposes of the research and the setting in which the research will be conducted. The IRB should be particularly cognizant of the special problems of research that involves a category of subjects who are vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, such as children, prisoners, individuals with impaired decision-making capacity, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons.
(4) Informed consent will be sought from each prospective subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, in accordance with, and to the extent required by, § 1028.116.
(5) Informed consent will be appropriately documented or appropriately waived in accordance with § 1028.117.
(6) When appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provision for monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of subjects.
(7) When appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data.
(i) The Secretary of HHS will, after consultation with the Office of Management and Budget's privacy office and other Federal departments and agencies that have adopted this policy, issue guidance to assist IRBs in assessing what provisions are adequate to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data.
(ii) [Reserved.]
(8) For purposes of conducting the limited IRB review required by § 1028.104(d)(7)), the IRB need not make the determinations at paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of this section, and shall make the following determinations:
(i) Broad consent for storage, maintenance, and secondary research use of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens is obtained in accordance with the requirements of § 1028.116(a)(1)-(4), (a)(6), and (d);
(ii) Broad consent is appropriately documented or waiver of documentation is appropriate, in accordance with § 1028.117; and
(iii) If there is a change made for research purposes in the way the identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens are stored or maintained, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data.
(b) When some or all of the subjects are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, such as children, prisoners, individuals with impaired decision-making capacity, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons, additional safeguards have been included in the study to protect the rights and welfare of these subjects.
Research covered by this policy that has been approved by an IRB may be subject to further appropriate review and approval or disapproval by officials of the institution. However, those officials may not approve the research if it has not been approved by an IRB.
An IRB shall have authority to suspend or terminate approval of research that is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB's requirements or that has been associated with unexpected serious harm to subjects. Any suspension or termination of approval shall include a statement of the reasons for the IRB's action and shall be reported promptly to the investigator, appropriate institutional officials, and the department or agency head.
(a) Cooperative research projects are those projects covered by this policy that involve more than one institution. In the conduct of cooperative research projects, each institution is responsible for safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects and for complying with this policy.
(b)(1) Any institution located in the United States that is engaged in cooperative research must rely upon approval by a single IRB for that portion of the research that is conducted in the United States. The reviewing IRB will be identified by the Federal department or agency supporting or conducting the research or proposed by the lead institution subject to the acceptance of the Federal department or agency supporting the research.
(2) The following research is not subject to this provision:
(i) Cooperative research for which more than single IRB review is required by law (including tribal law passed by the official governing body of an American Indian or Alaska Native tribe); or
(ii) Research for which any Federal department or agency supporting or conducting the research determines and documents that the use of a single IRB is not appropriate for the particular context.
(c) For research not subject to paragraph (b) of this section, an institution participating in a cooperative project may enter into a joint review arrangement, rely on the review of another IRB, or make similar arrangements for avoiding duplication of effort.
(a) An institution, or when appropriate an IRB, shall prepare and maintain adequate documentation of IRB activities, including the following:
(1) Copies of all research proposals reviewed, scientific evaluations, if any, that accompany the proposals, approved sample consent forms, progress reports submitted by investigators, and reports of injuries to subjects.
(2) Minutes of IRB meetings, which shall be in sufficient detail to show attendance at the meetings; actions taken by the IRB; the vote on these actions including the number of members voting for, against, and abstaining; the basis for requiring changes in or disapproving research; and a written summary of the discussion of controverted issues and their resolution.
(3) Records of continuing review activities, including the rationale for conducting continuing review of research that otherwise would not require continuing review as described in § 1028.109(f)(1).
(4) Copies of all correspondence between the IRB and the investigators.
(5) A list of IRB members in the same detail as described in § 1028.108(a)(2).
(6) Written procedures for the IRB in the same detail as described in § 1028.108(a)(3) and (4).
(7) Statements of significant new findings provided to subjects, as required by § 1028.116(c)(5).
(8) The rationale for an expedited reviewer's determination under § 1028.110(b)(1)(i) that research appearing on the expedited review list described in § 1028.110(a) is more than minimal risk.
(9) Documentation specifying the responsibilities that an institution and an organization operating an IRB each will undertake to ensure compliance with the requirements of this policy, as described in § 1028.103(e).
(b) The records required by this policy shall be retained for at least 3 years, and records relating to research that is conducted shall be retained for at least 3 years after completion of the research. The institution or IRB may maintain the records in printed form, or electronically. All records shall be accessible for inspection and copying by authorized representatives of the Federal department or agency at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner.
(a)
(1) Before involving a human subject in research covered by this policy, an investigator shall obtain the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative.
(2) An investigator shall seek informed consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the legally authorized representative sufficient opportunity to discuss and consider
(3) The information that is given to the subject or the legally authorized representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the legally authorized representative.
(4) The prospective subject or the legally authorized representative must be provided with the information that a reasonable person would want to have in order to make an informed decision about whether to participate, and an opportunity to discuss that information.
(5) Except for broad consent obtained in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section:
(i) Informed consent must begin with a concise and focused presentation of the key information that is most likely to assist a prospective subject or legally authorized representative in understanding the reasons why one might or might not want to participate in the research. This part of the informed consent must be organized and presented in a way that facilitates comprehension.
(ii) Informed consent as a whole must present information in sufficient detail relating to the research, and must be organized and presented in a way that does not merely provide lists of isolated facts, but rather facilitates the prospective subject's or legally authorized representative's understanding of the reasons why one might or might not want to participate.
(6) No informed consent may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the legally authorized representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject's legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or its agents from liability for negligence.
(b)
(1) A statement that the study involves research, an explanation of the purposes of the research and the expected duration of the subject's participation, a description of the procedures to be followed, and identification of any procedures that are experimental;
(2) A description of any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts to the subject;
(3) A description of any benefits to the subject or to others that may reasonably be expected from the research;
(4) A disclosure of appropriate alternative procedures or courses of treatment, if any, that might be advantageous to the subject;
(5) A statement describing the extent, if any, to which confidentiality of records identifying the subject will be maintained;
(6) For research involving more than minimal risk, an explanation as to whether any compensation and an explanation as to whether any medical treatments are available if injury occurs and, if so, what they consist of, or where further information may be obtained;
(7) An explanation of whom to contact for answers to pertinent questions about the research and research subjects' rights, and whom to contact in the event of a research-related injury to the subject;
(8) A statement that participation is voluntary, refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled, and the subject may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled; and
(9) One of the following statements about any research that involves the collection of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens:
(i) A statement that identifiers might be removed from the identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens and that, after such removal, the information or biospecimens could be used for future research studies or distributed to another investigator for future research studies without additional informed consent from the subject or the legally authorized representative, if this might be a possibility; or
(ii) A statement that the subject's information or biospecimens collected as part of the research, even if identifiers are removed, will not be used or distributed for future research studies.
(c)
(1) A statement that the particular treatment or procedure may involve risks to the subject (or to the embryo or fetus, if the subject is or may become pregnant) that are currently unforeseeable;
(2) Anticipated circumstances under which the subject's participation may be terminated by the investigator without regard to the subject's or the legally authorized representative's consent;
(3) Any additional costs to the subject that may result from participation in the research;
(4) The consequences of a subject's decision to withdraw from the research and procedures for orderly termination of participation by the subject;
(5) A statement that significant new findings developed during the course of the research that may relate to the subject's willingness to continue participation will be provided to the subject;
(6) The approximate number of subjects involved in the study;
(7) A statement that the subject's biospecimens (even if identifiers are removed) may be used for commercial profit and whether the subject will or will not share in this commercial profit;
(8) A statement regarding whether clinically relevant research results, including individual research results, will be disclosed to subjects, and if so, under what conditions; and
(9) For research involving biospecimens, whether the research will (if known) or might include whole genome sequencing (
(d)
(1) The information required in paragraphs (b)(2), (3), (5), and (8) and, when appropriate, (c)(7) and (9) of this section;
(2) A general description of the types of research that may be conducted with the identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens. This description must include sufficient information such that a reasonable person would expect that the broad consent would permit the types of research conducted;
(3) A description of the identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens that might be used in
(4) A description of the period of time that the identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens may be stored and maintained (which period of time could be indefinite), and a description of the period of time that the identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens may be used for research purposes (which period of time could be indefinite);
(5) Unless the subject or legally authorized representative will be provided details about specific research studies, a statement that they will not be informed of the details of any specific research studies that might be conducted using the subject's identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, including the purposes of the research, and that they might have chosen not to consent to some of those specific research studies;
(6) Unless it is known that clinically relevant research results, including individual research results, will be disclosed to the subject in all circumstances, a statement that such results may not be disclosed to the subject; and
(7) An explanation of whom to contact for answers to questions about the subject's rights and about storage and use of the subject's identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, and whom to contact in the event of a research-related harm.
(e)
(2)
(3)
(i) The research or demonstration project is to be conducted by or subject to the approval of state or local government officials and is designed to study, evaluate, or otherwise examine:
(A) Public benefit or service programs;
(B) Procedures for obtaining benefits or services under those programs;
(C) Possible changes in or alternatives to those programs or procedures; or
(D) Possible changes in methods or levels of payment for benefits or services under those programs; and
(ii) The research could not practicably be carried out without the waiver or alteration.
(f)
(2)
(3)
(i) The research involves no more than minimal risk to the subjects;
(ii) The research could not practicably be carried out without the requested waiver or alteration;
(iii) If the research involves using identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, the research could not practicably be carried out without using such information or biospecimens in an identifiable format;
(iv) The waiver or alteration will not adversely affect the rights and welfare of the subjects; and
(v) Whenever appropriate, the subjects or legally authorized representatives will be provided with additional pertinent information after participation.
(g)
(1) The investigator will obtain information through oral or written communication with the prospective subject or legally authorized representative, or
(2) The investigator will obtain identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens by accessing records or stored identifiable biospecimens.
(h)
(2) If the Federal department or agency supporting or conducting the clinical trial determines that certain information should not be made publicly available on a Federal Web site (
(3) The informed consent form must be posted on the Federal Web site after the clinical trial is closed to recruitment, and no later than 60 days after the last study visit by any subject, as required by the protocol.
(i)
(j)
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, informed consent shall be documented by the use of a written informed consent form approved by the IRB and signed (including in an electronic format) by the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. A written copy shall be given to the person signing the informed consent form.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the informed consent form may be either of the following:
(1) A written informed consent form that meets the requirements of § 1028.116. The investigator shall give either the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative adequate opportunity to read the informed consent form before it is signed; alternatively, this form may be read to the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative.
(2) A short form written informed consent form stating that the elements of informed consent required by § 1028.116 have been presented orally to the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, and that the key information required by § 1028.116(a)(5)(i) was presented first to the subject, before other information, if any, was provided. The IRB shall approve a written summary of what is to be said to the subject or the legally authorized representative. When this method is used, there shall be a witness to the oral presentation. Only the short form itself is to be signed by the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. However, the witness shall sign both the short form and a copy of the summary, and the person actually obtaining consent shall sign a copy of the summary. A copy of the summary shall be given to the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, in addition to a copy of the short form.
(c)(1) An IRB may waive the requirement for the investigator to obtain a signed informed consent form for some or all subjects if it finds any of the following:
(i) That the only record linking the subject and the research would be the informed consent form and the principal risk would be potential harm resulting from a breach of confidentiality. Each subject (or legally authorized representative) will be asked whether the subject wants documentation linking the subject with the research, and the subject's wishes will govern;
(ii) That the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside of the research context; or
(iii) If the subjects or legally authorized representatives are members of a distinct cultural group or community in which signing forms is not the norm, that the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and provided there is an appropriate alternative mechanism for documenting that informed consent was obtained.
(2) In cases in which the documentation requirement is waived, the IRB may require the investigator to provide subjects or legally authorized representatives with a written statement regarding the research.
Certain types of applications for grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts are submitted to Federal departments or agencies with the knowledge that subjects may be involved within the period of support, but definite plans would not normally be set forth in the application or proposal. These include activities such as institutional type grants when selection of specific projects is the institution's responsibility; research training grants in which the activities involving subjects remain to be selected; and projects in which human subjects' involvement will depend upon completion of instruments, prior animal studies, or purification of compounds. Except for research waived under § 1028.101(i) or exempted under § 1028.104, no human subjects may be involved in any project supported by these awards until the project has been reviewed and approved by the IRB, as provided in this policy, and certification submitted, by the institution, to the Federal department or agency component supporting the research.
Except for research waived under § 1028.101(i) or exempted under § 1028.104, in the event research is undertaken without the intention of involving human subjects, but it is later proposed to involve human subjects in the research, the research shall first be reviewed and approved by an IRB, as provided in this policy, a certification submitted by the institution to the Federal department or agency component supporting the research, and final approval given to the proposed change by the Federal department or agency component.
(a) The department or agency head will evaluate all applications and proposals involving human subjects submitted to the Federal department or agency through such officers and employees of the Federal department or agency and such experts and consultants as the department or agency head determines to be appropriate. This evaluation will take into consideration the risks to the subjects, the adequacy of protection against these risks, the potential benefits of the research to the subjects and others, and the importance of the knowledge gained or to be gained.
(b) On the basis of this evaluation, the department or agency head may approve or disapprove the application or proposal, or enter into negotiations to develop an approvable one.
Federal funds administered by a Federal department or agency may not be expended for research involving human subjects unless the requirements of this policy have been satisfied.
(a) The department or agency head may require that Federal department or agency support for any project be terminated or suspended in the manner prescribed in applicable program requirements, when the department or agency head finds an institution has materially failed to comply with the terms of this policy.
(b) In making decisions about supporting or approving applications or
With respect to any research project or any class of research projects the department or agency head of either the conducting or the supporting Federal department or agency may impose additional conditions prior to or at the time of approval when in the judgment of the department or agency head additional conditions are necessary for the protection of human subjects.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Final rule.
The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, section 104 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), requires the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. These standards are to be “substantially the same as” applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standard, if the Commission determines that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. The Commission is issuing this final rule establishing a safety standard for infant bouncer seats (bouncer seats) in response to the direction of section 104(b) of the CPSIA. Additionally, the Commission is finalizing an amendment to its regulations regarding third party conformity assessment bodies to include safety standard for bouncer seats in the list of notice of requirements (NORs) issued by the Commission.
This rule will become effective March 19, 2018. The incorporation by reference of the publication listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 19, 2018.
Keysha Walker, Compliance Officer, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: 301-504-6820; email:
The CPSIA was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA requires the Commission to: (1) Examine and assess the effectiveness of voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products, in consultation with representatives of consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant and toddler products. Standards issued under section 104 are to be “substantially the same as” the applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standard, if the Commission determines that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product.
The term “durable infant or toddler product” is defined in section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as “a durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age of 5 years,” and the statute specifies twelve categories of products that are included in the definition, including walkers, carriers and various types of children's chairs. When issuing a regulation governing product registration under section 104, the Commission determined that an “infant bouncer” falls within the definition of a “durable infant or toddler product.” 74 FR 68668 (Dec. 29, 2009); 16 CFR 1130.2(a)(15).
On October 19, 2015, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for infant bouncer seats. 80 FR 63168. The NPR proposed to incorporate by reference the 2015 version of the voluntary standard, ASTM F2167
In this document, the Commission is issuing a mandatory consumer product safety standard for bouncer seats. As required by section 104(b)(1)(A), the Commission consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations, laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and the public to develop this rule, largely through the ASTM process. Based on revisions to the voluntary standard since the NPR published, the final rule incorporates by reference the most recent voluntary standard for infant bouncer seats, developed by ASTM International, ASTM F2167-17, with two modifications related to warning label content and placement. These modifications strengthen the standard by requiring a more stringent warning to caregivers to use the restraints, even if an infant falls asleep in the bouncer, and requires the fall hazard warning to be placed on the upper seat back of the bouncer seat, to ensure that caregivers read and heed the warning. The Commission's more stringent requirements are intended to further reduce the risk of injury to infants that fall from, and with, bouncer seats, especially bouncer seats that are placed on an elevated surface.
Additionally, the final rule amends the list of NORs issued by the Commission in 16 CFR part 1112 to include the standard for infant bouncer seats. Under section 14 of the CPSA, the Commission promulgated 16 CFR part 1112 to establish requirements for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (or testing laboratories) to test for conformity with a children's product safety rule. Amending part 1112 adds an NOR for the infant bouncer seat standard to the list of children's product safety rules.
Section 1.2 of ASTM F2167-17 defines an “infant bouncer seat” as: “a freestanding product intended to support an occupant in a reclined position to facilitate bouncing by the occupant, with the aid of a caregiver or by other means.” Additionally, section 1.2 states that infant bouncer seats are intended for “infants who have not developed the ability to sit up unassisted (approximately 0 to 6 months of age).”
Bouncer seats vary widely in style and complexity, but typically, bouncer seats consist of a cloth cover stretched over a wire or tubular frame. Wire frame bouncers have two designs. The forward bend design is constructed with the seating area supported from the front side of the product. The second wire frame design is a rear bend design. In the rear bend design, the seat is supported from the rear side of the product. Other bouncer designs are also currently available, including, but not limited to, products with individual wire legs, solid bases, and spring designs. These infant bouncer designs use different methods to support the seat and are intended for “bouncing,” as defined in ASTM F2167.
All bouncer seats support the child in an inclined position, and some brands have adjustable seat backs. Various bouncer seat models include a “soothing unit” that vibrates or bounces the chair, and may play music or other sounds. Most bouncer seats also feature an accessory bar with attached toys that are, or at some point will be, within the child's reach. Most of the bouncer seat models examined by Commission staff provide a 3-point restraint system, consisting of wide cloth crotch restraints and short adjustable waist straps with plastic buckles. Only two models of bouncer seats reviewed by CPSC for the NPR employed upper body restraints. Many bouncer seat brands also include an “infant insert,” intended for use to support smaller babies. Tabs C and D, Staff Briefing Package: Infant Bouncer Seats Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, dated September 30, 2015 (Staff NPR Briefing Package), available at:
For the final rule, staff identified 23 firms supplying infant bouncer seats to the U.S. market, with several firms moving into or out of the market since the NPR was published. The 23 identified firms primarily specialize in the manufacture and/or distribution of children's products, including durable nursery products. Eight of the 23 known firms are domestic manufacturers and 8 are domestic importers. The remaining seven firms are foreign (four manufacturers, two importers, and one retailer).
Staff expects that the infant bouncer seats of 14 of these firms already comply with ASTM F2167 because the firms either: (1) Have their bouncers certified by the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) (five firms); (2) claim compliance with the voluntary standard (eight firms); or (3) have been tested to the ASTM standard by CPSC staff (one firm).
For the NPR, CPSC's Directorate for Epidemiology, Division of Hazard Analysis, described 277 reported incidents involving bouncer seats, including 11 fatalities and 51 injuries, occurring between January 1, 2006 and February 2, 2015. The incidents described in the NPR were based on reports involving victims 12 months old and younger in the Injury or Potential Injury Incident (IPII), In-Depth Investigation (INDP), and Death Certificates (DTHS) databases (collectively referred to as Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System data, or CPSRMS data). A detailed discussion of the incidents and hazard patterns developed for the NPR can be found in Tab A of the Staff NPR Briefing Package.
For the final rule, CPSC staff reviewed bouncer seat incident reports in CPSRMS from February 2, 2015 through July 6, 2016. CPSC staff found 70 incident reports in addition to those discussed in the NPR, including one fatality and three injuries. The fatality involved a 4-month-old female who died after suffering a fractured skull injury when the infant bouncer she was seated in fell from a table. Two of the reported injuries were head contusions. A 5-month-old male sustained a head contusion when a bouncer seat bent backward to the floor. A 6-month-old male sustained a head contusion when a bouncer cover came off of the wire frame and the infant flipped forward, striking his head on the battery compartment. In another reported incident, the victim suffered minor leg burns from a hot metal bar under a bouncer cover. Tab A, Staff Final Rule Briefing Package.
Staff did not identify any hazards in the updated incident data that were not included in the hazard patterns described in the NPR (product design, structural integrity, toy bar-related, stability, chemical/electric hazards, restraints, hazardous environment), which specifically identified product design and structural integrity as the top two product-related hazards (in terms of frequency of occurrence). Staff found that product design and structural integrity continue to be the top two product-related hazards (in terms of frequency) for the updated CPSRMS data. Of the 70 new incident reports involving bouncer seats, 51 incident reports described issues with product design, and 13 incident reports described issues with structural integrity. Staff determined that almost all of the issues with product design were related to lopsided or low-riding bouncer frames. Data for the final rule can be found in Tab A of the Staff Final Rule Briefing Package.
For the NPR, CPSC staff found 672 bouncer-related incidents, including two fatalities, reported in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) records retrieved for bouncer incidents from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2013, involving children 12 months old and younger. Staff found that 385 cases, or an estimated 9,200 injuries, occurred in hazardous environments (counters, tables, and other elevated surfaces).
Staff updated information on bouncer-related incidents from the NEISS records for the final rule. From January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2015, staff found 202 additional NEISS records describing infant bouncer incidents. Staff's inspection of the updated NEISS data revealed that 100 cases, or an estimated 2,800 injuries, took place in hazardous environments. The remaining 102 cases, or an estimated 2,800 injuries, took place on the floor or an unknown location. Staff found no additional fatalities in the NEISS data during this time frame. Staff estimates that 4,700 (85%) bouncer injuries involved the head and face.
The NPR described two recalls of infant bouncer seats since January 2006, involving two different firms, one recall in April 2007
The voluntary standard for infant bouncer seats, ASTM F2167,
More recently, in May 2016, ASTM revised the standard to add specific developmental guidance for caregivers about when to stop using the bouncer, and ASTM removed a general requirement for banned toys or other articles because those requirements do not apply to infant bouncer seats. As discussed below, the standard was subsequently revised in June of 2017 to incorporate changes recommended by ASTM's Ad Hoc Task Group
For the NPR, CPSC staff examined the relationship between the performance requirements in ASTM F2167-15 and each of the hazard patterns staff identified in the incident data for bouncer seats. Tab C, Staff NPR Briefing Package. Based on staff's assessment, the Commission issued the NPR proposing to incorporate ASTM F2167-15 with the following modifications to warnings content, placement, and format:
• Revised content of the warnings, markings, and instructions:
• Restricted the fall hazard label on the front surface of the bouncer to be adjacent to the area where the child's head would rest, and modified the visibility test to reflect this requirement.
• Specified a standard format (including black text on a white background, table design, bullet points, and black border) for the warnings on the product and in the instructions.
The most recent version of the voluntary standard for bouncer seats, ASTM F2167-17, was approved on June 1, 2017, and published in June 2017. ASTM F2167-17 includes modified and new performance and labeling requirements developed by ASTM in conjunction with stakeholders and CPSC staff on the ASTM subcommittee task group, to address the hazards associated with bouncer seats. ASTM F2167-17 addresses several of the hazards identified by the Commission in the NPR. Accordingly, after reviewing and considering comments received in response to the NPR, as well as the work of the Ad Hoc Task Group, the Commission incorporates by reference ASTM F2167-17, with two modifications that were identified in the NPR related to warning content and warning placement, as the mandatory safety standard for infant bouncer seats. Below we assess ASTM F2167-17 and explain how it differs from what the Commission proposed.
The NPR proposed to incorporate by reference ASTM F2167-15, with modifications to warning, marking, and instruction requirements. ASTM F2167-15 advised caregivers: “Always use restraints. Adjust to fit snugly.” Based on the incident data that relate deaths to suffocation among unrestrained infants while they slept, and relate serious head injuries to unrestrained infants due to falls from bouncer seats that are placed on elevated surfaces and falls from bouncer seats that are being carried by caregivers, the Commission stated in the NPR that the voluntary standard was inadequate to address the risk of injury to infants from falls out of bouncer seats, or the risk of suffocation among unrestrained infants who are sleeping. In the NPR, the Commission proposed warning language stating: “Adjust to fit snugly,
The newest version of the voluntary standard, ASTM F2167-17, still does not require a warning statement that caregivers should use the restraints, even if an infant is asleep. We disagree with this approach. We note that some NPR commenters were concerned by the addition of language to the product warnings regarding sleep because such language may suggest that bouncer seats are intended to be used for long-term, unattended, sleep. However, CPSC staff advises that young infants, such as those who are intended to use bouncer seats, spend more time asleep than awake.
Based on staff's recommendation and the work of the Ad Hoc Task Group, the final rule uses the phrase “falls asleep” instead of the phrase “is sleeping” that the Commission had proposed in the NPR. This change aligns with wording approved by the Ad Hoc Task Group, which is “
• Always use restraints and adjust to fit snugly, even if baby falls asleep.
ASTM F2167-17 includes the other modifications the Commission had proposed for warning statement requirements. Specifically, sections 8.5.2.1 and 9.2.1 Fig. 11 of ASTM F2167-17 requires text in the warnings to state: “stop using when baby starts trying to sit up.” ASTM F2167-17 requires additional text in the suffocation hazard warning label to limit the maximum weight for an occupant in an infant bouncer seat. The rationale for ASTM's change is based on surveillance of the marketplace, which demonstrated that some manufacturers have weight limits that do not correlate to the developmental milestones contemplated in the current warnings. Section 8.5.2.1 of ASTM F2167-17 requires text in the warnings to instruct caregivers to: “STOP using bouncer when baby starts trying to sit up or has reached [insert manufacturer's recommended maximum weight, not to exceed 20 lb], whichever comes first.”
The NPR proposed a modification to ASTM F2167-15's requirement for label placement. ASTM F2167-15 required that the fall hazard label be placed on the front surface of the bouncer seat back so that it is visible when a newborn CAMI dummy is placed in the bouncer seat. In the NPR, the Commission assessed this provision of the voluntary standard and found that it did not adequately address the risk of injury to infants falling from bouncer seats placed on elevated surfaces, a foreseeable misuse of infant bouncer seats. Tab D, Staff NPR Briefing Package. To strengthen the standard and further reduce the risk of injury, the NPR proposed that the fall hazard warning label be on the front surface of the bouncer seat, adjacent to where the child's head would rest, and the NPR also modified the visibility test. ASTM F2167-17 retains the fall hazard warning placement and corresponding visibility test from ASTM F2167-15. Thus, the current voluntary standard still does not address the Commission's concern about the visibility of the fall hazard warning.
NPR Commenters expressed concern that some products were designed with insufficient space in the area adjacent to the child's head to accommodate the necessary warning labels. Commenters were also concerned about the repeatability of the visibility test proposed in the NPR. We note, however, that staff's research on the seat back space, including models with narrow seat backs, did not corroborate the commenters' concerns. Nevertheless, to enhance test repeatability and to address the comments regarding insufficient seat back space for warning labels, the final rule allows a larger area for warning label placement than proposed in the NPR and clarifies the corresponding visibility test.
The visibility test in the final rule is based on ASTM F2167-17. Using the CAMI dummy, as shown in Figure 1 below, the allowable area for warning label placement starts from a dotted line that crosses the junctions of underarm and both sides of the torso of the CAMI dummy.
The NPR proposed modifications to the requirements in ASTM F2167-15 regarding the format of warning labels noting that ASTM F2167-15 did not provide for a consistent warning label format across infant bouncer seats. Staff evaluated the warnings format in the voluntary standard and recommended that the Commission establish minimum requirements for presenting the hazard information that are consistent with best practices to attract and maintain attention, as well as aid reading and comprehension. Tab D, Staff NPR Briefing Package. Accordingly, the NPR proposed to specify a standard format (including black text on a white background, table design, bullet points, and black border) for the warnings on bouncer seats and in the instructions.
Since the NPR published in 2015, ASTM's Ad Hoc Task Group issued recommendations regarding warnings intended to apply across juvenile products. These recommendations, based on ANSI Z535.4,
CPSC received six comments in response to the NPR, including a joint letter submitted by four consumer advocacy groups. Three commenters supported the changes proposed in the NPR, and the remaining commenters expressed concern over the Commission's proposed modifications. We summarize and respond to the commenters below.
Commenters claim that the area on the infant bouncer adjacent to an infant's head could be severely limited in some cases due to the design of the seat back and allowance needed for stitching tolerances. CPSC staff's research did not corroborate this claim. Tab D, Staff NPR Briefing Package. Accordingly, the NPR, 80 FR at 63179-80, invited commenters to provide information on costs and design changes that would be required if the label were required to be next to an infant's head. Staff reports that during the ASTM Ad Hoc Task Group meetings held in January and February 2016, manufacturers provided several examples of juvenile products, including infant bouncer seats, to demonstrate difficulties associated with warning label placement in proposed
To resolve concerns about the amount of space for warning label placement and address the Commission's concern about an effective warning label, the final rule states the test procedure language in ASTM F2167-17, but clarifies the allowable area for the fall hazard warning label. The fall hazard warning label must be visible when placed above an imaginary horizontal line that crosses through the junctions of underarm and side of the torso (armpits) on both left and right of the CAMI, and not obscured by any part of the dummy. A warning label located at or around the infant's shoulders can address the visibility and caregiver motivational concerns expressed in the Human Factors staff memorandum for the NPR (Tab D), and also provide additional surface area to accommodate the recommended warning label.
• A heavy black border around the label,
• Delineating message panels with solid lines,
• Black text on white message panel,
• Bullet points preceding precautionary statements,
• Choosing a background color for the signal word panel based on a best contrast against the product material, and
• Using non-condensed style font.
Commenters stated that, in general, ASTM standards provide flexibility to manufacturers to pick colors and formatting features that are most appropriate for the product. One commenter recommended delaying the publication of the final rule for any and all warnings requirements until the warnings format and content revisions proposed in the NPR can be reviewed by ASTM Ad Hoc Task Group, balloted through the ASTM process, and then implemented into F2167. The same commenter also indicated that the formatting requirements in the bouncer NPR and several other NPRs are inconsistent with each other.
In October 2016, the ASTM Ad Hoc Task Group approved a recommended warning to address products likely to be used for short-term sleep.
Section 1229.2(a) of the final rule provides that infant bouncer seats must comply with applicable sections of
In accordance with the OFR's requirements, the discussion in section VIII of this preamble summarizes the required provisions of ASTM F2167-17. Interested persons may purchase a copy of ASTM F2167-17 from ASTM, either through ASTM's Web site, or by mail at the address provided in the rule. A copy of the standard may also be inspected at the CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, as discussed above. Note that the Commission and ASTM arranged for commenters to have “read only” access to ASTM F2167-15 during the NPR's comment period.
Section 1229.2(a) of the final rule for infant bouncer seats incorporates by reference ASTM F2167-17 with two modifications, as stated in § 1229.2(b), related to the content and placement of warnings. Section 1229.2(a) includes the following key provisions summarized below: scope, terminology, general requirements, performance requirements, test methods, marking and labeling, and instructional literature. As described below, § 1229.2(b) includes modifications to test methods (§ 1229.2(b)(1)), marking and labeling (§ 1229.2(b)(2) and (3)), and instructional literature (§ 1229.2(b)(4)).
• Hazardous sharp points and edges (16 CFR 1500.48 and 1500.49);
• Small parts (16 CFR part 1501);
• Lead in paint (16 CFR part 1303);
• Wood parts;
• Latching and locking mechanisms;
• Scissoring, shearing, and pinching;
• Openings;
• Exposed coil springs;
• Protective components;
• Permanency of labels and warnings; and
• Toys (ASTM F963).
• Restraints;
• Stability (forward, sideward, and rearward);
• Slip Resistance
• Structural Integrity;
• Dynamic and Static Load;
• Disassembly/Collapse;
• Drop Test;
• Toy Bar Attachment Integrity; and
• Battery Compartment.
Additionally, section 7 of ASTM F2167-17 includes test procedures to ensure the permanency of labels and warnings, and a fall hazard visibility test. The test procedure in § 1229.2(b)(1) of the final rule replaces the fall hazard visibility test in section 7.11.3.1 of ASTM F2167-17, as described in section V.B.2 of this preamble.
Section 1229.2(b)(2) of the final rule replaces the content of the fall hazard warning in section 8.5.1.1 of ASTM F2167-17. Section 1229.3(b)(3) of the final rule replaces the content of the suffocation hazard warning in sections 8.5.2.1 and 8.5.3 in ASTM F2167-17. Changes to warning content and the visibility test for the placement of the fall hazard warning are outlined in section V.B.1-2 of this preamble.
Section 1229.2(b)(4) of the final rule replaces the content of sections 9.2.1 and 9.2.2 of ASTM F2167-17. These sections contain example warning labels or references to example warning labels. The content of the example warning labels in § 1229.2(b)(4) reflects changes to the content of the fall hazard warning and suffocation hazard warning in § 1229.2(b)(2) and (3) of the final rule. Changes to the instructional literature that relate to warnings content are outlined in section V.B.1-2 of this preamble.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that the effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). CPSC generally considers 6 months to be sufficient time for suppliers of durable infant and toddler products to come into compliance with a new standard under section 104 of the CPSIA. Six months is also the period that the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) typically allows for products in the JPMA certification program to transition to a new standard once that standard is published. The Commission proposed a 6-month effective date in the NPR for infant bouncer seats and we received no comments on the proposed effective date. Accordingly, the final rule for bouncer seats, as well as the amendment to part 1112, has a 6-month effective date.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires that agencies review a proposed rule and a final rule for the rule's potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses. Section 604 of the RFA generally requires that agencies prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) when promulgating final rules,
The final rule is unlikely to have a significant economic impact on the five domestic manufacturers of infant bouncer seats. Of the six small importers, a significant economic impact cannot be ruled out for four of the importers, either as a result of the final rule requirements or the resulting third party testing costs. Therefore, the Commission cannot rule out a significant economic impact for four of the 11 firms (36 percent) operating in the U.S. market for bouncers.
An infant bouncer seat is defined in ASTM F2167-17,
For the FRFA, the Commission identified 23 firms supplying infant bouncer seats to the U.S. market, with several firms moving into or out of the market since the NPR. These firms primarily specialize in the manufacture and/or distribution of children's products, including durable nursery products. Eight of the 23 known firms are domestic manufacturers and eight are domestic importers. The remaining seven firms are foreign (4 manufacturers, 2 importers, and 1 retailer).
The Commission is aware of approximately 23 firms currently marketing infant bouncer seats in the United States, 16 of which are domestic. Under U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines, a manufacturer of infant bouncer seats is categorized as small if it has 500 or fewer employees, and importers and wholesalers are considered small if they have 100 or fewer employees. We have limited our analysis to domestic firms because SBA guidelines and definitions pertain to U.S.-based entities. Based on these guidelines, the Commission determined that about 11 of the 23 firms are small—five domestic manufacturers and six domestic importers. Additional unknown small domestic infant bouncer seat suppliers may be operating in the U.S. market.
The economic impact of the final rule for infant bouncer seats should be small for the five small domestic manufacturers. Each firm has an established history of compliance with the ASTM standard for infant bouncers and is therefore expected to be compliant with ASTM F2167-17, the version of the voluntary standard upon which the final rule is based, by the time the mandatory standard becomes final.
None of these firms includes more than four languages in their warnings and redesign is not expected. Based upon staff's inspection of their products, we expect products to have more than sufficient space for the required warning labels under the modified warning label for the final rule without the products seeming cluttered.
Under section 14 of the CPSA, once the new infant bouncer seat requirements become effective, all manufacturers will be subject to the third party testing and certification requirements under the CPSA and the Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification rule (16 CFR part 1107) (1107 rule). Third party testing will include any physical and mechanical test requirements specified in the final infant bouncer seats rule. Manufacturers and importers should already be conducting required lead testing for bouncer seats.
Third party testing costs are in addition to the direct costs of meeting the infant bouncer seats standard. The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) prepared for the NPR concluded that we could not rule out a significant economic impact, given that we do not know specifically how much the third party requirement adds to testing costs or precisely how many models are needed to meet the “high degree of assurance” standard but that it was unlikely to be economically significant for most small manufacturers (
As noted in the IRFA, imported bouncers tend to be produced to meet the requirements for several trading partners simultaneously, including their different labeling requirements. Producers for international markets typically address labeling requirements for their various trading partners by simply providing a warning that covers all required safety issues in multiple languages. Specificity regarding warning label location impacts the practicability of replicating the warning label in multiple languages. This could mean that foreign producers will need to design a product for the U.S. market or reduce the number of languages used for warnings on U.S.-bound bouncer seats.
The final rule provides additional space for warning label placement than that proposed in the NPR. With this additional space, reducing on-product warning languages should be a more viable alternative for firms than it was under the NPR proposal. Firms would not need to reduce the number of languages for their on-product warnings for the final rule as significantly as that required in the NPR. The additional space addresses the location requirement in the final rule, while ensuring that the appearance of bouncers remains comparable to firms' competitor products (for which one to three languages is typical).
Three small importers of infant bouncer seats are currently in compliance with the voluntary standard; these firms likely would continue compliance as new versions of the voluntary standard are published. One importer is unlikely to experience a significant economic impact, even if the importer opted to redesign its bouncers to accommodate more than eight warning label languages. The cost estimate to redesign an infant bouncer (based on information from several
Three firms import bouncers that do not comply with the voluntary standard. The bouncers for these firms will require changes to come into compliance with the voluntary standard as well as modifications to meet the warning label requirements in the final rule. In the absence of information on precisely what changes would be required to bring the bouncer seats supplied by all three firms into compliance with the final rule (as well as information on sales revenue for all three firms), the Commission cannot rule out a significant economic impact for any of these firms.
The magnitude of the economic impact on the three firms with noncompliant infant bouncer seats will depend upon the cost of the changes required and the degree to which their supplying firms pass on any increases in production costs associated with changes to the product needed to meet the mandatory standard (a redesign is estimated to cost between $200,000 to $300,000). Two of the firms are directly tied to their foreign suppliers and therefore, finding an alternate supply source would not be a viable alternative. However, given this close relationship, it seems likely that their foreign suppliers would have an incentive to work with their U.S. subsidiaries to maintain an American market presence. One of those two firms likely would only avoid a significant economic impact if their supplier absorbed 100 percent of the cost of a redesign. The third firm imports and wholesales a wide variety of children's products. We do not know, however, how much of the firm's revenue is due to bouncer sales and cannot determine what impact discontinuing bouncer sales might have on the third firm should the firm be unable to find a supplier of bouncers that comply with the standard.
Based on the additional space provided in the final rule for placement of the fall hazard warning label, two of these firms should not require modifications to meet the requirement in the final rule (although they would have required modifications under the NPR).
As with manufacturers, all importers will be subject to third-party testing and certification requirements, and consequently, will be subject to costs similar to those for manufacturers if their supplying foreign firm(s) does not perform third party testing. Half of the bouncer seat importers (3 of 6) are already testing their products to verify compliance with the ASTM standard, and any costs would be limited to the incremental costs associated with third party testing over the current testing regime.
The Commission was able to obtain revenue data for one of the small importers with noncompliant bouncers. For that importer, third party testing costs, considered alone and apart from any additional performance requirements due to the final rule, would not exceed one percent of gross revenue unless around 12 units per model required testing to provide the “high degree of assurance” required by 16 CFR part 1107. The Commission has no basis for estimating the size of the impact for the remaining two importers of noncompliant bouncers.
The Commission is aware of 11 small firms, five domestic manufacturers and six domestic importers, currently marketing infant bouncer seats in the United States. With regards to the five domestic manufacturers, the Commission considers it unlikely that testing costs would have a significant impact on any of these firms. Of the six small importers, a significant economic impact cannot be ruled out for four of the importers either as a result of the final rule requirements or the resulting third party testing costs. Therefore, the Commission cannot rule out a significant economic impact for four of the 11 firms (36 percent) operating in the U.S. market for bouncers.
One of the alternatives to reduce the impact on small entities discussed in the NPR was to adopt the voluntary standard with all of the modifications to the on-product warning labels, except for the location specificity (
The Commission considered two additional alternatives discussed in the NPR that might minimize the economic impact on small entities: (1) Adopt ASTM F2167-17 with no modifications; and (2) allow a later effective date.
Section 104 of the CPSIA requires that the Commission promulgate a standard that is either substantially the same as the voluntary standard or more stringent. Therefore, adopting ASTM F2167-17 with no modifications is the least stringent rule allowed by law. This alternative would reduce the impact on all of the known small businesses supplying infant bouncers to the U.S. market. If it were adopted, it should eliminate any economic impact related to warning label changes, but firms would continue to be affected by third party testing requirements. However, adopting ASTM F2167-17 without modification would not adequately address the fall hazard scenario identified in the incident data and would reduce the effectiveness of the fall hazard warning label.
Finally, the Commission could reduce the final rule's impact on small businesses by setting a later effective date. A later effective date would reduce the economic impact on firms in two ways. Firms would be less likely to experience a lapse in production/importation, which could result if they are unable to comply and third party test within the required timeframe. Also, firms could spread costs over a longer time period, thereby reducing their annual costs, as well as the present value of their total costs. However, the Commission received no comments asserting that firms would not have sufficient time to comply with the
In accordance with section 14 of the CPSA, all children's products that are subject to a children's product safety rule must be tested by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body (
A FRFA was conducted as part of the promulgation of the original 1112 rule (78 FR 15836, 15855-58) as required by the RFA. Briefly, the FRFA concluded that the accreditation requirements would not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small laboratories because no requirements were imposed on laboratories that did not intend to provide third party testing services. The only laboratories that were expected to provide such services were those that anticipated receiving sufficient revenue from the mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements as a business decision.
Based on similar reasoning, amending the rule to include the NOR for the bouncer standard will not have a significant adverse impact on small laboratories. Moreover, based upon the number of laboratories in the United States that have applied for CPSC acceptance of the accreditation to test for conformance to other juvenile product standards, we expect that only a few laboratories will seek CPSC acceptance of their accreditation to test for conformance with the infant bouncer seat standard. Most of these laboratories will have already been accredited to test for conformance to other juvenile product standards, and the only costs to them would be the cost of adding the bouncer standard to their scope of accreditation, a cost that test laboratories have indicated is extremely low when they are already accredited for other section 104 rules. As a consequence, the Commission certifies that the NOR for the infant bouncer seat standard will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission's regulations address whether the agency is required to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Under these regulations, a rule that has “little or no potential for affecting the human environment,” is categorically exempt from this requirement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The final rule for bouncer seats falls within the categorical exemption.
The final rule for infant bouncer seats contains information collection requirements that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The preamble to the proposed rule (80 FR at 63181-82) discussed the information collection burden of the proposed rule and specifically requested comments on the accuracy of our estimates. OMB has assigned control number 3041-0174 to this information collection. We did not receive any comment regarding the information collection burden of the proposal. However, the final rule makes modifications regarding the information collection burden because the number of estimated manufacturers subject to the information collection burden is now estimated at 23 manufacturers rather than the 22 manufacturers initially estimated in the proposed rule.
Accordingly, the estimated burden of this collection of information is modified as follows:
Section 8.1 of ASTM F2167-17 requires that all infant bouncer seats and their retail packaging be permanently marked or labeled as follows: The manufacturer, distributor, or seller name, place of business (city, state, mailing address, including zip code), and telephone number; and a code mark or other means that identifies the date (month and year as a minimum) of manufacture.
CPSC is aware of 23 firms that supply bouncer seats in the U.S. market. For PRA purposes, we assume that all 23 firms use labels on their products and on their packaging already. All firms will need to make some modifications to their existing labels. We estimate that the time required to make these modifications is about 1 hour per model. Each of the 23 firms supplies an average of four different models of bouncer seats. Therefore, we estimate the burden hours associated with labels to be 92 hours annually (1 hour × 23 firms × 4 models per firm = 92 hours annually).
We estimate the hourly compensation for the time required to create and update labels is $33.58 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,” March 2017, Table 9, total compensation for all sales and office workers in goods-producing private industries:
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), we have submitted the information collection requirements of this final rule to the OMB.
Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that when a consumer product safety standard is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption from this preemption under
The CPSA establishes certain requirements for product certification and testing. Products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, must be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Certification of children's products subject to a children's product safety rule must be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body.
The Commission published a final rule,
Laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third-party conformity assessment body to test to the new standard for infant bouncer seats would be required to meet the third-party conformity assessment body accreditation requirements in 16 CFR part 1112,
As required by the RFA, staff conducted a FRFA when the Commission issued the part 1112 rule (78 FR 15836, 15855-58). Briefly, the FRFA concluded that the accreditation requirements would not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small test laboratories because no requirements were imposed on test laboratories that did not intend to provide third-party testing services. The only test laboratories that were expected to provide such services were those that anticipated receiving sufficient revenue from the mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements as a business decision. Moreover, a test laboratory would only choose to provide such services if it anticipated receiving revenues sufficient to cover the costs of the requirements.
Based on similar reasoning, amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include the NOR for the infant bouncer seats standard will not have a significant adverse impact on small test laboratories. Moreover, based upon the number of test laboratories in the United States that have applied for CPSC acceptance of accreditation to test for conformance to other mandatory juvenile product standards, we expect that only a few test laboratories will seek CPSC acceptance of their accreditation to test for conformance with the infant bouncer seats standard. Most of these test laboratories will have already been accredited to test for conformity to other mandatory juvenile product standards, and the only costs to them would be the cost of adding the infant bouncer seats standard to their scope of accreditation. For these reasons, the Commission certifies that the NOR amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include the infant bouncer seats standard will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Administrative practice and procedure, Audit, Consumer protection, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Third party conformity assessment body.
Bouncer seats, Chairs, Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants and children, Labeling, Law enforcement, Seats, and Toys.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2063; Pub. L. 110-314, section 3, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008).
(b) * * *
(42) 16 CFR part 1229, Safety Standard for Infant Bouncer Seats.
Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (15 U.S.C. 2056a).
This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for infant bouncer seats.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each infant bouncer seat must comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F2167-17, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Infant Bouncer Seats, approved on June 1, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from ASTM International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428;
(b) Comply with ASTM F2167-17 with the following additions or exclusions:
(1) Instead of complying with section 7.11.3.1 of ASTM F2167-17, comply with the following:
(i) 7.11.3.1
(ii)
(2) In section 8.5.1.1 of ASTM F2167-17, replace the warning statement “ALWAYS use restraints. Adjust to fit snugly” with “ALWAYS use restraints and adjust to fit snugly, even if baby falls asleep.”
(3) In section 8.5.2.1 of ASTM F2167-17, replace the warning statement “ALWAYS use restraints. Adjust to fit snugly” with “ALWAYS use restraints and adjust to fit snugly, even if baby falls asleep.”
(4) In section 8.5.3 of ASTM F2167-17, replace the reference to “Figs. 10 and 11” with “Figs. 11 and 12.”
(5) In section 9.2.1 of ASTM F2167-17:
(i) Replace the reference to “Fig. 12” with “Fig. 13.”
(ii) Replace Fig. 10 with paragraph (b)(5)(iii), “Fig. 11”.
(iii)
(iv) Replace Fig. 11 with paragraph (b)(5)(v), “Fig. 12”.
(v)
(vi) Replace Fig. 12 with paragraph (b)(5)(vii), “Fig. 13”.
(vii)
(6) In section 9.2.2 of ASTM F2167-17, replace the reference to “Fig. 12” with “Fig. 13.”
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; technical amendments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect application-related actions for a new animal drug application (NADA) and abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADAs) during March and April 2017. FDA is also informing the public of the availability of summaries of the basis of approval and of environmental review documents, where applicable. The animal drug regulations are also being amended to reflect a change of a sponsor's address and to make technical amendments to improve the accuracy of the regulations.
This rule is effective September 18, 2017.
George K. Haibel, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5689,
FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval actions for a NADA and ANADAs during March and April 2017, as listed in table 1. In addition, FDA is informing the public of the availability, where applicable, of documentation of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, for actions requiring review of safety or effectiveness data, summaries of the basis of approval (FOI Summaries) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These public documents may be seen in the Dockets Management Staff Office (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Persons with access to the internet may obtain these documents at the CVM FOIA Electronic Reading Room:
Pharmgate LLC, 1015 Ashes Dr., suite 102, Wilmington, NC 28405, has informed FDA that it has changed its address to 1800 Sir Tyler Dr., Wilmington, NC 28405. Accordingly, we are amending § 510.600(c) to reflect this change.
We are making several technical amendments in part 558, which was amended on December 27, 2016 (81 FR 94991), and February 24, 2017 (82 FR 11510), as part of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine's (CVM's) Judicious Use Initiative. We are also making several technical amendments to the regulations for dosage form drugs. These actions are being taken to improve the accuracy of the regulations.
This final rule is issued under section 512(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(i)), which requires
Although denominated a rule pursuant to the FD&C Act, this document does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a “rule of particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. Likewise, this is not a rule subject to Executive Order 12866, which defines a rule as “an agency statement of general applicability and future effect, which the agency intends to have the force and effect of law, that is designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or practice requirements of an agency.”
Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Animal drugs.
Animal drugs, Animal feeds.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510, 520, 522, 524, and 558 are amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(b) * * *
(1) Nos. 054771, 026637, 055529, and 062250 for use of products described in paragraph (a) as in paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) No. 000859 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(1) as in paragraph (d) of this section.
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(b)
(b) * * *
(1) See Nos. 000061, 000859, 055529, 057561, and 061623 for use as in paragraph (e) of this section.
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii)
(b)(1)
(ii)
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii)
(b) * * *
(2) No. 000061 for use as in paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(A), (d)(1)(i)(C), (d)(1)(i)(D), (d)(1)(i)(G), (d)(1)(ii), (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)(i)(A), (d)(2)(i)(C), (d)(2)(i)(D), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(A), (d)(3)(ii), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(4), and (d)(5) of this section.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii)
(2) * * *
(iii)
(3) * * *
(iii)
(4) * * *
(iii)
(5)
(ii)
(iii)
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(c) * * *
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
21 U.S.C. 354, 360b, 360ccc, 360ccc-1, 371.
(d) * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the Cannonade cannon fire event on Lake St. Clair on October 21, 2017 to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. During the enforcement periods, the Coast Guard will enforce restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in a specified area immediately prior to, during, and after this event.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.917 will be enforced from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on October 21, 2017.
If you have questions on this document, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department, telephone (313)568-9564, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the following special local regulations listed in 33 CFR part 100, Safety of Life on Navigable Waters, on the following dates and times:
(1)
In accordance with § 100.901, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these regulated areas is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard patrol commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may restrict vessel operation within the regulated area to vessels having particular operating characteristics.
The PATCOM may direct the anchoring, mooring, or movement of any vessel within this regulated area. A succession of sharp, short signals by whistle or horn from vessels patrolling the area under the direction of the PATCOM shall serve as a signal to stop. Vessels so signaled shall stop and shall comply with the orders of the PATCOM. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, a Notice of Violation for failure to comply, or both.
If it is deemed necessary for the protection of life and property, the PATCOM may terminate the marine event or the operation of any vessel within the regulated area.
In accordance with the general regulations in § 100.35 of this part, the Coast Guard will patrol the regatta area under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “Coast Guard Patrol Commander.”
The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port Detroit will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
The rules in this section shall not apply to vessels participating in the event or to government vessels patrolling the regulated area in the performance of their assigned duties.
This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.35 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). If the Captain of the Port determines that this special local regulation need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document, he may suspend such enforcement and notify the public of the suspension via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Tower Drawbridge across the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the community to participate in the Farm-to-Fork Dinner event. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.
This deviation is effective from 1 p.m. through 10 p.m. on September 24, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0799, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516; email
The California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower Drawbridge over the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw operates as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 1 p.m. through 10 p.m. on September 24, 2017, to allow the community to participate in the Farm-to-Fork Dinner event. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. In the event of an emergency the draw can open on signal if at least two hours notice is given to the bridge operator. There are no immediate alternate routes for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce one safety zone within the Captain of the Port Boston zone on September 17, 2017. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels, spectators, and participants from hazards associated with swim event. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel, except for the safety vessels assisting with the events, may enter the safety zones without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) or their designated on-scene representative.
The regulation in 33 CFR 165.118 will be enforced for the safety zone identified in the
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Mark Cutter, Sector Boston Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 617-223-4000, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone listed in Table 1 from 33 CFR 165.118 on the specified dates and times specified:
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.118 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within the safety zone unless they receive permission from the COTP or designated representative. In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), for inclusion into the Alabama SIP, on December 9, 2015, to demonstrate that the State meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM
This rule will be effective October 18, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0208. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bell can be reached via electronic mail at
On December 14, 2012, EPA promulgated a revised primary annual PM
In a proposed rulemaking published on June 29, 2017 (82 FR 29448), EPA proposed to approve portions of Alabama's December 9, 2015, SIP submission for the 2012 Annual PM
EPA is taking final action to approve Alabama's infrastructure submission submitted on December 9, 2015, for the 2012 Annual PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 17, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving changes to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Energy and Environmental Cabinet, on November 10, 2016, for the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (District). This SIP revision removes Stage II vapor control requirements for new and upgraded gasoline dispensing facilities, and allows for the decommissioning of existing Stage II equipment in Jefferson County, Kentucky. EPA determined that Kentucky's November 10, 2016, SIP revision is approvable because it is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
This rule will be effective October 18, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0014. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Sheckler's telephone number is (404) 562-9222. She can also be reached via electronic mail at
On March 4, 1993, the Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted a SIP revision to address the Stage II requirements
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Jefferson County portion of Kentucky, regulation 6.40,
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally-enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.
EPA is taking final action to approve the November 10, 2016, revision to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP, Regulation 6.40,
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 17, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing the updates of the Outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”) Air Regulations proposed in the
This rule is effective on October 18, 2017. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 18, 2017.
EPA has established docket number OAR-2004-0091 for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
Christine Vineyard, Air Division (Air-4), U.S. EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 947-4125,
Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to U.S. EPA.
Organization of this document: The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
On June 17, 2016 (81 FR 39607) and December 12, 2016 (81 FR 39607), EPA proposed to incorporate various Santa Barbara County APCD and Ventura County APCD air pollution control requirements into the OCS Air Regulations at 40 CFR part 55. We are incorporating these requirements in response to the submittal of these rules by the Districts. EPA has evaluated the proposed requirements to ensure that they are rationally related to the attainment or maintenance of federal or state ambient air quality standards or Part C of title I of the Act, that they are not designed expressly to prevent exploration and development of the OCS and that they are applicable to OCS sources. 40 CFR 55.1. EPA has also evaluated the rules to ensure that they are not arbitrary or capricious. 40 CFR 55.12(e).
Section 328(a) of the Act requires that EPA establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, EPA must incorporate applicable onshore rules into part 55 as they exist onshore. This limits EPA's flexibility in deciding which requirements will be incorporated into part 55 and prevents EPA from making substantive changes to the requirements it incorporates. As a result, EPA may be incorporating rules into part 55 that do not conform to all of EPA's state implementation plan (SIP) guidance or certain requirements of the Act. Consistency updates may result in the inclusion of state or local rules or regulations into part 55, even though the same rules may ultimately be disapproved for inclusion as part of the SIP. Inclusion in the OCS rule does not imply that a rule meets the requirements of the Act for SIP approval, nor does it imply that the rule will be approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP.
EPA's proposed actions provided 30-day public comment periods. During these periods, we received no comments on the proposed actions.
No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section 328(a)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7627, the EPA is taking final action to incorporate the proposed changes into 40 CFR part 55. Section 328(a) of the Act requires that EPA establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, EPA must incorporate applicable onshore rules into Part 55 as they exist onshore.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Santa Barbara County APCD and Ventura County APCD requirements described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 55 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of States' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore air control requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, EPA must incorporate applicable onshore rules into part 55 as they exist onshore. 42 U.S.C. 7627(a)(1); 40 CFR 55.12. Thus, in promulgating OCS consistency updates, EPA's role is to maintain consistency between OCS regulations and the regulations of onshore areas, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action simply updates the existing OCS requirements to make them consistent with requirements onshore, without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Publ. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, nor does it impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 17, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Outer continental shelf, Ozone, Particulate matter, Permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 55, is amended as follows:
Section 328 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(F)
(H)
(b) * * *
(6) The following requirements are contained in
(8) The following requirements are contained in
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
Under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intends to conduct a rulemaking to potentially revise certain best available technology economically achievable (“BAT”) effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for existing sources (“PSES”) for the steam electric power generating point source category, which were published in the
The final rule is effective September 18, 2017. In accordance with 40 CFR part 23, this regulation shall be considered issued for purposes of judicial review at 1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on October 2, 2017. Under section 509(b)(1) of the CWA, judicial review of this regulation can be had only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals within 120 days after the regulation is considered issued for purposes of judicial review. Under section 509(b)(2), the requirements in this regulation may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-OW-2009-0819. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Ronald Jordan, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Engineering and Analysis Division; telephone number: (202) 566-1003; email address:
On November 3, 2015, the EPA published a final rule amending 40 CFR part 423, the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating point source category, under Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361). The amendments addressed limitations and standards on various wastestreams at steam electric power plants: FGD wastewater, bottom ash transport water, fly ash transport water, flue gas mercury control wastewater, gasification wastewater, and combustion residual leachate. Collectively, this rulemaking is known as the “Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category,” or “2015 Rule.” For further information on the 2015 Rule, see 80 FR 67838 (November 3, 2015).
EPA received seven petitions for review of the 2015 Rule. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation issued an order on December 8, 2015, consolidating all of the petitions in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
In a letter dated March 24, 2017, the Utility Water Act Group (“UWAG”)
In an April 12, 2017 letter to those who submitted the reconsideration petitions, the Administrator announced his decision to reconsider the 2015 Rule. See DCN SE06612. As explained in that letter, after considering the objections raised in the reconsideration petitions, the Administrator determined that it is appropriate and in the public interest to reconsider the Rule. On April 14, 2017, EPA requested that the Fifth Circuit hold the case in abeyance while the Agency undertook reconsideration. On April 24, 2017, the Fifth Circuit granted the motion and placed the case in abeyance.
On June 6, 2017 (82 FR 26017), EPA proposed to postpone the compliance dates for the new, more stringent, BAT effluent limitations and PSES in the 2015 Rule for each of the following wastestreams: FGD wastewater, bottom ash transport water, fly ash transport water, flue gas mercury control wastewater, and gasification wastewater, while reconsideration of the 2015 Rule was underway. EPA explained that this postponement would preserve the regulatory status quo with respect to wastestreams subject to the 2015 Rule's new, and more stringent, limitations and standards during reconsideration and that postponement of compliance dates is intended to prevent the unnecessary expenditure of resources until EPA finalizes any rulemaking as a result of its reconsideration of the 2015 Rule. EPA also solicited comments on whether this postponement should be for a specified period of time, for example, two years.
On August 11, 2017, EPA sent a second letter to those who had requested reconsideration of the 2015 Rule, announcing the Administrator's decision to conduct a new rulemaking to potentially revise the new, more stringent BAT limitations and PSES in the 2015 Rule that apply to two wastestreams: FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water. See DCN SE06670. On August 14, 2017, EPA filed a motion to govern further proceedings in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which explained that EPA intends to conduct further rulemaking to potentially revise the new, more stringent BAT/PSES requirements in the 2015 Rule applicable to FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water, and requested, in part, that the Court sever and hold in abeyance all judicial proceedings concerning portions of the 2015 Rule related to those particular requirements. On August 22, 2017, the Court granted EPA's motion.
In an earlier action, EPA administratively postponed certain compliance dates that had not yet passed in part of the 2015 Rule pursuant to Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. 705, which states that “[w]hen an agency finds that justice so requires, it may postpone the effective date of action taken by it pending judicial review.” 82 FR 19005 (April 25, 2017). EPA had postponed the compliance dates as a
EPA received thousands of written comments on the proposed rule to postpone certain compliance dates in the 2015 Rule. EPA also held a public hearing on July 31, 2017. The comments on the proposed rule generally fall into one of four categories: (1) Support for postponement of compliance dates; (2) opposition to the postponement of compliance dates; (3) comments on the substantive requirements of the 2015 Rule (which are outside the scope of this action, which concerns postponing certain compliance dates only); and (4) comments on the length of time that EPA should postpone the compliance dates.
Commenters that support the postponement rule generally assert that the postponement is appropriate to prevent industry from spending “unnecessary resources” until EPA completes its reconsideration of the 2015 Rule. Many commenters who support a postponement in compliance dates state that, given the substantial costs required to implement technology required to comply with the 2015 Rule, as well as the time needed for designing and optimizing treatment systems, certainty in the discharge requirements is needed and postponement of compliance dates allows for that. In addition, commenters argue that the Agency has both the authority and the responsibility to postpone the 2015 Rule until it completes any rulemaking following its reconsideration process.
Comments on the length of the postponement generally assert that EPA should postpone the compliance dates for a minimum of two years, until EPA has taken final action on any rule revisions, or some time period beyond when EPA has taken final action on any rule revisions.
Commenters that oppose the postponement rule generally assert that (1) the technology bases underlying the 2015 Rule are widely available and affordable now, many steam electric plants have already installed or are in the process of implementing these technologies, and postponing the compliance dates would hinder technology development; (2) any postponement allows power plants to continue to discharge pollutants that are harmful to public health and the environment, and the forgone public health and environmental benefits during any postponement outweigh the costs to industry; and (3) EPA lacks authority to postpone the compliance dates.
In light of new information not contained in the record for the 2015 Rule and the inherent discretion the Agency has to reconsider past policy decisions consistent with the CWA and other applicable law, EPA intends to conduct a new rulemaking regarding the appropriate technology bases and associated limits for the BAT/PSES requirements applicable to FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water discharged from steam electric power plants. Given this, and after carefully considering comments received on the proposed rule, EPA finds it appropriate to postpone the earliest compliance dates for the new, more stringent, BAT effluent limitations and PSES applicable to FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water in the 2015 Rule until it completes the new rulemaking. This maintains the 2015 Rule as a whole at this time, with the only change being to postpone specific compliance deadlines for two wastestreams. Thus, the earliest compliance dates for plants to meet the new, more stringent FGD wastewater and bottom ash wastewater limitations and standards in the 2015 Rule, which were to be determined by the permitting authority as a date “as soon as possible beginning November 1, 2018 . . .”, are now to be determined by the permitting authority as a date “as soon as possible beginning November 1, 2020 . . . .” EPA is not changing the “no later than” date of December 31, 2023, because EPA is not aware that the 2023 date is an immediate driver for expenditures by plants (petitioners had requested relief from the “fast-approaching compliance deadlines” in the 2015 Rule), and EPA plans to take up the appropriate compliance period in its next rulemaking. In order to be absolutely clear about what is being postponed, the final rule includes more precise regulatory text to implement the rule than was included in the proposed rule.
Agencies have inherent authority to reconsider past decisions and to revise, replace or repeal a decision to the extent permitted by law and supported by a reasoned explanation.
As mentioned, some commenters stated that the record for the 2015 Rule demonstrates that the technologies underlying the new, more stringent requirements for FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water are widely available and affordable. Notwithstanding statements in the 2015 Rule record, certain parties have raised serious concerns about the availability and affordability of the technology basis for the FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water requirements in the 2015 Rule, and the Administrator wishes to take some time to carefully review these requirements in light of those concerns and ensure any such requirements are technologically available and economically achievable within the meaning of the statute. EPA has discretion in determining technological availability and economic achievability and is not constrained by the CWA to make the same policy decision as the former Administration, so long as its decision is reasonable. As explained above, the Agency may
As part of the 2015 Rule, EPA estimated the costs associated with compliance with the 2015 Rule's new requirements. For all applicable wastestreams, EPA assessed the operations and treatment system components, identified equipment and process changes that the plant would likely make to meet the 2015 Rule, and estimated the cost to implement those changes. This includes, among other things, the capital costs of installing the technology (based on estimates of the technology selected as representing the level of control) and the operation and maintenance costs of operating the technology. See Technical Development Document (“TDD”), pp. 9-1 through 9-52. EPA estimated that the total post-tax annualized compliance costs would be $339.6 million/year. See Regulatory Impact Analysis (“RIA”), Table 3-2 (Option D).
The 2015 rulemaking record also describes evaluation of the initial capital costs that regulated parties would incur in the near term (if a stay were not in place) to meet the 2015 Rule's effluent limitations and standards. For the purpose of analysis, in the RIA, EPA assumed that all capital costs are incurred concurrently with technology installation according to discharge permit renewal schedules, but EPA realizes that feasibility studies and planning may need to be completed in advance of that date. Specifically, plants would incur engineering design costs, costs to acquire equipment, freight shipping costs to transport equipment from manufacturers to the installation site, costs for actions to prepare the site (such as installing concrete foundations and buildings for the new equipment), and construction expenses associated with connecting electrical and piping systems to new equipment. See TDD, p. 9-3. EPA estimated post-tax annualized capital costs of $204.4 million/year. See RIA, Table 3-2 (Option D). Although there is a wide degree of variability among the costs particular plants would expend, EPA estimates that the average post-tax annualized capital compliance costs for a plant would be approximately $1.5 million/year. See TDD, Table 9-19 (plants with compliance costs); RIA, Table 3-2 (Option D). To the extent that these costs are associated with the 2015 Rule requirements for FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water, and in the event that EPA revises these requirements in a future rulemaking, these are costs that would be incurred for activities that ultimately might not be necessary. In that case, this would reflect costs incurred by facilities and potentially passed on to utility rate payers that ultimately did not need to be spent.
In light of these imminent planning and capital expenditures that facilities incurring costs under the 2015 Rule would need to undertake in order to meet the earliest compliance deadlines for the new, more stringent limitations and standards in the 2015 Rule, and the fact that the Agency is conducting a new rulemaking regarding the appropriate technology bases and associated limits for BAT limitations and PSES applicable to FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water, the Agency views it as appropriate to postpone the earliest compliance dates that have not yet passed for these wastestreams in 2015 Rule. This will preserve the regulatory status quo with respect to requirements for FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water until the new rulemaking is complete.
Some commenters also express concerns that postponement of compliance dates would hinder technology advancements. EPA's experience does not support this concern. The record for the 2015 Rule demonstrates that technology advancements were not hindered during that rulemaking. Rather, as explained in the preamble to the final 2015 Rule, vendors continued to improve existing technologies and to develop new technologies during the rulemaking leading up to the 2015 Rule.
EPA acknowledges that postponement of the compliance dates could lead to a delay in the accrual of some of the benefits attributable to the 2015 Rule. The 2015 Rule required that steam electric power plants would comply with the new, more stringent requirements no later than 2023, with plants expected to implement new control technologies over a five-year compliance period of 2019-2023 according to their permit renewal schedule. In the record for the 2015 Rule, EPA estimated the value of certain benefits linked to reduced pollutant
EPA notes that, as explained earlier, there is uncertainty as to the FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water BAT/PSES requirements while EPA conducts a new rulemaking. If EPA did not postpone the compliance dates, industry would likely incur costs as it prepares to comply with the 2015 Rule, irrespective of what EPA ultimately determines to be BAT/PSES for FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water. By contrast, under the 2015 Rule, even if permits were written today, the earliest those permits would have required compliance with the limitations and standards at issue are “as soon as possible beginning November 1, 2018.” So, while some companies would have to plan to comply and spend money right away, the benefits would not begin to accrue until 2018, at the earliest. Also, these benefits may not be lost if a permitting authority requires similar effluent limitations where necessary to meet applicable water quality standards, under CWA section 301(b)(1)(C). EPA has carefully weighed the concerns about potentially foregone benefits with the consideration of the costs that could needlessly be incurred should the requirements be changed, as well as the overall uncertainty and potential confusion that would be caused by imposing the 2015 Rule requirements while simultaneously undertaking rulemaking that may change those requirements. On balance, EPA has concluded the more reasonable approach is to postpone the compliance dates in the 2015 Rule.
Thus, EPA agrees with commenters who argue that it should postpone the new, more stringent BAT/PSES requirements for FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water in the 2015 Rule until it completes a new rulemaking on these wastestreams. After reflecting on the time it typically takes the Agency to propose and finalize revised effluent limitations guidelines and standards, and in light the characteristics of this industry and the anticipated scope of the next rulemaking, EPA projects it will take approximately three years to propose and finalize a new rule (Fall 2020). See DCN SE06667. Consequently, EPA is postponing the earliest compliance dates for the new, more stringent, BAT effluent limitations and PSES for FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water for a period of two years (November 1, 2020).
Some facilities commented that they may need to know what the ultimate requirements will be for bottom ash transport water and FGD wastewater to assist them in considering alternatives for meeting the requirements for the other waste streams (fly ash transport water and FGMC wastewater) for which EPA is not postponing the earliest compliance dates. EPA notes that there continues to be discretion under the 2015 Rule for permitting authorities to consider: Time needed to “expeditiously plan (including time to raise capital), design, procure, and install equipment” to comply with the rule; changes being made at the plant to comply with several other rules; and “other factors as appropriate” in determining exactly when, within a specified compliance period, the 2015 Rule's new, more stringent limitations apply to any given plant. See 40 CFR 423.11(t).
In light of the compliance date postponements being finalized today, in determining the “as soon as possible date,” EPA believes it would be reasonable for permitting authorities to consider the need for a facility to make integrated planning decisions regarding compliance with the requirements for all of the wastestreams currently subject to new, more stringent requirements in the 2015 Rule, as well as the other rules identified in § 423.11(t) to the extent that a facility demonstrates such a need. This could include harmonizing schedules to the extent provided for
This rule is effective immediately upon publication. Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), provides that publication of a substantive rule must be made no less than 30 days before its effective date, subject to several exceptions. Section 553(d)(1) establishes an exception for “a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.” The exception in Section 553(d)(1) reflects the purpose of the 30-day notice requirement, which is to give affected entities time to prepare for the effective date of a rule or to take any other action which the issuance of a rule may prompt. This rule fits within Section 553(d)(1) because it postpones certain requirements on steam electric power plants to control their pollutant discharges by two years, and as a result, it relieves a restriction on regulated entities for that period.
This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.
This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.
This final rule does not involve any information collection activities subject to the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action maintains the 2015 Rule as a whole at this time, with the only change being to postpone specific compliance deadlines for two wastestreams. As described above, EPA estimates that steam electric plants, including some small entities, would experience annualized cost savings of $27.5 million as a result of this two-year delay. We have therefore concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for some directly regulated small entities.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
This action does not have federalism implications, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because EPA previously determined that the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by the requirements EPA is finalizing do not present a disproportionate risk to children.
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards that would require Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note.
This is a final rule to delay action, and it does not change the requirements of the effluent limitations guidelines and standards published in 2015. While the postponement in compliance dates could delay the protection the 2015 Rule would afford to all communities, including those impacted disproportionately by the pollutants in certain wastewater discharges, this action would not change any impacts of the 2015 Rule upon implementation. The EPA therefore believes it is more appropriate to consider the impact on minority and low-income populations in the context of possible substantive changes as part of any future rulemaking.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is a not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Electric power generation, Power plants, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.
For reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 423 as set forth below:
Secs. 101; 301; 304(b), (c), (e), and (g); 306; 307; 308 and 501, Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(t) The phrase “as soon as possible” means November 1, 2018 (except for purposes of § 423.13(g)(1)(i) and (k)(1)(i), and § 423.16(e) and (g), in which case it means November 1, 2020), unless the permitting authority establishes a later date, after receiving information from the discharger, which reflects a consideration of the following factors:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary final rule.
NMFS adjusts the northern albacore tuna annual baseline quota for 2017 with available underharvest of the 2016 adjusted U.S. northern albacore quota. NMFS also adjusts the North and South Atlantic swordfish baseline quotas for 2017 based on available underharvest from the 2016 adjusted U.S. quotas and international quota transfers. NMFS also augments the 2017 Atlantic bluefin tuna Reserve category quota with available underharvest of the 2016 adjusted U.S. bluefin tuna quota. This action is necessary to implement binding recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Effective September 18, 2017, through December 31, 2017.
Supporting documents such as Environmental Assessments and Fishery Management Plans and their Amendments described below may be downloaded from the HMS Web site at
Sarah McLaughlin, 978-281-9260, Steve Durkee, 202-670-6637, or Gray Redding, 301-427-8503.
Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971
The northern albacore quota implementation and quota adjustment processes, along with the bluefin tuna quota adjustment process, were previously analyzed in Amendment 7, which published in August 2014 and included a Final Environmental Impact Statement, Final Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), and Final Social Impact Statement. ICCAT conducted another bluefin tuna stock assessment update in 2014, and, after considering the scientific advice in the stock assessment, adopted a recommendation regarding western Atlantic bluefin tuna management that increases the U.S. bluefin tuna quota for 2015 and 2016 (ICCAT Recommendation 14-05). NMFS published a final rule to implement that baseline annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota on August 28, 2015 (80 FR 52198), and prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA), RIR, and FRFA for that action. ICCAT Recommendation 16-08 extended the U.S. bluefin tuna allocation established in Recommendation 14-05 through 2017.
The North Atlantic swordfish quota adjustment process was previously analyzed in the EA, RIR, and FRFA that were prepared for the 2012 Swordfish Quota Adjustment Rule (July 31, 2012; 77 FR 45273). The South Atlantic swordfish quota adjustment process was previously analyzed in the EA, RIR, and FRFA that were prepared for the 2007 Swordfish Quota Specification Final Rule (October 5, 2007; 72 FR 56929). In the 2016 North and South Atlantic Swordfish Quotas Adjustment Final Rule (July 26, 2016, 81 FR 48719), after taking public comment on the issue, NMFS announced its intent to no longer issue proposed and final specifications/rules for North and South Atlantic swordfish quotas adjustments in cases where the quota adjustment follows previously codified and analyzed formulas. Therefore, beginning this year, NMFS is instead issuing a temporary final rule to adjust the quota, in a similar process to northern albacore and bluefin tuna quota adjustments. NMFS will continue to undertake notice and comment rulemaking when adopting new quotas, quota formulas, or otherwise altering conservation and management measures.
Note that weight information for northern albacore and bluefin tuna below is shown in metric tons (mt) whole weight (ww), and both dressed weight (dw) and ww is shown for swordfish.
Since 1998, ICCAT has adopted recommendations regarding the northern albacore fishery. The current
Amendment 7 established the process by which NMFS adjusts the U.S. annual northern albacore quota for allowable underharvest, if any, in the previous year. NMFS makes such adjustments consistent with ICCAT limits and when complete catch information for the prior year is available and finalized. The maximum underharvest that a Contracting Party may carry forward from one year to the next is 25 percent of its initial catch quota, which equals 131.75 mt for the United States.
For 2016, the adjusted quota was 658.75 mt (527 mt plus 131.75 mt of 2015 underharvest carried forward to 2016). The total 2016 northern albacore catch was 249.60 mt, which is 409.15 mt less than the 2016 adjusted quota. Thus, the underharvest for 2016 is 409.15 mt, 131.75 mt of which may be carried forward to the 2017 fishing year. Thus, the adjusted 2017 northern albacore quota is 527 mt plus 131.75 mt, totaling 658.75 mt.
At the 2016 ICCAT annual meeting, Recommendation 16-03 maintained the North Atlantic swordfish TAC of 10,301 mt dw (13,700 mt ww) through 2017. Of this TAC, the United States' baseline quota is 2,937.6 mt dw (3,907 mt ww) per year. ICCAT Recommendation 16-03 also includes an 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) annual quota transfer from the United States to Mauritania and limits underharvest carryover to 15 percent of a Contracting Party's baseline quota. Therefore, the United States may carry over a maximum of 440.6 mt dw (586.0 mt ww) of underharvest from 2016 to 2017. This final rule adjusts the U.S. baseline quota for the 2017 fishing year to account for the annual quota transfer to Mauritania and the 2016 underharvest.
The 2017 North Atlantic swordfish baseline quota is 2,937.6 mt dw (3,907 mt ww). The total 2016 North Atlantic swordfish catch and dead discards totaled 1,144.4 mt dw, which is 2,215 mt dw less than the 2016 adjusted quota of 3,359.4 mt dw. Thus, the North Atlantic swordfish underharvest for 2016 was 2,215 mt dw, and NMFS is carrying forward 440.6 mt dw, the maximum carryover allowed under Recommendation 16-03. The 2,937.6 mt dw baseline quota is reduced by the 18.8 mt dw annual quota transfer to Mauritania and increased by the underharvest carryover of 440.6 mt dw, resulting in a final adjusted North Atlantic swordfish quota for the 2017 fishing year of 3,359.4 mt dw (2,937.6−18.8 + 440.6 = 3,359.4 mt dw). From that adjusted quota, 50 mt dw will be allocated to the reserve category for inseason adjustments and research, and 300 mt dw will be allocated to the incidental category, which includes recreational landings and landings by incidental swordfish permit holders, in accordance with regulations at 50 CFR 635.27(c)(1)(i). This would result in an allocation of 3,009.4 mt dw (3,359.4−50−300 = 3,009.4 mt dw) for the directed category, which would be split equally between two seasons in 2017 (January through June, and July through December) (Table 1).
In 2016, ICCAT Recommendation 16-04 maintained the South Atlantic swordfish TAC at 11,278.2 mt dw (15,000 mt ww) through 2017. Of this, the United States receives 75.2 mt dw (100 mt ww). Recommendation 16-04 limits the amount of South Atlantic swordfish underharvest that can be carried forward from one year to the next, and the United States may carry forward up to 100 percent of its baseline quota (75.2 mt dw). Recommendation 16-04 also included a total of 75.2 mt dw (100 mt ww) of quota transfers from the United States to other countries. These transfers were 37.6 mt dw (50 mt ww) to Namibia, 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) to Côte d'Ivoire, and 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) to Belize.
U.S. fishermen landed no South Atlantic swordfish in 2016. The adjusted 2016 South Atlantic swordfish quota was 75.1 mt dw due to nominal landings in previous years. Therefore, 75.1 mt dw of underharvest is available to carry over to 2017. NMFS is carrying forward 75.1 mt dw to be added to the 75.2 mt dw baseline quota. The quota is then reduced by the 75.2 mt dw of annual international quota transfers outlined above, resulting in an adjusted South Atlantic swordfish quota of 75.1 mt dw for the 2017 fishing year (Table 1).
Pursuant to Amendment 7, NMFS augments the Reserve category quota to the extent that underharvest from the prior year's adjusted U.S. bluefin tuna quota is available. NMFS makes such adjustments consistent with ICCAT limits and when complete catch information for the prior year is available and finalized. Consistent with the bluefin tuna quota regulations, NMFS may allocate any portion of the Reserve category quota for inseason or annual adjustments to any fishing category quota pursuant to regulatory determination criteria described at § 635.27(a)(8), or for scientific research.
NMFS implemented ICCAT Recommendation 14-05 in the bluefin tuna quota final rule in August 2015 (80 FR 52198, August 28, 2015). That rulemaking implemented Recommendation 14-05, which included a western bluefin tuna TAC of 2,000 mt (for 2015 and 2016) and the recommended annual U.S. baseline quota of 1,058.79 mt. The total annual U.S. quota, including the 25 mt to account for bycatch related to pelagic longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant gear restricted area (NED) is 1,083.79 mt. Any underharvest of a CPC's total quota in a given year may be carried forward to the next year but is limited to 10 percent of the CPC's initial quota allocation (for the United States, its baseline quota plus 25 mt for the NED). ICCAT Recommendation 16-08 extended these provisions through 2017. The baseline annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota of 1,058.79 mt is codified at § 635.27(a) and will remain in effect until changed (for instance, if a new ICCAT western bluefin tuna TAC recommendation is adopted).
The total 2016 bluefin tuna catch was 1,025.10 mt. This total catch includes landings and dead discards. The total catch of 1,025.10 mt is 167.07 mt less than the 2016 adjusted quota of 1,083.79 mt. Per ICCAT Recommendation 16-08, only 10 percent of the total 2016 U.S. quota, or 108.38 mt, of that underharvest may be carried forward to the 2017 fishing year, resulting in a 2017 adjusted quota of 1,192.17 mt (baseline quota of 1,083.79 mt + underharvest carryover of 108.38 mt). The codified Reserve category quota is 24.8 mt. Consistent with the process established in Amendment 7, NMFS augments the Reserve category quota with 108.38 mt in this action. Effective February 28, 2017, NMFS adjusted the Reserve category quota for 2017 to 118 mt by reallocating 138.2 mt of Purse Seine quota to the Reserve category (based on 2016 catch by Purse Seine category participants) and also transferring 45 mt of Reserve category quota to the Longline category (82 FR 12296, March 2, 2017). Effective March 2, 2017, NMFS transferred 40 mt from the Reserve to the General category (82 FR 12747, March 7, 2017). Additionally, effective August 11, 2017, NMFS transferred an additional 30 mt from the Reserve to the Harpoon category (82 FR 38853, August 16, 2017). Thus, as of the effective date of this action (September 18, 2017), the adjusted 2017 Reserve category quota would be 156.38 mt (24.8 + 138.2−45−40−30 + 108.38).
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) has determined that this temporary final rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law.
Pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)), the AA finds that it would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the reasons described below.
NMFS solicited and accepted public comment on the northern albacore quota implementation and quota adjustment processes, along with the bluefin tuna quota adjustment process, as part of the Amendment 7 rulemaking. Public comments on these provisions in response to the proposed Amendment 7 rule were generally supportive and were addressed in the Response to Comments section of the Amendment 7 final rule. (See comments 18, 19, and 105 at 79 FR 71530-71531 and 71553). Similarly, in the past, North and South Atlantic swordfish quota adjustments were performed through an annual notice and comment rulemaking process. In the 2016 North and South Atlantic Swordfish Quota Adjustment Rule (81 FR 48719, July 26, 2016), NMFS announced the intent to no longer issue proposed and final specifications/rules for North and South Atlantic swordfish quota adjustments in cases where the quota adjustment simply follows previously codified and analyzed formulas. Public comments on this process change were generally supportive. Beginning this year, NMFS will instead issue a temporary final rule to adjust the quota. NMFS will continue to undertake notice and comment rulemaking if adopting new quotas, quota formulas, or otherwise altering conservation and management measures for North and South Atlantic swordfish.
This action applies the formulas which the public received notice of in the earlier actions (Amendment 7 and the 2016 North and South Atlantic Swordfish Quota Adjustment Rule), using the best available data regarding 2016 catch and underharvest and calculating allowable underharvest consistent with ICCAT recommendations. The rulemakings for Amendment 7 and the 2016 North and South Atlantic Swordfish Quota Adjustment Rule specifically provided prior notice of, and accepted public comment on, these formulaic quota adjustment processes and the manner in which they occur. The application of this formula in this action does not have discretionary aspects requiring additional agency consideration and thus it would be unnecessarily duplicative to accept public comment for this action.
There is good cause under U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date and to make the rule effective upon publication in the
Additionally, to prevent confusion and potential overharvests, these adjustments should be in place as soon as possible in order to allow the impacted sectors to benefit from any subsequent quota adjustments to the fishing categories, give them a reasonable opportunity to catch available quota, and provide them the opportunity for planning operations accordingly.
This action is being taken under § 635.27(e) and § 635.27(a)(10), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
16 U.S.C. 971
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; reallocations; correction.
NMFS is correcting a temporary rule that reallocated Pacific cod from vessels using jig gear and catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 meters) length overall (LOA) using hook-and-line gear to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area. The amount reallocated from vessels using jig gear was incorrect.
Effective September 18, 2017 through 2400 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t) December 31, 2017, and is applicable beginning August 30, 2017.
Obren Davis, 907-586-7228.
NMFS published the reallocation of Pacific cod on September 5, 2017 (82 FR 41899). The document contains incorrect amounts of Pacific cod to be transferred to catcher vessels less than 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear from vessels using jig gear. These corrections will not affect the fishing operations. These corrections are necessary to provide the correct information about the amount of the Pacific cod transferred from vessels using jig gear and eliminate potential avoid confusion by fishery participants.
In the
“The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that jig vessels will not be able to harvest 1,186 mt of the remaining 2017 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This actions corrects an error that attributed the total amount of Pacific cod being transferred to catcher vessels less than 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear from multiple sectors (1,612 mt), rather than the amount of Pacific cod being reallocated from vessels using jig gear (1,186 mt). This correction does not change operating practices in the fisheries. Corrections should be made as soon as possible to avoid confusion for participants in the fisheries.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the Processed Pear Committee (Committee) to increase the assessment rate established for the 2017-2018 and subsequent fiscal periods from $7.00 to $8.00 per ton of “summer/fall” pears for canning. The Committee locally administers the marketing order and is comprised of growers, handlers, and processors of processed pears grown in Oregon and Washington. Assessments upon processed pear handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the marketing order. The fiscal period begins July 1 and ends June 30. The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended or terminated.
Comments must be received by October 3, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or internet:
Teresa Hutchinson or Gary Olson, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326-2724, Fax: (503) 326-7440, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 927, as amended (7 CFR part 927), regulating the handling of pears grown in Oregon and Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563, and 13175.
This proposed rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action contained in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Additionally, because this proposed rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled, “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled, `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the order now in effect, Oregon and Washington pear handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate, as proposed herein, would be applicable to all assessable “summer/fall” pears for canning beginning July 1, 2017, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2017-2018 and subsequent fiscal periods from $7.00 to $8.00 per ton for “summer/fall” pears for canning handled under the order. The assessment rate for “winter” and “other” pears for processing would remain unchanged at zero.
The order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are growers, handlers, and processors of Oregon and Washington processed pears. They are familiar with the Committee's needs, and with the costs for goods and services in their local area, and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 2012-2013 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and the USDA approved,
The Committee met on May 31, 2017, and unanimously recommended expenditures of $800,150 for the 2017-2018 fiscal period. In comparison, the previous fiscal period's budgeted expenditures were $855,268. The Committee also unanimously recommended an assessment rate of $8.00 per ton for “summer/fall” pears for canning. The recommended assessment rate of $8.00 is $1.00 higher than the rate currently in effect.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2017-2018 fiscal period include $605,606 for promotion and paid advertising, $147,694 for research, $25,000 for administration, and $21,850 for Committee expenses. In comparison, major expenditures for the 2016-2017 fiscal period included $682,130 for promotion and paid advertising, $127,288 for research, $25,000 for administration, and $20,850 for Committee expenses.
Committee members estimate the 2017-2018 crop to be 100,000 tons, which would be less than the 2016-2017 production of 103,000 tons by 3,000 tons. Pear production tends to fluctuate due to the effects of weather, pollination, and tree health. Because of the anticipated smaller crop, the Committee recommended to both lower budgeted expenses and increase the assessment rate for “summer/fall” pears in order to align assessment income with expenses.
The Committee's recommended assessment rate was derived by dividing the 2017-2018 anticipated expenses by the expected shipments of “summer/fall” pears for canning, while also taking into account interest income and the Committee's monetary reserve. Shipments of “summer/fall” pears for canning for 2017-2018 are estimated at 100,000 tons, which should provide $800,000 (100,000 tons × $8.00 per ton) in assessment income. The projected revenue from handler assessments, together with funds from interest income, would be adequate to cover the 2017-2018 budgeted expenses of $800,150.
Section 927.42(a) of the order authorizes the Committee to carry over excess funds into subsequent fiscal periods as a reserve, provided that funds do not exceed approximately one year's operational expenses. The Committee expects its monetary reserve, which was estimated to be $544,990 at the end of the 2016-2017 fiscal period, to remain unchanged during the 2017-2018 fiscal period. That amount would be within the provisions of the order and would provide the Committee with greater ability to absorb fluctuations in assessment income and expenses into the future.
The proposed assessment rate would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2017-2018 budget, and those for subsequent fiscal periods, would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 1,200 growers of processed pears in the regulated production area and approximately 50 processed pear handlers subject to regulation under the order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA)(13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000.
According to the Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2016 Summary issued in June 2017 by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the total farm-gate value of “summer/fall” processed pears grown in Oregon and Washington for 2016 was $27,874,000. Based on the number of “summer/fall” processed pear growers in the Oregon and Washington, the average gross revenue for each grower can be estimated at approximately $23,228 ($27,874,000 divided by 1,200). Furthermore, based on Committee records, the Committee has estimated that all of the Oregon-Washington pear handlers currently ship less than $7,500,000 worth of processed pears each on an annual basis. From this information, it is concluded that the majority of growers and handlers of Oregon and Washington processed pears may be classified as small entities.
This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Committee, and collected from handlers, for the 2017-2018 and subsequent fiscal periods from $7.00 to $8.00 per ton for “summer/fall” pears for canning. The Committee unanimously recommended 2017-2018 expenditures of $800,150 and an assessment rate of $8.00 per ton for “summer/fall” pears for canning. The proposed assessment rate of $8.00 is $1.00 higher than the rate established for the 2012-2013 fiscal period. Because of the anticipated smaller crop, the Committee recommended to both lower budgeted expenses and increase the assessment rate for “summer/fall” pears in order to align assessment income with expenses.
The 2017-2018 estimate of “summer/fall” pears for canning is 100,000 tons. At the proposed $8.00 per ton assessment rate, the Committee anticipates that assessment income of approximately $800,000, along with interest income, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses for the 2017-
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2017-2018 fiscal period include $605,606 for promotion and paid advertising; $147,694 for research; $25,000 for administration; and $21,850 for Committee expenses. In comparison, major expenditures for the 2016-2017 fiscal period included $682,130 for promotion and paid advertising; $127,288 for research; $25,000 for administration; and $20,850 for Committee expenses.
The Committee discussed alternatives to this action, including recommending alternative expenditure levels and assessment rates. Although lower assessment rates were considered, none were selected because they would not have generated sufficient income to administer the order. Similarly, the Committee did not recommend lower levels of budgeted expenditures than proposed herein because it would have reduced the effectiveness of the program.
A review of historical data and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the grower price for the 2017-2018 fiscal period could range between $325 and $346 per ton of “summer/fall” processed pears. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2017-2018 fiscal period, as a percentage of total grower revenue could range between 2.31 and 2.46 percent.
This action would increase the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to growers. However, these costs would be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the order.
In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the processed pear industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the May 31, 2017, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189 (Generic Fruit Crops). No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This proposed rule would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large processed pear handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this action.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
A 15-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. Fifteen days is deemed appropriate because handlers are aware of this action, which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting.
Marketing agreements, Pears, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 927 is proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after July 1, 2017, the following base rates of assessment for pears for processing are established for the Processed Pear Committee:
(a) $8.00 per ton for any or all varieties or subvarieties of pears for canning classified as “summer/fall” excluding pears for other methods of processing;
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Arkansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) minor New Source Review (NSR) program submitted on July 26, 2010, and March 24, 2017, including supplemental information provided on November 30, 2015, May 26, 2016, and July 27, 2017. Specifically, we are proposing to approve revisions that revise the minor NSR permitting thresholds and
Written comments must be received on or before October 18, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0435, at
Ashley Mohr, 214-665-7289,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
The EPA is proposing approval of SIP revisions submitted by Arkansas on July 26, 2010, and March 24, 2017. The proposed revisions addressed in this action modify the Chapter 4 minor New Source Review rules enacted at Regulation Number 19 (Reg. 19), specifically the following provisions are addressed in this action: Reg. 19.401, 19.407(C)(2)(a) and (b), and 19.417. The revisions include revisions to the minor NSR permitting thresholds and
Our proposed approval of the revisions to the minor NSR permitting thresholds and
On July 26, 2010, Arkansas submitted revisions to the SIP that included changes to the Regulations of the Arkansas Plan of Implementation for Air Pollution Control enacted at Reg. 19, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and Appendix A. These revisions were adopted by the Arkansas Pollution Control & Ecology Commission on December 5, 2008, and became effective on January 25, 2009.
The EPA is proposing to take action only on the revisions to Chapter 4, Reg. 19.401, 19.407(C)(2)(a) and (b), and 19.417 contained in the July 26, 2010 submittal. The EPA has already taken action on other elements of this submittal as follows: (1) Regulation 19, Chapter 1, approved by EPA on4/3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573); (2) Regulation 19, Chapter 2, approved by EPA on 4/3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573); (3) Regulation 19, Chapter 5, approved by EPA on 4/3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573; (4) Regulation 19, Chapter 6, approved by EPA on 4/3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573); (5) Regulation 19, Chapter 7, approved by EPA on 4/3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573); (6) Regulation 19, Chapter 9, approved by EPA on 4/2/2013 (see 78 FR 19596); (7) Regulation 19, Chapter 10, approved by EPA on 4/3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573); (8) Regulation 19, Chapter 11, approved by EPA on 4/3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573); (9) Regulation 19, Chapter 13, approved by EPA on 4/3/2015 (See 80 FR 11573); (10) Regulation 19, Chapter 14, approved by EPA on 4/17/2014 (see 79 FR 21631); and (11) Regulation 19, Chapter 15, approved by EPA on 3/12/2012 (see 77 FR 14604). The EPA will address in a future action the remaining portions of the July 26, 2010 submittal, which are not directly related to the minor NSR permitting thresholds and
On March 24, 2017, Arkansas submitted revisions to the SIP that included changes to the Regulations of the Arkansas Plan of Implementation for Air Pollution Control enacted at Reg. 19, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, Appendix A and Appendix B. These revisions were adopted by the Arkansas Pollution Control & Ecology Commission on February 26, 2016, and became effective on March 14, 2016.
The EPA is proposing to take action only on Chapter 4, Reg. 19.401 and 19.407(C)(2)(a) and (b). As necessary, the EPA will address the remaining portions of the March 24, 2017 submittal, which are not directly related to the minor NSR permitting thresholds and
A summary of the EPA's evaluation of the submitted revisions and the basis for our proposed approval is included in this rulemaking. The accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD) includes a detailed evaluation of the submittals and our approval rationale. The TSD may be accessed online at
The Arkansas SIP approved minor NSR program contains permitting thresholds and
As previously stated, both the minor NSR permitting thresholds and
As shown in the previous table, the revised permitting thresholds and
ADEQ does require, in accordance with Reg. 18.315, that facilities that are exempt from minor NSR permitting based on the revised permitting thresholds but have emissions greater than the previous SIP approved permitting thresholds register with the Department prior to operation, construction, or modification. In addition, the
As part of our evaluation of the July 26, 2010 and March 24, 2017 submittals under section 110(l), we have examined: (1) The scope of impacts resulting from the proposed revisions, (2) the current status of ambient air quality in Arkansas, and (3) the impacts of the revised thresholds on ambient air quality via air monitoring and air modeling data.
As part of the July 26, 2010 SIP revision submittal, ADEQ determined that the number of currently permitted minor NSR facilities statewide that would not be required to be permitted under the revised minor NSR permitting thresholds was twenty (20). ADEQ also determined the total permitted emissions of CO, NO
On November 30, 2015, ADEQ provided supplemental information for the July 26, 2010 SIP revision submittal. The November 30, 2015 supplement included a monitoring trends analysis that examined statewide ambient air quality data since the adoption of the revised minor NSR permitting thresholds and
In addition to evaluating the scope of sources/emissions exempted from minor NSR permitting requirements and the ambient air monitoring trends following the adoption of the increased permitting thresholds and
Based on our evaluation of the analyses conducted by ADEQ to support the proposed minor NSR permitting thresholds and
The EPA proposes approval of the identified sections of the revisions to the minor NSR permitting program as submitted as revisions to the Arkansas SIP on July 26, 2010, and March 24, 2017, including supplement information submitted on November 30, 2015, May 26, 2016, and July 27, 2017. The EPA has made a determination in accordance with the CAA and the EPA regulations at 40 CFR 51.160-51.165. Therefore, under section 110 and part C of the Act, and for the reasons presented above and in our accompanying TSD, the EPA proposes to approve the following revisions to the Arkansas SIP that submitted on July 26, 2010, and March 24, 2017:
• Revisions to Reg. 19.407 (submitted 07/26/2010 and 03/24/2017);
• Revisions to Reg. 19.407(C)(2)(a) and (b) (submitted 07/26/2010 and 03/24/2017); and
• Revisions to Reg. 19.417 (submitted 07/26/2010).
As previously stated, this proposed action does not remove or modify the existing federal and state requirements that each NSR permit action issued by ADEQ include an analysis completed by the Department and their determination that the proposed construction or modification authorized by the permit action will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of a national ambient air quality standard.
In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to the Arkansas regulations as described in the Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Proposed rule.
NASA is proposing to amend the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NFS) to implement revisions to the voucher and invoice submittal and payment process. These revisions are necessary in order for NASA to comply with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-15-19, which directed federal agencies to transition to electronic invoicing for appropriate federal procurements by the end of fiscal year 2018.
Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before November 17, 2017, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Submit comments identified by NFS Case 2017-N014, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Mr. John J. Lopez, NASA HQ, Office of Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy Division, LP-011, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20456-0001. Telephone 202-358-3740; facsimile 202-358-3082.
NASA is proposing to revise the NFS to implement revisions to the voucher submittal and payment process. These revisions are necessary in order for NASA to comply with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-15-19, which directed federal agencies to transition to electronic invoicing for appropriate federal procurements by the end of fiscal year 2018. In Fiscal Year 2016, NASA revised their voucher submission and payment process to electronically process cost type vouchers under cost-reimbursement type contracts. As part of NASA's goal to have all contract payments processed electronically by 2018, this proposed rule revises NASA's submission and payment process to have invoices for fixed price contracts submitted electronically.
Sections of the NFS are being revised to implement changes to NASA's voucher and invoice submission and payment process. Specifically, NASA is proposing the following changes:
• Revise the clause prescription at 1816.506-70(b) and associated clause at 1852.216-80(i) to require contractors to submit task order progress reports for all contract types.
• Revise clause prescription at 1832.908-70 to include invoices.
• Add alternate clause at 1852.232-80(i).
• Revise clause at 1852.232-80(c)(2) to list relevant back-up documentation required to be submitted with invoices and fee vouchers in order for the contracting officers to review and approve them.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
NASA does not expect this rulemaking to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
NASA is proposing to revise the NFS to implement revisions to the voucher and invoice submittal and payment process. These revisions are necessary in order for NASA to comply with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-15-19, which directed federal agencies to transition to electronic invoicing for appropriate federal procurements by the end of fiscal year 2018.
The objective of this rulemaking is to remove the outdated NFS payment clause and associated prescription relative to the NASA voucher and invoice submittal and payment process and replace with a new clause that will revamp NASA's voucher and invoice submission and payment process to ensure the continued prompt payment to its suppliers. The revision will also minimize cost voucher and invoice submission and payment delays to NASA suppliers as well the potential accrual of Government interest payments to contractors.
This proposed rule would apply to contractor requests for payment under all contract types. An analysis of data in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) revealed that cost reimbursement and fixed priced contracts are primarily awarded to small businesses. FPDS data compiled over the past three fiscal years (FY2014 through FY2016) showed an average of 76,675 NASA contract actions, of which 45,011 (approximately 59%) were awarded to small businesses. However, there is no significant economic or administrative cost impact to small or large businesses because fee vouchers and invoices previously processed manually will be processed electronically. NASA anticipates that the rulemaking will have a positive benefit in the way of fewer voucher rejections, rework, and payment delays. In FY16, NASA processed approximately 55,000 vendor payment requests (invoice/voucher), which are
The proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. No alternative approaches were considered, because this approach will have minimal impact on small entities.
NASA invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rulemaking on small entities. NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this proposed rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (NFS Case 2017-N014), in correspondence.
The proposed rule contains information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35; however, these changes to the NFS do not impose additional information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 9000-0070, entitled Payments—FAR Sections Affected: 52.232-1 thru 52.232-4 and 52.232-6 thru 52.232-11.
Government procurement.
Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1816, 1832, and 1852 are proposed to be amended as follows:
51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.
Insert the clause at 1852.216-80, Task Ordering Procedure, in solicitations and contracts when an indefinite-delivery, task order contract is contemplated. The clause is applicable to both fixed-price and cost-reimbursement type contracts. The contracting officer shall use the clause with its—
(a) Alternate I, if the cost type, fixed-price with prospective price redetermination, or fixed-price incentive contract does not include a NASA Form 533M reporting requirements; or
(b) Alternate II, if a fixed price contract is contemplated.
Insert clause 1852.232-80, Submission of Vouchers/Invoices for Payment, in all solicitations and contracts.
As prescribed in 1816.506-70(a), insert the following paragraph (i):
(i) Contractor shall submit progress reports, as required. When required, the reports shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:
(1) Contract number, task order number, and date of the order.
(2) Total estimated dollar amount of task order(s).
(3) Cost and hours incurred to date for each issued task order.
(4) Costs and hours estimated to complete each issued task order.
(5) Significant issues/problems associated with a task order.
(6) Cost summary of the status of all task orders issued under the contract.
(7) Invoice number.
As prescribed in 1816.506-70(b), insert the following paragraph (i):
(i) Contractor shall submit progress reports, as required. When required, the reports shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:
(1) Contract number, task order number, and date of the order.
(2) Price and billed amounts to date for each task order.
(3) Significant issues/problems associated with the task order.
(4) Status of all task orders issued under the contract.
(5) Invoice number.
The revisions read as follows:
As prescribed in 1832.908-70, insert the following clause:
(c)
(2) Vouchers submitted under cost-type contracts and invoices submitted under fixed-price contracts shall include the items delineated in FAR 32.905(b) supported by relevant back-up documentation. Back-up documentation shall include at a minimum, the following information:
(i)
(B) Breakdown of billed other direct costs (ODCs) and associated contractor generated supporting documentation for billed ODCs.
(C) Indirect rate(s) used to calculate the amount of billed indirect expenses.
(D) Progress reports, as required.
(ii)
(B) Progress reports, as required.
(C) Date goods and services were performed.
(iii)
(B) A reconciliation of all billed and earned fee.
(C) A clear explanation of the fee calculations.
(d)
(1) The Contracting Officer administering the contract for payment has determined, in writing, that electronic submission would be unduly burdensome to the Contractor.
(2) The contract includes provisions allowing the contractor to submit vouchers or invoices using the steps for non-electronic payment. In such instances the Contractor agrees to submit non-electronic payment requests using the method or methods specified in Section G of the contract.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by October 18, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by October 18, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control
These agreements and procedures include information collection activities such as Approved Livestock Facility Agreements, Requests for Appeal of Denial of Agreement, Withdrawal of Livestock Facility Agreements, Requests for Appeal of Withdrawal of Agreements, Listing Agreements for Slaughter or Rendering Establishments, Slaughter or Rendering Facility Inspection Reports, Requests for Appeal of Denial of Listings, Requests for Appeal of Withdrawal of Listing, Schedules of Sales Days, Diseased Animal Notifications, Quarantine Signs, and maintaining animal movement records.
A notice by the U.S. Arctic Research Commission on 10/10/2017.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Arctic Research Commission will hold its 108th meeting in Anchorage, AK, on October 10, 2017. The business sessions, open to the public, will convene at 8:00 a.m. at the Hotel Captain Cook, 939 W 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501.
The Agenda items include:
The meeting will focus on reports and updates relating to programs and research projects affecting Alaska and the greater Arctic.
The Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 (Title I Pub. L. 98-373) and the Presidential Executive Order on Arctic Research (Executive Order 12501) dated January 28, 1985, established the United States Arctic Research Commission.
If you plan to attend this meeting, please notify us via the contact information below. Any person planning to attend who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission of those needs in advance of the meeting.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Commerce published a document in the
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Nasreen Djouini at the U.S. Department of Commerce, either by email at
In the
Please submit applications by October 6, 2017 deadline to Nasreen Djouini at the U.S. Department of Commerce, either by email at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is aligning the final determinations in the countervailing duty (CVD) investigations of carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Italy and Turkey with the final determinations in the companion antidumping duty (AD) investigations.
Applicable September 18, 2017.
John Corrigan and Yasmin Bordas at (202) 482-7438 and (202) 482-3813, respectively (Italy); Justin Neuman and Omar Qureshi at (202) 482-0486 and (202) 482-5307, respectively (Turkey), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On April 17, 2017, the Department initiated the CVD investigations of wire rod from Italy and Turkey.
On September 5, 2017, the Department published the preliminary affirmative CVD determinations pertaining to wire rod from Italy and Turkey.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(g).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable September 18, 2017.
Krisha Hill or Celeste Chen, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4037 or (202) 482-0890, respectively.
On December 7, 2012, the Department of Commerce (Department) published in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.
This notice serves as the only reminder to importers whose entries will be liquidated as a result of this rescission notice, of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's assumption that the reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On March 6, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India. The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of the Review.”
Applicable September 18, 2017.
Blaine Wiltse or Manuel Rey, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6345 or (202) 482-5518, respectively.
This review covers 231 producers and/or exporters. The producers/exporters which the Department selected for individual examination are Falcon Marine Exports Limited and its affiliate K.R. Enterprises (collectively, Falcon) and the Liberty Group.
On March 6, 2017, the Department published the
On June 19, 2017, we postponed the final results by 60 days, until September 5, 2017.
The merchandise subject to the order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp.
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the IDM. Parties can find a complete discussion of these issues and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
We are assigning the following dumping margins to the firms listed below for the period of February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016:
The
Because the weighted-average dumping margin for Falcon is zero, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because the Liberty Group reported the entered value for all its U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific
For the companies which were not selected for individual examination, we used as the assessment rate the cash deposit rate assigned to these exporters, in accordance with our practice.
The Department's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Falcon or the Liberty Group for which these companies did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent (
This notice serves as the only reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), this notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On August 25, 2017, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment sustaining the Department of Commerce's (the Department) final results of remand redetermination pursuant to court order. The Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's final results in the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China (PRC), and that the Department is amending its determination with respect to Linyi Bonn Flooring Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Linyi Bonn).
Applicable September 4, 2017.
Aleksandras Nakutis, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance—International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3147.
Linyi Bonn was reviewed in a new shipper review (NSR) of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from the PRC, covering the period of review from December 1, 2012 through May 31, 2013.
Linyi Bonn was also subsequently a respondent in an administrative review that partially overlapped the period of review for the NSR, in that it covered the period of review December 1, 2012 through November 30, 2013. On July 15, 2016, the Department published the
On April 21, 2017, the CIT remanded the
On June 19, 2017, the Department issued its
On August 25, 2017, the CIT issued its decision sustaining the Department's
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision with respect to this case, the Department is amending its
In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will issue appropriate instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection to give effect to the finding of no shipments during the period June 1, 2013, through November 30, 2013, and to ensure that any entries of subject merchandise that were produced and exported by Linyi Bonn during the period December 1, 2012, through May 31, 2013, are liquidated in accordance with the
Because there has been a subsequent administrative review for Linyi Bonn, the cash deposit rate for Linyi Bonn will remain the rate established in the most recently-completed administrative review, which is zero percent.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA) is announcing an additional upcoming trade mission that will be recruited, organized, and implemented by ITA. The mission is:
• Aerospace Executive Service Trade Mission to the Singapore Airshow—February 5-9, 2018.
A summary of the mission is found below. Application information and more detailed mission information, including the commercial setting and sector information, can be found at the trade mission Web site:
For each mission, recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Applicants must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on their products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may either: Reject the application, request additional information/clarification, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the application. If the requisite minimum number of participants is not selected for a particular mission by the recruitment deadline, the mission may be cancelled.
Each applicant must also certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, are marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content by value. In the case of a trade association or organization, the applicant must certify that, for each firm or service provider to be represented by the association/organization, the products and/or services the represented firm or service provider seeks to export are either produced in the United States or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51% U.S. content.
A trade association/organization applicant must certify to the above for all of the companies it seeks to represent on the mission.
In addition, each applicant must:
• Certify that the products and services that it wishes to market through the mission would be in compliance with U.S. export controls and regulations;
• Certify that it has identified any matter pending before any bureau or office in the Department of Commerce;
• Certify that it has identified any pending litigation (including any administrative proceedings) to which it is a party that involves the Department of Commerce; and
• Sign and submit an agreement that it and its affiliates (1) have not and will not engage in the bribery of foreign officials in connection with a company's/participant's involvement in this mission, and (2) maintain and enforce a policy that prohibits the bribery of foreign officials.
In the case of a trade association/organization, the applicant must certify that each firm or service provider to be represented by the association/organization can make the above certifications.
Targeted mission participants are U.S. firms, services providers and trade associations/organizations providing or promoting U.S. products and services that have an interest in entering or expanding their business in the mission's destination country. The following criteria will be evaluated in selecting participants:
• Suitability of the applicant's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm or service provider's) products or services to these markets;
• The applicant's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm or service provider's) past, present, and prospective business activity in relation to the Mission's target market(s) and sector(s);
• The applicant's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm or service provider's) potential for business in the markets, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission; and
• Consistency of the applicant's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm or service provider's) goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission.
Referrals from a political party or partisan political group or any information, including on the application, containing references to political contributions or other partisan political activities will be excluded from the application and will not be considered during the selection process. The sender will be notified of these exclusions.
If and when an applicant is selected to participate on a particular mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the amount of the designated participation fee below is required. Upon notification of acceptance to participate, those selected have 5 business days to submit payment or the acceptance may be revoked.
Participants selected for a trade mission will be expected to pay for the cost of personal expenses, including, but not limited to, international travel, lodging, meals, transportation, communication, and incidentals, unless otherwise noted. Participants will, however, be able to take advantage of U.S. Government rates for hotel rooms. In the event that a mission is cancelled, no personal expenses paid in anticipation of a mission will be reimbursed. However, participation fees for a cancelled mission will be reimbursed to the extent they have not already been expended in anticipation of the mission.
If a visa is required to travel on a particular mission, applying for and obtaining such visas will be the responsibility of the mission participant. Government fees and
Trade Mission members participate in trade missions and undertake mission-related travel at their own risk. The nature of the security situation in a given foreign market at a given time cannot be guaranteed. The U.S. Government does not make any representations or guarantees as to the safety or security of participants. The U.S. Department of State issues U.S. Government international travel alerts and warnings for U.S. citizens available at
For purposes of assessing participation fees, the Department of Commerce defines Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SME) as a firm with 500 or fewer employees or that otherwise qualifies as a small business under SBA regulations (see
The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration is organizing a non-Executive led Aerospace Executive Service Trade Mission (AESTM) to Singapore in conjunction with the Singapore Airshow 2018 (
The AESTM will include representatives from a variety of U.S. aerospace-industry manufacturers and service providers. The mission participants will be introduced to international agents, distributors and end-users whose capabilities are targeted to each participant's needs.
Mission participants will also be briefed by key local industry leaders who can advise on local market conditions and opportunities.
The mission's goal for the AESTM at the Singapore Airshow is to enhance the presence of U.S. exporters at the show. The AESTM will enable U.S. aerospace and defense companies to familiarize themselves with this important air show, conduct market research, and explore export opportunities through pre-screened meetings with potential partners.
All companies interested in participating in the AESTM at the Singapore Airshow must complete and submit an application for consideration by the Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. A minimum of ten and a maximum of 15 companies will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool. Participants may include companies that are new to or have previously participated in the AESTM. U.S. companies already doing business in Singapore or elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific region as well as U.S. companies seeking to enter those markets for the first time may apply.
After a company has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. The participation fee will be $2,750 for a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) and $3,450 for large firms.*
* An SME is defined as a firm with fewer than 500 employees or that otherwise qualifies as a small business under SBA regulations (see
• An applicant must submit a completed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.
• Each applicant must also certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51 percent U.S. content of the value of the finished product or service.
• Suitability of the company's products or services to the Asia Pacific markets.
• Applicant's potential for business in Asia Pacific, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission.
• Consistency of the applicant's goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission.
Payment must be made by December 1, 2017, otherwise USDOC reserves the rights to exclude applicants from the AESTM program.
Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Recruitment for the mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than December 1, 2017. The U.S. Department of Commerce will evaluate applications and inform applicants of selection decisions periodically during the recruitment period. All applications received subsequent to an evaluation date will be considered at the next evaluation. Applications received after December 1, 2017, will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyethylene terephthalate resin from India, based on the timely withdrawal of request for review. The period of review (POR) is October 15, 2015, through April 30, 2017.
Applicable September 18, 2017.
Michael J. Heaney, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4475.
On May 1, 2017, the Department published in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party, or parties, that requested a review withdraws the requests within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, Ester withdrew its request for review by the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of this order. Therefore, in response to the timely withdrawal of the request for review, and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department is rescinding this review.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appraisement instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Brian Davis, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7924.
On September 1, 2017, the Department published its opportunity to request administrative review of antidumping or countervailing duty orders, findings, or suspended investigations, as appropriate, for the September 2017 anniversary month.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Groundfish Management Team (GMT) will hold a week-long work session that is open to the public.
The GMT meeting will be held Monday, October 2, 2017, from 1 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time) until business for the day is completed. The GMT meeting will reconvene Tuesday, October 3 through Thursday, October 5, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. until business for each day has been completed.
The meeting will be held at the Pacific Council, Large Conference Room, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.
Ms. Kelly Ames, Pacific Council; phone: (503) 820-2426.
The primary purpose of the GMT meeting is to develop recommendations for consideration by the Pacific Council at its November 14-20, 2017 meeting in Costa Mesa, California. Specific agenda topics include the development of the 2019-2020 harvest specifications and management measures including rebuilding analyses. The GMT may also address other groundfish and administrative agenda items scheduled for the November Council meeting. A detailed agenda will be available on the Council's Web site prior to the meeting. No management actions will be decided by the GMT.
Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2411 at least 10 business days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Coastal Pelagic Species Management Team (CPSMT) will hold a meeting that is open to the public.
The CPSMT meeting will be held Tuesday, October 3 through Thursday, October 5, 2017. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. on October 3, and 8:30 a.m. each other day. The meeting will go until 5 p.m. each day or until business for each day has been completed.
The meeting will be held in the Krill Conference Room of the NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8901 La Jolla Shores Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037-1508.
Kerry Griffin, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2409.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss several items relevant to coastal pelagic species (CPS) management. These include CPS Fishery Management Plan housekeeping updates, anchovy abundance and reference points, completion of the CPS Stock
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Dale Sweetnam; email:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed renewal of a collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before November 17, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by “Off-Exchange Foreign Currency Transactions,” and Collection Number 3038-0062 by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's Web site, at
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method.
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Lauren Bennett, Special Counsel, 202-418-5290,
Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The rules establish reporting and recordkeeping requirements that are necessary to implement the provisions of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
44 U.S.C. 3501
Air University Board of Visitors, Department of Air Force.
Notice of meeting.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, the Department of Defense announces that the Air University Board of Visitors' fall meeting will take place on Monday, 13 November 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to approximately 5 p.m. and Tuesday, 14 November, 2017, from 7:30 a.m. to approximately 3:00 p.m. Central Standard Time. The meeting will be held in the Air University Commander's Conference Room located in Building 800 at Maxwell Air force Base, AL. The purpose of this meeting is to provide independent advice and recommendations on matters pertaining to the educational, doctrinal, and research policies and activities of Air University.
The agenda will include topics relating to the policies, programs, and initiatives of Air University educational programs and will include an out brief from the Air Force Institute of Technology and Community College of the Air Force Subcommittees.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.155 all sessions of the Air University Board of Visitors' meetings' will be open to the public. Any member of the public wishing to provide input to the Air University Board of Visitors' should submit a written statement in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the procedures described in this paragraph. Written statements can be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer at the address detailed below at any time.
Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at the address listed below at least ten calendar days prior to the meeting which is the subject of this notice. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the Air University Board of Visitors until its next meeting. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the Air
Dr. Shawn O'Mailia, Designated Federal Officer, Air University Headquarters, 55 LeMay Plaza South, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-6335, telephone (334) 953-4547.
Marine Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corps (MCJROTC), DoD.
30-Day information collection 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 October 18, 2017.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or
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.
Department of the Navy, Board of Advisors to the Presidents of the Naval Postgraduate School and the Naval War College, Department of Defense
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Board of Advisors (BOA) to the Presidents of the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) and the Naval War College (NWC) will take place.
Day 1—Open to the public Wednesday, October 18, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. Day 2—Open to the public Thursday, October 19, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 12 p.m.
The meeting will be held at 3003 Washington Boulevard, Arlington, VA.
Jacquelyn (Jaye) Panza, 831-656-2514 (Voice), 831-656-2337 (Facsimile),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 18, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting; correction.
The Department of Energy (DOE) published in the
In the
In the
U.S. Department of Energy.
Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review; comment request.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted an information collection request to the OMB for an extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The DOE requests a three-year extension of its “Privacy Act Administration” information collection (formerly titled “Records and Administration”), OMB Control Number 1910-1700. The information collection and collection instrument aids DOE's processing of Privacy Act requests submitted by an individual or an authorized representative, wherein he or she requests records that the government may maintain pertaining to that individual. The DOE's use of this form continues to contribute to DOE's Privacy Act processes, including, but not limited to, providing for faster processing of Privacy Act information requests by asking individuals or their authorized representatives for pertinent information needed for records retrieval. DOE published a 60-day Notice and Request for Comments concerning this collection in the
Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before October 18, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4718.
Written comments should be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 and to Ken Hunt, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Rm. 8H-085, Washington, DC 20585 or by facsimile at 202-586-8151 or by email at
Ken Hunt, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Rm. 8H-085, Washington, DC 20585 or by facsimile at 202-586-8151 or by email at
This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-1700; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Privacy Act Administration (formerly titled “Records and Administration”); (3) Type of Request: Regular; (4) Purpose: The Privacy Act Information Request form aids DOE's processing of Privacy Act requests submitted by an individual or an authorized representative, wherein he or she requests records that the government may maintain pertaining to that individual. The DOE's use of this form continues to contribute to DOE's Privacy Act processes, including, but not limited to, providing for faster processing of Privacy Act information requests by asking individuals or their authorized representatives for pertinent information needed for records retrieval; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 135; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 135; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 45; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of request for information.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comment on its Request for Information (RFI) number DE-FOA-0001818 regarding the Solar Energy Technology Analysis & Data Needs. DOE's Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) is requesting input on integrated data and analysis needs across the solar value chain to inform near to mid-term plans for the development of resources such as information based network planning, real time optimization, and bankability tools in the context of DOE's SunShot 2030 goals. SETO aims to better understand the information-related problems and questions that exist for key stakeholders, including manufacturers, project developers, financiers, engineering procurement and construction businesses, state and local jurisdictions, researchers, analysts, and others supporting the technological advancement and wide scale adoption of solar technology.
Responses to the RFI must be received by October 6, 2017.
Interested parties are to submit comments electronically to
• Company/institution name;
• Company/institution contact;
• Contact's address, phone number, and email address.
The complete RFI document is located at
Questions may be addressed to Dr. Casey Canfield, ORISE Fellow, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Solar Energy Technologies Office, EE-4S, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 202-287-1783. Email:
SETO is requesting information about (1) how the U.S. solar industry and application
The RFI is available at:
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email two well marked copies: One copy of the document marked “confidential” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person that would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on September 5, 2017, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas), located at 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046 filed a Prior Notice Request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act, and Texas Gas' blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-407-001, for authorization to (i) plug and abandon Injection/Withdrawal Well No. 17378, (ii) abandon in place approximately 1,050 feet of 4.5-inch storage well lateral line, and (iii) abandon by removal the side valve and associated above-ground equipment in its Midland Storage Field located in Muhlenberg County, Kentucky, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at
Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to Kathy D. Fort, Manager, Certificates and Tariffs, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, 610 West Second Street, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, telephone no. (270) 688-6825, facsimile no. (270) 688-6896, or email to
Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On September 8, 2017, an order was issued in Docket No. EL17-84-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into the justness and reasonableness of Hudson Transmission Partners, L.L.C. (HTP) being unable to convert its Firm Transmission Withdrawal Rights to Non-Firm Transmission Withdrawal Rights.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL17-84-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL17-84-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
September 20, 2017, 10:00 a.m.
Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Open.
Agenda * Note—Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further notice.
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502-8400.
For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502-8627.
This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the Commission's Web site at
A free webcast of this event is available through
The event will contain a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the free webcasts. It also offers access to this event via television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit
Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol Connection service.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of data availability (NODA).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice of the availability of data on emission allowance allocations to certain units under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). EPA has completed final calculations for the first round of allocations of allowances from the CSAPR new unit set-asides (NUSAs) for the 2017 control periods and has posted spreadsheets containing the calculations on EPA's Web site. The only change from the preliminary calculations is the elimination of allocations of CSAPR SO
September 18, 2017.
Questions concerning this action should be addressed to Robert Miller at (202) 343-9077 or
Under each CSAPR trading program where EPA is responsible for determining emission allowance allocations, a portion of each state's emissions budget for the program for each control period is reserved in a NUSA (and in an additional Indian country NUSA in the case of states with Indian country within their borders) for allocation to certain units that would not otherwise receive allowance allocations. Each NUSA allowance allocation process involves up to two rounds of allocations to eligible units, termed “new” units, followed by the allocation to “existing” units of any allowances not allocated to new units.
EPA received written objections from four parties in response to the June 21
The first written objection was submitted by a representative for a combustion turbine that commenced commercial operation in 2007 in simple cycle configuration and that in 2016 was modified to combined cycle configuration through the installation of additional equipment including a heat recovery steam generator, duct burners, and a steam turbine. According to the objection, the additional equipment should be treated for CSAPR purposes as a separate, new affected unit that is eligible for allocations of CSAPR NUSA allowances.
EPA disagrees with this objection based primarily on our interpretation of the CSAPR definitions of “combustion turbine” and “unit.” The CSAPR definition of “combustion turbine” covers two possible equipment configurations—the equipment required for simple cycle operation, consisting of a compressor, combustor, and turbine, and the equipment required for combined cycle operation, consisting of the preceding equipment plus a heat recovery steam generator, duct burners (if any), and a steam turbine.
In summary, we interpret the CSAPR regulations as providing that the facility in question remains the same, single “combustion turbine” for CSAPR purposes after the addition of the new equipment as it was before the addition of the new equipment.
The second and third written objections were submitted by representatives of two facilities whose units are treated as new units for purposes of the original CSAPR trading programs but are treated as existing units for purposes of the more recent CSAPR NO
As noted above, allocations of NUSA allowances under the CSAPR NO
EPA has confirmed that the units in question are not eligible to receive allocations of NUSA allowances under the regulations for the CSAPR NO
As an alternative to having the facility's units reclassified as new units for purposes of the CSAPR NO
Finally, the fourth written objection seeks modifications to the total amount of the NUSA for Oklahoma under the CSAPR NO
In addition to the written objections discussed above, EPA also received a telephone inquiry that led to the discovery of an error in the preliminary calculations for NUSA allocations of CSAPR SO
The final unit-by-unit data and allowance allocation calculations are set forth in Excel spreadsheets titled “CSAPR_NUSA_2017_NOx_Annual_1st_Round_Final_Data”, “CSAPR_NUSA_2017_NOx_OS_1st_Round_Final_Data”, and “CSAPR_NUSA_2017_SO2_1st_Round_Final_Data”, available on EPA's Web site at
EPA notes that an allocation or lack of allocation of allowances to a given unit does not constitute a determination that CSAPR does or does not apply to the unit. We also note that allocations are subject to potential correction.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of public comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a 30-day public comment period associated with the draft IRIS Assessment Plans for Nitrate/Nitrite, Chloroform, and Ethylbenzene. These documents communicate information on the scoping needs identified by EPA program and regional offices and the IRIS Program's initial problem formulation activities. Specifically, the assessment plans outline the objectives for each assessment and the type of evidence considered most pertinent to address the scoping needs.
EPA is releasing these draft IRIS Assessment Plans for public comment. These assessment plans will also be discussed during the September 27-28 Science Advisory Board (SAB) Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC) peer consultation meeting. These documents were prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD).
The 30-day public comment period begins September 18, 2017, and ends October 18, 2017. Comments must be received on or before October 18, 2017.
The IRIS Assessment Plan for Nitrate/Nitrite, will be available via the Internet on IRIS' Recent Additions at
The IRIS Assessment Plan for Chloroform will be available via the Internet on IRIS' Recent Additions at
The IRIS Assessment Plan for Ethylbenzene will be available via the Internet on IRIS' Recent Additions at
For information on the public comment period, contact the ORD Docket at the EPA Headquarters Docket Center; telephone: 202-566-1752; facsimile: 202-566-9744; or email:
For technical information on the IRIS Assessment Plans, contact Dr. James Avery, NCEA; telephone: 703-347-8668; or email:
EPA's IRIS Program is a human health assessment program that evaluates quantitative and qualitative risk information on effects that may result from exposure to chemicals found in the environment. Through the IRIS Program, EPA provides the highest quality science-based human health assessments to support the Agency's regulatory activities and decisions to protect public health. As part of scoping and initial problem formulation activities prior to the development of a draft assessment, the IRIS Program carries out a broad, preliminary literature survey to assist in identifying health effects that have been studied in relation to the chemical or substance of interest as well as science issues that may need to be considered when evaluating its toxicity. This information, in conjunction with scoping needs identified by EPA program and regional offices, are used to inform the development of an IRIS Assessment Plan (IAP).
The IAP communicates to the public the plan for reviewing each individual chemical assessment and includes summary information on the IRIS Program's scoping and initial problem formulation, objectives and specific aims for the assessment, and a PECO (Population, Exposure, Comparators, and Outcomes) framework for the systematic review. The PECO provides the framework for developing literature search strategies and inclusion/exclusion criteria, particularly with respect to evidence stream (
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2017-0496 for Nitrate/Nitrite, EPA-HQ-ORD-2017-0497 for Chloroform, and EPA-HQ-ORD-2014-0526 for Ethylbenzene, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744. Deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies.
Federal Election Commission.
Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Federal Maritime Commission.
September 20, 2017; 10:00 a.m.
800 N. Capitol Street NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC.
The first portion of the meeting will be held in Open Session; the second portion in Closed Session.
Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant Secretary (202) 523 5725.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 2, 2017.
1.
1.
2.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than September 27, 2017.
1.
Office of Government Ethics (OGE).
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members of the updated OGE Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board.
September 18, 2017.
Shelley K. Finlayson, Chief of Staff and Program Counsel, Office of Government Ethics, Suite 500, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005-3917; Telephone: 202-482-9300; TYY: 800-877-8339; FAX: 202-482-9237.
5 U.S.C. 4314(c) requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management at 5 CFR part 430, subpart C and § 430.310 thereof in particular, one or more Senior Executive Service performance review boards. As a small executive branch agency, OGE has just one board. In order to ensure an adequate level of staffing and to avoid a constant series of recusals, the designated members of OGE's SES Performance Review Board are being
The following officials have been appointed members of the SES Performance Review Board of the Office of Government Ethics: Shelley K. Finlayson, [Chair], Chief of Staff and Program Counsel, Office of Government Ethics; Stuart Bender, Director, Office of Ethics, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Judith S. Kaleta, Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation; and Shira Pavis Minton, Ethics Counsel, Office of the Ethics Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Factors Influencing the Transmission of Influenza (OMB Control Number 0920-0888; Expired 6-30-2017)—Reinstatement with change—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is authorized to conduct research to advance the health and safety of workers under Section 20(a)(1) of the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act. Influenza continues to be a major public health concern because of the substantial health burden from seasonal influenza and the potential for a severe pandemic. Although influenza is known to be transmitted by infectious secretions, these secretions can be transferred from person to person in many different ways, and the relative importance of the different pathways is not known. The likelihood of the transmission of influenza virus by small infectious airborne particles produced during coughing and breathing is particularly unclear. The question of airborne transmission is especially important in healthcare facilities, where influenza patients tend to congregate during influenza season, because it directly impacts the infection control and personal protective measures that should be taken by healthcare workers.
Work under the previous approval showed that patients infected with influenza virus produce airborne particles containing viable airborne influenza virus during both breathing and coughing, but that breathing may generate more airborne infectious material than coughing over time. However, this work was hampered because the amounts of influenza virus in almost all of the aerosol samples were below the limit of quantification. Thus, CDC made the following changes to the project:
(1) CDC will modify the cough and exhalation-aerosol collection system to collect aerosol particles continuously for 40 minutes, rather than collecting particles from discrete coughs and exhalations as in the previous study. This will increase the amount of influenza virus that is collected.
(2) Researchers will collect a blood sample from each participant to allow testing for blood markers of influenza infection and a comparison of the levels of these markers to the amount of expelled influenza in aerosol particles.
(3) Researchers increased the time required for participation from 63 minutes to 95 minutes to allow for a longer aerosol collection period and for the blood collection.
(4) Researchers will recruit and test an equal number of control subjects without symptoms of respiratory illness in addition to subjects with influenza-like illness. This will allow the determination of the differences in blood biomarker levels between healthy and infected subjects.
(5) Because of the longer participation time and because blood collection has been found to be a strong disincentive for participation, the token of appreciation for participating in the study has been increased from $25 to $40.
The purpose of the proposed study is to gain a better understanding of the production of infectious aerosols by patients with influenza, and to compare this to the levels of biomarkers of influenza infection in the blood of these patients. To do this, researchers will collect airborne particles produced by volunteer subjects with influenza to test for influenza virus. Researchers will also measure the levels of influenza infection-associated biomarkers in blood samples from these subjects.
A test coordinator will recruit volunteer adult participants by using a poster and flyers describing the study. Researchers will verbally screen interested potential participants to verify that they have influenza-like symptoms and that they do not have any medical conditions that would preclude their participation. Researchers will also recruit a matching number of healthy control participants.
Researchers will ask qualified participants who agree to participate in
The study will require 90 volunteer test subjects each year for 3 years, totaling 270 test participants. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total number of annual burden hours are 148.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting for the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee (CLIAC). This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 100 people. The public is also welcome to view the meeting by webcast
The meeting will be held on November 1, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., EDT and November 2, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., EDT.
CDC, 2500 Century Center Boulevard, Rooms 1200/1201, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 and
Nancy Anderson, MMSc, MT(ASCP), Chief, Laboratory Practice Standards Branch, Division of Laboratory Systems, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services, Office of Public Health Scientific Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop F-11, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4018, telephone (404) 498-2741;
Purpose: This Committee is charged with providing scientific and technical advice and guidance to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS); the Assistant Secretary for Health; the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and the Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The advice and guidance pertain to general issues related to improvement in clinical laboratory quality and laboratory medicine practice and specific questions related to possible revision of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA) standards. Examples include providing guidance on studies designed to improve safety, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, equity, and patient-centeredness of laboratory services; revisions to the standards under which clinical laboratories are regulated; the impact of proposed revisions to the standards on medical and laboratory practice; and the modification of the standards and provision of non-regulatory guidelines to accommodate technological advances, such as new test methods, the electronic transmission of laboratory information, and mechanisms to improve the integration of public health and clinical laboratory practices.
All people attending the CLIAC meeting in-person are required to register for the meeting online at least 5 business days in advance for U.S. citizens and at least 30 business days in advance for international registrants. Register at:
It is the policy of CLIAC to accept written public comments and provide a brief period for oral public comments on agenda items. Public comment periods for each agenda item are scheduled immediately prior to the Committee discussion period for that item. In general, each individual or group requesting to make oral comments will be limited to a total time of five minutes (unless otherwise indicated). To assure adequate time is scheduled for public comments, speakers should notify the contact person below at least one week prior to the meeting date. For individuals or groups unable to attend the meeting, CLIAC accepts written comments until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated). However, it is requested that comments be submitted at least one week prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the Committee for their consideration and public distribution.
The CLIAC meeting materials will be made available to the Committee and the public in electronic format (PDF) on the internet instead of by printed copy. Check the CLIAC Web site on the day of the meeting for materials:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Notice.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is seeking nominations for membership on the HICPAC. The HICPAC consists of 14 experts in fields including but not limited to, infectious diseases, infection prevention, healthcare epidemiology, nursing, clinical microbiology, surgery, hospitalist medicine, internal medicine, epidemiology, health policy, health services research, public health, and related medical fields. Nominations are being sought for individuals who have expertise and qualifications necessary to contribute to the accomplishments of the committee's objectives. Nominees will be selected based on expertise in the fields of infectious diseases, infection prevention, healthcare epidemiology, nursing, environmental and clinical microbiology, surgery, internal medicine, epidemiology, health policy, health services research, and public health. Federal employees will not be considered for membership. Members may be invited to serve for four-year terms. Selection of members is based on candidates' qualifications to contribute to the accomplishment of HICPAC objectives
Nominations for membership on the HICPAC be received no later than November 30, 2017. Packages received after this time will not be considered for the current membership cycle.
All nominations should be mailed to HICPAC, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, NCEZID, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop A-07, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, emailed (recommended) to
Erin Stone, M.S., HICPAC, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, NCEZID, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop A-07, Atlanta, Georgia 30333; Telephone (404) 639-4045;
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy stipulates that committee membership be balanced in terms of points of view represented, and the committee's function. Appointments shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on federal workgroups or prior experience serving on a federal advisory committee does not disqualify a candidate; however, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships. Committee members are Special Government Employees, requiring the filing of financial disclosure reports at the beginning and annually during their terms. CDC reviews potential candidates for HICPAC membership each year, and provides a slate of nominees for consideration to the Secretary of HHS for final selection. HHS notifies selected candidates of their appointment near the start of the term in July 2018, or as soon as the HHS selection process is completed. Note that the need for different expertise varies from year to year and a candidate who is not selected in one year may be reconsidered in a subsequent year.
Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Candidates should submit the following items:
Current curriculum vitae, including complete contact information (telephone numbers, mailing address, email address)
At least one letter of recommendation from person(s) not employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Candidates may submit letter(s) from current HHS employees if they wish, but at least one letter must be submitted by a person not employed by an HHS agency (
Nominations may be submitted by the candidate him- or herself, or by the person/organization recommending the candidate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Developmental Projects to Improve the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and Related Programs—New—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on the extent and nature of illness and disability; environmental, social and other health hazards; and determinants of health of the population of the United States. The Division of Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (DHNES) has conducted national surveys and related projects periodically between 1970 and 1994, and continuously since 1999.
The mission of DHNES programs is to produce descriptive statistics which measure the health and nutrition status of the general population. The continuous operation of DHNES programs presents unique challenges in testing new survey content and activities, such as outreach or participant screening etc.
This generic request covers developmental projects to help evaluate and enhance DHNES existing and proposed data collection activities to increase research capacity and improve data quality. The information collected through this Generic Information Collection Request will not be used to make generalizable statements about the population of interest or to inform public policy; however, methodological findings from these projects may be reported.
The purpose and use of projects under this NHANES generic clearance would include developmental projects necessary for activities such as testing new procedures, equipment, and approaches that are going to be folded into NHANES; designing and testing examination components or survey questions; creating new studies including biomonitoring and clinical measures; creating new cohorts, including a pregnancy and/or a birth—24 month cohort; testing of the cognitive and interpretive aspects of survey methodology; feasibility testing of proposed new components or modifications to existing components; testing of human-computer interfaces/usability; assessing the acceptability of proposed NHANES components among likely participants; testing alternative approaches to existing NHANES procedures, including activities related to improving nonresponse; testing the use of or variations/adjustments in incentives; testing content of web based surveys; testing the feasibility of obtaining bodily fluid specimens (blood, urine, semen, saliva, breastmilk) and tissue sample (swabs); testing digital imaging technology and related procedures (
The types of participants covered by the NHANES generic may include current or past NHANES participants; family or household members of NHANES participants; individuals eligible to be participants in NHANES, but who did not screen into the actual survey; convenience samples; volunteers from the general public; subject matter experts or consultants such as survey methodologist, academic researchers, clinicians or other health care providers; NHANES data or Web site users; individuals abroad who would be part of a collaborative development project(s) between NCHS and related public health agencies and/or public health researchers abroad.
The type of participant involved in a given developmental project would be determined by the nature of the project. The details of each project will be included in the specific GenIC submissions.
There is no cost to respondents other than their time. A three year clearance is requested. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 16,698.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on May 31, 2017 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Health Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance—Requests and Emerging Problems (OMB Control No. 0920-0260, Expiration Date 11/30/2017)—Revision—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, mandates the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) respond to requests for health hazard evaluations (HHE) to identify chemical, biological or physical hazards in workplaces throughout the United States. Each year, NIOSH receives approximately 290 such requests. Most HHE requests come from the following types of companies: Service, manufacturing, health and social services, transportation, construction, agriculture, mining, skilled trade and construction.
A printed HHE request form is available in English and in Spanish. The form is also available on the Internet and differs from the printed version only in format and in the fact that it can be submitted directly from the Web site. The request form takes an estimated 12 minutes to complete. The form provides the mechanism for employees, employers, and other authorized representatives to supply the information required by the regulations governing the NIOSH HHE program (42 CFR 85.3-1). The information provided is used by NIOSH to determine whether there is reasonable cause to justify conducting an investigation and provides a mechanism to respond to the requestor.
NIOSH reviews the HHE request to determine if an on-site evaluation is needed. The primary purpose of an on-site evaluation is to help employers and employees identify and eliminate occupational health hazards. For 40% of the requests received NIOSH determines an on-site evaluation is needed.
In about 70% of on-site evaluations, employees are interviewed to help further define concerns. Interviews may take approximately 15 minutes per respondent. The interview questions are specific to each workplace and its suspected diseases and hazards.
In approximately 30% of on-site evaluations (presently estimated to be 37 facilities), questionnaires are distributed to the employees (averaging about 100 employees per site). Questionnaires may require approximately 30 minutes to complete. The survey questions are specific to each workplace and its suspected diseases and hazards, however, items in the questionnaires are derived from standardized or widely used medical and epidemiologic data collection instruments.
NIOSH administers a follow-back program to assess the effectiveness of its HHE program in reducing workplace hazards. The first follow-back questionnaire is sent shortly after the first visit for an on-site evaluation and takes about 10 minutes to complete. A second follow-back questionnaire is sent a month after the final report and requires about 20 minutes to complete. At 24 months, a third follow-back questionnaire is sent which takes about 15 minutes to complete. The first and third follow-back questionnaires have had minor re-wording of questions to improve the ease of responding with no change in information requested or estimated time to complete. The second follow-back questionnaire has added new questions regarding final report content and format. This accounts for the additional 5 minute increase in estimated completion time from the 2014 revision of the second follow-back questionnaire.
For requests where NIOSH does not conduct an on-site evaluation, the requestor receives the first follow-back questionnaire 1 month after our report and a second one 12 months after our response. The first questionnaire takes about 10 minutes to complete and the second questionnaire takes about 15 minutes to complete. No changes other that for some minor re-wording of questions have been made. No additional information is collected and the time estimates for completion remain unchanged.
Minimal changes have been made to the request form for Health Hazard Evaluations. The revisions made in this package are minor re-wording of questions contained in four of the five follow-back questionnaires to improve the ease of responding by the questionnaire recipients.
There is no cost to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annual burden hours are 2,959. This is 61 hours less than the 3,020 hours
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the Advisory Committee to the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—Health Disparities Subcommittee (ACD, CDC-HDS). This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the room that accommodates 45 people and audio phone line that accommodates 50 callers. The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting by dialing 866-918-8397 and enter code 9346283, this conference line is available to the first 50 callers. The public comment period is from 9:45 a.m. to 9:50 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. to 3:55 p.m. The deadline to register for in-person attendance and/or notice of intent to make oral or written comment is October 30, 2017. To register, please send an email to
The meeting will be held on November 9, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
CDC, Building 21, 12th Floor, Rooms 12105-12101, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30329.
Leandris Liburd, Ph.D., M.P.H., M.A., Designated Federal Officer, Health Disparities Subcommittee, Advisory Committee to the Director, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., M/S K-77, Atlanta, Georgia 30329. Telephone (404) 498-6482, Email:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), announces the following meeting for the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). This meeting is
The meeting will be held on November 8, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., EST and November 9, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., EST.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Global Communications Center, Building 19, Auditorium B, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30329.
Erin Stone, M.A., HICPAC, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, NCEZID, CDC, l600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop A-07, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, Telephone (404) 639-4045, Email:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Time will be available for public comment. The public is welcome to submit written comments in advance of the meeting. Comments should be submitted in writing by email to the contact person listed below. The deadline for receipt is October 25, 2017. All requests must contain the name, address, and organizational affiliation of the speaker, as well as the topic being addressed. Written comments should not exceed one single-spaced typed page in length and delivered in 3 minutes or less. Members of the public who wish to provide public comments should plan to attend the public comment session at the start time listed. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting. Registration is required to attend in person or on the phone. Interested parties may register at
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by October 18, 2017.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
2.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by November 17, 2017.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
CMS regulations at 42 CFR 412.20 through 412.29 describe the criteria under which these specialty hospitals and specialty distinct-part hospital units are excluded from the IPPS. Form CMS-437 is used by Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities (IPFs) to attest to meeting the necessary requirements that make them exempt for receiving payment from Medicare under the IPPS. These IPFs must use CMS-437 to attest that they meet the requirements for IPPS exempt status prior to being placed into excluded status. IPFs must re-attest to meeting the exclusion criteria annually.
2.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the NHLBI Special Emphasis Panel.
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, 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, 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.
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The National Boating Safety Advisory Council and its Subcommittees will meet to discuss issues relating to recreational boating safety. These meetings will be open to the public.
The National Boating Safety Advisory Council will meet on Tuesday, October 10, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and Thursday, October 12, 2017 from 9 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The Boats and Associated Equipment Subcommittee will meet on Tuesday, October 10, 2017, from 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. The Prevention through People Subcommittee will meet on Tuesday, October 10, 2017, from 2:45 p.m. to 5 p.m. The Recreational Boating Safety Strategic Planning Subcommittee will meet on Wednesday, October 11, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. The Regulatory Reform Review Subcommittee will meet on Wednesday, October 11, 2017 from 10:15 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Please note that these meetings may conclude early if the National Boating Safety Advisory Council has completed all business.
All meetings will be held in the Ballroom of the Holiday Inn Arlington (
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the individual listed in the
Mr. Jeff Ludwig, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the National Boating Safety Advisory Council, telephone (202) 372-1061, or at
Notice of this meeting is given pursuant to the
The agenda for the National Boating Safety Advisory Council meeting is as follows:
(1) Opening remarks.
(2) Receipt and discussion of the following reports:
(a) Chief, Office of Auxiliary and Boating Safety, Update on the U.S. Coast Guard's implementation of National Boating Safety Advisory Council Resolutions and Recreational Boating Safety Program report.
(b) Alternate Designated Federal Officer's report concerning Council administrative and logistical matters.
(3) Presentation on the U.S. Coast Guard Rulemaking Process
(4) Subcommittee Session(s):
Issues to be discussed include alternatives to pyrotechnic visual distress signals; grant projects related to boats and associated equipment; and updates to 33 CFR 181 “Manufacturer Requirements” and 33 CFR 183 “Boats and Associated Equipment.”
Issues to be discussed include paddlesports participation, overview of State boating Safety programs, and licensing requirements for on-water boating safety instruction providers.
(5) Public comment period.
(6) Meeting Recess.
The day will be dedicated to Subcommittee sessions:
(1)
Issues to be discussed include progress on implementation of the 2017-2021 Strategic Plan.
(2)
Issues to be discussed include the subcommittee's progress on reviewing recreational boating safety regulations found in 33 CFR Subchapter S.
The full Council will resume meeting:
(1) Receipt and Discussion of the Boats and Associated Equipment, Prevention through People, Recreational Boating Safety Strategic Planning, and Regulatory Reform Review Subcommittee reports.
(2) Discussion of any recommendations to be made to the U.S. Coast Guard.
(3) Public comment period.
(4) Voting on any recommendations to be made to the U.S. Coast Guard.
(5) Adjournment of meeting.
There will be a comment period for the National Boating Safety Advisory Council members and a comment period for the public after each report presentation, but before each is voted on by the Council. The Council members will review the information presented on each issue, deliberate on any recommendations presented in the Subcommittees' reports, and formulate recommendations for the Department's consideration.
The meeting agenda and all meeting documentation can be found at:
Public comments or questions will be taken throughout the meeting as the Council discusses the issues and prior to deliberations and voting. There will also be a public comment period at the end of the meeting. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the period allotted, following the call for comments. Contact the individual listed in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, 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 a reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved information collection for which approval has expired. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the collection of information necessary to implement grants for the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 18, 2017.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, email address
The FMA program is authorized by Section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4104c. The FMA program, under 44 CFR part 79, provides funding for measures taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures insured under the National Flood Insurance Program. The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-141) eliminated the Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) and Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) programs, and made significant changes to the FMA program by consolidating the former RFC and SRL programs into FMA. Cost-share requirements were changed to allow more Federal funds for properties with repetitive flood claims.
The PDM program is authorized by Section 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5133, as amended by Section 102 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Public Law 106-390, 114 Stat. 1553. It provides grants
In accordance with OMB Circular A-102, FEMA requires that all parties interested in receiving FEMA mitigation grants submit an application package for grant assistance. Applications and sub-applications for the PDM and FMA programs are submitted via the e-Grants system. The e-Grants system was developed and updated to meet the intent of the e-Government initiative, authorized by Public Law 106-107. This initiative required that all government agencies both streamline grant application processes and provide for the means to electronically create, review, and submit a grant application via the Internet. Title 2 CFR 200.335, promulgated in 2013, encourages Federal awarding agencies and non-Federal entities to, whenever practicable, collect, transmit, and store Federal award-related information in open and machine readable formats rather than in closed formats or on paper.
This proposed information collection previously published in the
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (
Comments must be submitted on or before October 18, 2017.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100, or email address
This proposed information collection previously published in the
Department of Homeland Security.
Committee management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) will meet on Wednesday, October 11, 2017, in Washington, DC. The meeting will be partially closed to the public.
The NSTAC will meet on Wednesday, October 11, 2017, from 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business.
The October 2017 NSTAC Meeting's open session will be held at the Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement Facility, 500 12th Street SW., Washington, DC, and will begin at 1:00 p.m. For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, or to attend in person, contact
Members of the public are invited to provide comment on the issues that will be considered by the committee as listed in the
•
•
•
•
A public comment period will be held during the meeting on Wednesday, October 11, 2017, from 2:40 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EDT. Speakers who wish to participate in the public comment period must register in advance by no later than Friday, October 6, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. EDT by emailing
Helen Jackson, NSTAC Designated Federal Officer, Department of Homeland Security, (703) 705-6276 (telephone) or
Notice of this meeting is given under
The committee will also meet in a closed session to receive a classified briefing regarding cybersecurity threats and discuss future studies based on the Government's NS/EP priorities and perceived vulnerabilities.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of availability.
In a memorandum dated September 5, 2017, the Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rescinded the June 15, 2012 DHS memorandum entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children.” The September 5, 2017 memorandum is available on the DHS Web site at the following location:
On June 15, 2012, then Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued a memorandum entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children.” The 2012 memorandum established the policy known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).
On September 5, 2017, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke issued a memorandum entitled “Rescission of the June 15, 2012 Memorandum Entitled `Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children.' ” The September 5, 2017 memorandum rescinded the June 15, 2012 memorandum and directed DHS personnel to take all appropriate actions to execute a wind-down of the DACA program consistent with the parameters established in the memorandum. The September 5, 2017 memorandum is available on the DHS Web site at the following location:
Department of Homeland Security, Privacy Office.
Notice of Modified Privacy Act System of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to modify a current DHS system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection—001 Alien File, Index, and National File Tracking System of Records.” This system of records contains information regarding transactions involving an individual as he or she passes through the U.S. immigration process, some of which may also be covered by separate Systems of Records Notices. DHS primarily maintains information relating to the adjudication of benefits, investigation of immigration violations, and enforcement actions in Alien Files (A-Files). Alien Files became the official file for all immigration records created or consolidated since April 1, 1944. Before A-Files, many individuals had more than one file with the agency. To streamline immigration recordkeeping, legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service issued each individual an Alien Number, allowing the agency to create a single file for each individual containing that individual's official immigration record. DHS also uses other immigration files to support administrative, fiscal, and legal needs.
Submit comments on or before October 18, 2017. This modified system will be effective upon publication. New or modified routine uses will become effective October 18, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2017-0038 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions, please contact: Donald K. Hawkins, (202) 272-8000, Privacy Officer, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529. For privacy questions, please contact: Jonathan R. Cantor, (202) 343-1717, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528-0655.
As DHS moves to conducting more immigration actions in an electronic environment and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) adjudicates more immigration benefits and requests for action in its USCIS Electronic Immigration System, DHS no longer considers the paper A-File as the sole repository and official record of information related to an individual's official immigration record. An individual's immigration history may be in the following materials and formats: (1) A paper A-File; (2) an electronic record in the Enterprise Document Management System or USCIS Electronic Immigration System; or (3) a combination of paper and electronic records and supporting documentation.
The Department of Homeland Security, therefore, is updating the “Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection-001 Alien File, Index, and National File Tracking System of Records notice to: (1) Redefine which records constitute the official record of an individual's immigration history to include the following materials and formats: (a) The paper A-File, (b) an electronic record in the Enterprise Document Management System or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Electronic Immigration System, or (c) a
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the DHS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) proposes to update and reissue a current DHS system of records titled, “DHS/USCIS-ICE-CBP-001 Alien File, Index, and National File Tracking System of Records.”
DHS implements U.S. immigration law and policy through USCIS' processing and adjudication of applications and petitions submitted for citizenship, asylum, and other immigration benefits. USCIS also supports national security by preventing individuals from fraudulently obtaining immigration benefits and by denying applications from individuals who pose national security or public safety threats. DHS implements U.S. immigration policy and law through ICE's law enforcement activities and CBP's inspection and border security processes.
Legacy immigration and naturalization agencies previously collected and maintained information concerning all immigration and inspection interactions. Before Alien Files (A-Files), many individuals had more than one file with the agency requiring legacy personnel to search multiple records systems and indexes for all records pertaining to one individual. The former Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) introduced A-Files and issued each individual an Alien Number (A-Number) allowing INS to create one file for each individual containing the entire agency's records for the subject. Legacy immigration case file records that were not consolidated into the A-File are still maintained since these records hold historical value and are shared with government agencies and members of the public who request this information for mission-related and genealogy purposes.
The Alien File, Index, and National File Tracking System of Records is the official record system that contains information regarding the transactions of an individual as he or she passes through the U.S. immigration process. Currently, A-Files may be maintained in two formats: Paper A-Files or electronic A-Files within the Enterprise Document Management System (EDMS). The official record will now take three possible forms: (1) Records contained within the paper A-File; (2) records contained within the electronic record from EDMS or USCIS Electronic Immigration System (USCIS ELIS); or (3) a combination of paper and electronic records and supporting documentation. The A-File serves as the official record of an individual's immigration history. It is used in immigration proceedings before U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and is the official record used in Federal court litigation and other official agency business transactions. USCIS is the custodian of the A-File and the documents contained within it that are derived from various systems belonging to USCIS, ICE, and CBP. All three components create, contribute information to, and use A-Files, hence this joint System of Records Notice (SORN).
A notice detailing this system of records was last published in the
Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/USCIS/ICE/CBP-001 Alien File, Index, and National File Tracking System of Records may be shared with other DHS components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, information contained within the DHS/USCIS/ICE/CBP-001 Alien File, Index, and National File Tracking System of Records may be shared with appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice. The exemptions for the existing system of records notice will continue to be applicable for this system of records notice. Additionally, this modified system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Additionally, and similarly, the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) provides a statutory right to covered persons to make requests for access and amendment to covered records, as defined by the JRA, along with judicial review for denials of such requests. In addition, the JRA prohibits disclosures of covered records, except as otherwise permitted by the Privacy Act.
Below is the description of the DHS/USCIS/ICE/CBP-001 Alien File, Index, and National File Tracking System of Records. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-001 Alien File, Index, and National File Tracking System of Records.
Unclassified, sensitive, for official use only, and classified. The data may be retained in classified paper A-File or on classified networks. The nature and character of the underlying classification of these records will not change unless it is combined with classified information.
Records are maintained in (1) paper A-Files; (2) electronic A-Files in EDMS and USCIS ELIS; (3) Central Index System (CIS); (4) MiDAS; and (5) National File Tracking System (NFTS). Other applications, as Enterprise Citizenship and Immigrations Services Centralized Operational Repository (eCISCOR) and the Person Centric Query Service (PCQS), may retrieve information from the aforementioned applications.
The databases maintaining the above information are located within the DHS data center in the Washington, DC metropolitan area as well as throughout the country. Access to these electronic systems is possible at USCIS sites at Headquarters and in the field offices throughout the United States, at appropriate facilities under the jurisdiction of DHS, and other locations at which officers of DHS component agencies may be posted or operate to facilitate DHS's homeland security mission.
Associate Director, Immigration Records and Identity Services, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529.
Authority for maintaining this system is in Sections 103 and 290 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended (8 U.S.C. 1103 and 1360), and the regulations issued pursuant thereto; and Section 451 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296), codified at 6 U.S.C. 271.
The purpose of this system of records is to facilitate administration of benefits and enforcement of provisions under the INA and related immigration statutes. A-Files (whether paper or electronic), immigration case files, CIS, MiDAS, and NFTS are used primarily by DHS employees for immigration processing and adjudication, protection of national security, and administering and enforcing immigration and nationality laws and related regulations and policy. These records also assist DHS with detecting violations of immigration and nationality laws; supporting the referral of such violations for prosecution or other appropriate enforcement action; supporting law enforcement efforts and inspection processes at the U.S. borders; as well as to carry out DHS enforcement, immigration, intelligence, and or other homeland security functions.
The purpose of the A-File is to document and maintain the official record of an individual's immigration applications, petitions, and requests, as well as enforcement transactions as he or she passes through the U.S. immigration process. The official records in the A-Files consist of paper and electronic records of the individual's transactions through the immigration process including records of immigration benefit requests and requests for agency action filed with USCIS, but does not include all case processing and decisional data.
The purpose of the EDMS is to store the A-File electronically and to share the A-File more efficiently within DHS and with external agencies.
The purpose of USCIS ELIS is to maintain the A-File of certain paper- and electronically-filed benefit request forms with USCIS, in addition its electronic case processing, adjudication, and management functions. The associated information and data for cases maintained in USCIS ELIS for case processing, adjudication, and management functions are covered under other USCIS SORNs.
The purpose of CIS is to maintain a repository of electronic data that summarizes the history of an immigrant or non-immigrant in the adjudication process. In addition, CIS maintains information about individuals of interest to the U.S. Government for investigative purposes. Information contained within CIS is used for immigration benefit determination and for immigration law enforcement operations by USCIS, ICE, and CBP.
The purpose of MiDAS is to maintain a repository of historical immigration case files for use by government agencies for mission-related purposes such as assisting in the determination to grant or deny a government benefit or to conduct law enforcement or other investigations. Furthermore, USCIS makes records of deceased subjects available to members of the public who request them for genealogy and other historical research purposes.
The purpose of NFTS is to account for the specific location of immigration files, and to track the request and transfer of immigration files.
• Lawful permanent residents;
• Naturalized U.S. citizens;
• Individuals when petitioning for benefits under the INA, as amended, on behalf of another individual;
• Individuals acting as legal guardians or designated representatives in immigration proceedings involving an individual who has a physical or developmental disability or mental impairment (as authorized under the INA);
• Individuals who receive benefits under the INA;
• Individuals who are subject to the enforcement provisions of the INA;
• Individuals who are subject to the INA and:
o Are under investigation by DHS for possible national security threats or threats to the public safety,
o were investigated by DHS in the past,
○ are suspected of violating immigration-related criminal or immigration-related civil provisions of treaties, statutes, regulations, Executive Orders, and Presidential Proclamations administered by DHS, or
○ are witnesses and informants having knowledge of such violations;
• Relatives and associates of any of the individuals listed above who are subject to the INA;
• Individuals who have renounced their U.S. citizenship;
• Civil Surgeons who are required to conduct and certify medical examinations for immigration benefits; and law enforcement officers who certify a benefit requestor's cooperation in the investigation or prosecution of a criminal activity;
• Preparers assisting an individual seeking an immigration benefit or agency action under the INA;
• Interpreters assisting an individual seeking an immigration benefit or agency action under the INA;
• Attorneys or representatives recognized by USCIS or accredited by the BIA; or
• Law enforcement officers who certify a benefit requestor's cooperation in the investigation or prosecution of a criminal activity.
Individuals may fall within one or more of these categories.
A. A-Files contain official record material about each individual for whom DHS has created a record under the INA such as: Naturalization certificates; various documents and attachments (
• A-Numbers;
• Receipt file number(s);
• Full name and any aliases used;
• Physical and mailing addresses (to include U.S. and foreign);
• Phone numbers and email addresses;
• Social Security number (SSN);
• Date of birth;
• Place of birth (city, state, and country);
• Country of citizenship;
• Country of nationality;
• Country of residence;
• Gender;
• Physical characteristics (height, weight, race, eye and hair color, photographs, fingerprints);
• Government-issued identification information (
○ Document type;
○ Issuing organization;
○ Document number; and
○ Expiration date;
• Military membership and/or status;
• Arrival/Departure information (record number, expiration date, class of admission, etc.);
• Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Identification Number/Universal Control Number;
• Fingerprint Identification Number;
• Immigration enforcement history, including, but not limited to, arrests and charges, immigration proceedings and appeals, and dispositions including removals or voluntary departures;
• Immigration status;
• Family history;
• Travel history;
• Education history;
• Employment history;
• Criminal history;
• Professional accreditation information;
• Medical information;
• Information regarding the status of Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) and (BIA) proceedings, if applicable;
• Specific benefit eligibility information as required by the benefit being sought;
• Social media handles and aliases, associated identifiable information, and search results; and
• Cassette/audio tapes, audio-visual/videotapes, CDs, DVDs, or transcripts of immigration interviews.
B. CIS contains information on those individuals who during their interactions with DHS have been assigned an A-Number. The system contains biographic information on those individuals, allowing DHS employees to quickly review the individual's immigration status. The information in the system can then be used to retrieve additional information on the individual from other systems. The information in the system can be used to request the paper A-File from the USCIS FCO that has custody of the A-File. Specific data elements may include:
• A-Number(s);
• Full name and any aliases used;
• SSN;
• Date of birth;
• Place of birth (city, state, and country);
• Country of citizenship;
• Country of nationality;
• Gender;
• Government issued identification information (
• Document type;
• Issuing organization;
• Document number;
• Expiration date;
• Arrival/Departure information (record number, expiration date, class of admission, etc.);
• Immigration status;
• Father and Mother's first name;
• FBI Identification/Identification Universal Control Number;
• Fingerprint Identification Number;
• Immigration enforcement history, including arrests and charges, immigration proceedings and appeals, and dispositions including removals or voluntary departures; and
• NFTS file location and status information.
C. EDMS contains official record material about each individual for whom DHS has created a record pursuant to the INA and the same information as contained in the as a paper A-File except for material that cannot be scanned from the paper A-File (
D. USCIS ELIS contains official record information and material used to determine an outcome on an immigration application, petition, or request or request agency action, such as supporting documentation, and notices of agency action on the specific immigration request. USCIS ELIS also stores the USCIS Online Account Number biographic information about the individual seeking an immigration benefit or requesting agency action that can be used to retrieve information about other requests filed by the individual, and the electronic copy of the naturalization or certificate of citizenship. Specific data elements may include, but are not limited to:
• Full Name;
• Aliases;
• Physical and mailing addresses;
• A-Number;
• USCIS Online Account Number;
• SSN;
• Date of birth and/or death;
• Country of citizenship;
• Country of nationality;
• Country of residence;
• Place of birth;
• Gender;
• Marital status;
• Military membership or status;
• Phone and fax numbers (including mobile phone numbers);
• Email address;
• Immigration status;
• Biometric information (
• Physical description (
• Government issued identification information (
○ Document type;
○ Issuing organization;
○ Document number; and
○ Expiration date;
• Immigration benefit type and/or agency action requested (
• Supporting documentation as necessary (
• Notices and communications, including:
○ Requests for evidence;
○ Notices of intent to deny, fine, or terminate; and
○ Proofs of benefit (
• Signature;
• Fee payment information (
• Audio-visual recordings, including interviews and naturalization ceremonies;
• Travel history;
• Education history;
• Work history;
• Records regarding organization membership or affiliation;
• Family relationships (
• Information regarding the status of DOJ, EOIR and BIA proceedings, if applicable;
• Case processing information such as the date an immigration request was filed or received by USCIS; status of such a request; location of record; other control number when applicable; and fee receipt data;
• Representative information, including:
○ Name;
○ Law Firm/recognized organization;
○ Physical and mailing addresses;
○ Phone and fax numbers;
○ Email address;
○ Attorney Bar Card Number or equivalent;
○ Bar membership;
○ BIA representative accreditation authorization and expiration dates;
○ Law practice restriction(s) explanation; and
○ Signature.
• Preparer and Interpreter information, including:
○ Full Name;
○ Business or Organization name;
○ Physical and mailing addresses;
○ Phone and fax numbers;
○ Email address; and
○ Signature.
E. NFTS contains the location of the A-File whether paper or electronic. Specific data elements include:
• A-Number;
• Receipt File Number;
• Primary immigration file tracking number (
• Location of the paper A-File and Receipt File within the USCIS FCO, as well as the history of who has maintained the paper A-File, including the component, section, and employee; and
• Name of the USCIS FCO that has jurisdiction over a case maintained in USCIS ELIS and any transfer of jurisdiction to another USCIS office.
F. MiDAS is an online interactive application system that provides an automated means for searching an index to legacy immigrant records opened or indexed prior to 1975. The MiDAS Search Engine includes the Flexoline Index, documenting the issuance of A-Numbers to individuals between August 1940 and 1948, as well as a card index to physical A-Files opened between April 1, 1944 and 1975. MiDAS index data may be used to create or update a CIS record of an A-Number issued or A-File opened prior to 1975. Specific A-File index data elements may include, but are not limited to:
• A-Number;
• C-Number;
• Full name;
• Date of birth; and
• Place of birth (city, state, and country).
Basic information contained in DHS records is supplied by individuals on Department of State (DOS) and DHS applications and forms. Other information comes from publicly available information obtained from the Internet, public records, public institutions, interviewees, commercial data aggregators, inquiries or complaints from members of the general public and members of Congress, referrals of inquiries or complaints directed to the President or Secretary of Homeland Security, information shared through information sharing agreements, reports of investigations, sworn statements, correspondence, official reports, memoranda, and written referrals from other entities, including federal, state, and local governments, various courts and regulatory agencies, foreign government agencies, and international organizations.
Information in this system of records contains information relating to persons who have pending or approved benefit requests for special protected classes and should not be disclosed pursuant to a routine use unless disclosure is otherwise permissible under the confidentiality statutes, regulations, or policies applicable to that information. For example, information relating to persons who have pending or approved benefit requests for protection under the Violence Against Women Act, Seasonal Agricultural Worker or Legalization claims, the Temporary Protected Status of an individual, and information relating to nonimmigrant visas protected under special confidentiality provisions should not be disclosed pursuant to a routine use unless disclosure is otherwise permissible under the confidentiality statutes, regulations, or policies applicable to that information. These confidentiality provisions do not prevent DHS from disclosing information to the DOJ and Offices of the United States Attorney as part of an ongoing criminal or civil investigation.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To DOJ, including Offices of the U.S. Attorneys, or other federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. DHS or any component thereof;
2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her official capacity;
3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof.
B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
1. DHS determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary and otherwise compatible with the purpose of collection to assist another federal recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach; or
2. DHS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of this system of records; and (a) DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach, there is a risk of harm to individuals, harm to DHS (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (b) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to DHS officers and employees.
G. To an appropriate Federal, State, tribal, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, when a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure.
H. To appropriate Federal, State, tribal, local, or foreign governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations responsible for investigating or prosecuting the violations of, or for enforcing or implementing, a statute, rule, regulation, order, or license, when DHS believes the information would assist in enforcing applicable civil or criminal laws.
I. To third parties during the course of a law enforcement investigation to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation.
J. To an organization or person in either the public or private sector, either foreign or domestic, when there is a reason to believe that the recipient is or could become the target of a particular terrorist activity or conspiracy, or when the information is relevant to the protection of life, property, or other vital interests of a person.
K. To clerks and judges of courts exercising naturalization jurisdiction for
L. To courts, magistrates, administrative tribunals, opposing counsel, parties, and witnesses, in the course of immigration, civil, or criminal proceedings before a court or adjudicative body when it is necessary or relevant to the litigation or proceeding and the following is a party to the proceeding or has an interest in the proceeding:
1. DHS or any component thereof; or
2. Any employee of DHS in his or her official capacity; or
3. Any employee of DHS in his or her individual capacity when the DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof.
M. To an attorney or representative (as defined in 8 CFR 1.2) who is acting on behalf of an individual covered by this system of records in connection with any proceeding before USCIS, ICE, or CBP or the DOJ EOIR, as required by law or as deemed necessary in the discretion of the Department.
N. To DOJ (including Offices of the United States Attorneys) or other federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when necessary to assist in the development of such agency's legal and/or policy position.
O. To DOS in the processing of petitions or applications for benefits under the INA, and all other immigration and nationality laws including treaties and reciprocal agreements; or when DOS requires information to consider and/or provide an informed response to a request for information from a foreign, international, or intergovernmental agency, authority, or organization about an alien or an enforcement operation with transnational implications.
P. To appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, or foreign governments, as well as to other individuals and organizations during the course of an investigation by DHS or the processing of a matter under DHS's jurisdiction, or during a proceeding within the purview of the immigration and nationality laws, when DHS deems that such disclosure is necessary to carry out its functions and statutory mandates.
Q. To an appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, or foreign government agency or organization, or international organization, lawfully engaged in collecting law enforcement intelligence, whether civil or criminal, or charged with investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing civil or criminal laws, related rules, regulations, or orders, to enable these entities to carry out their law enforcement responsibilities, including the collection of law enforcement intelligence and the disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the person receiving the information.
R. To an appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international agency, if the information is relevant to a requesting agency's decision concerning the hiring or retention of an individual, or issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant, or other benefit, or if the information is relevant to a DHS decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit.
S. To an appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international agency, if DHS determines: (1) The information is relevant and necessary to that agency's decision concerning the hiring or retention of an individual, or issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant, or other benefit; and (2) failure to disclose the information is likely to create a substantial risk to government facilities, equipment, or personnel; sensitive information; critical infrastructure; or public safety.
T. To appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, or foreign governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations for the purpose of protecting the vital interests of a data subject or other persons, including to assist such agencies or organizations in preventing exposure to, or transmission of a communicable or quarantinable disease or to combat other significant public health threats; appropriate notice will be provided of any identified health threat or risk.
U. To an individual's current employer to the extent necessary to determine employment eligibility or to a prospective employer or government agency to verify whether an individual is eligible for a government-issued credential that is a condition of employment.
V. To a former employee of DHS, in accordance with applicable regulations, for purposes of: Responding to an official inquiry by a federal, state, or local government entity or professional licensing authority; or facilitating communications with a former employee that may be necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes when DHS requires information or consultation assistance from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility.
W. To the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in connection with the review of private relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular No. A-19 at any stage of the legislative coordination and clearance process as set forth in the Circular.
X. To the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary or the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary when necessary to inform members of Congress about an alien who is being considered for private immigration relief.
Y. To a Federal, State, tribal, or local government agency and/or to domestic courts to assist such agencies in collecting the repayment of loans, or fraudulently or erroneously secured benefits, grants, or other debts owed to them or to the U.S. Government, or to obtain information that may assist DHS in collecting debts owed to the U.S. Government.
Z. To an individual or entity seeking to post or arrange, or who has already posted or arranged, an immigration bond for an alien, to aid the individual or entity in (1) identifying the location of the alien; (2) posting the bond; (3) obtaining payments related to the bond; or (4) conducting other administrative or financial management activities related to the bond.
AA. To a coroner for purposes of affirmatively identifying a deceased individual (whether or not such individual is deceased as a result of a crime).
BB. Consistent with the requirements of the INA, to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), or to any state or local health authorities, to:
1. Provide proper medical oversight of DHS-designated Civil Surgeons who perform medical examinations of both arriving aliens and of those requesting status as lawful permanent residents; and
2. Ensure that all health issues potentially affecting public health and safety in the United States are being or have been, adequately addressed.
CC. To a Federal, State, local, tribal, or territorial government agency seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law.
DD. To the Social Security Administration (SSA) for the purpose of issuing a SSN and card to an alien who has made a request for a SSN as part of the immigration process and in accordance with any related agreements in effect between the SSA, DHS, and DOS entered into pursuant to 20 CFR 422.103(b)(3), 422.103(c)(3), and 422.106(a), or other relevant laws and regulations.
EE. To Federal and foreign government intelligence or counterterrorism agencies or components when DHS becomes aware of an indication of a threat or potential threat to national or international security, or when such use is to conduct national intelligence and security investigations or assist in anti-terrorism efforts.
FF. To third parties to facilitate placement or release of an individual (
GG. To an appropriate domestic government agency or other appropriate authority for the purpose of providing information about an individual who has been or is about to be released from DHS custody who, due to a condition such as mental illness, may pose a health or safety risk to himself/herself or to the community. DHS will only disclose information about the individual that is relevant to the health or safety risk they may pose and/or the means to mitigate that risk (
HH. To foreign governments for the purpose of coordinating and conducting the removal of individuals to other nations under the INA; and to international, foreign, and intergovernmental agencies, authorities, and organizations in accordance with law and formal or informal international arrangements.
II. To a Federal, State, local, territorial, tribal, international, or foreign criminal, civil, or regulatory law enforcement authority when the information is necessary for collaboration, coordination, and de-confliction of investigative matters, prosecutions, and/or other law enforcement actions to avoid duplicative or disruptive efforts and to ensure the safety of law enforcement officers who may be working on related law enforcement matters.
JJ. To the DOJ Federal Bureau of Prisons and other Federal, State, local, territorial, tribal, and foreign law enforcement or custodial agencies for the purpose of placing an immigration detainer on an individual in that agency's custody, or to facilitate the transfer of custody of an individual from DHS to the other agency. This will include the transfer of information about unaccompanied minor children to HHS to facilitate the custodial transfer of such children from DHS to HHS.
KK. To Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, or foreign governmental or quasi-governmental agencies or courts to confirm the location, custodial status, removal, or voluntary departure of an alien from the United States, in order to facilitate the recipients' exercise of responsibilities pertaining to the custody, care, or legal rights (including issuance of a U.S. passport) of the removed individual's minor children, or the adjudication or collection of child support payments or other debts owed by the removed individual.
LL. To a Federal, State, tribal, territorial, local, international, or foreign government agency or multilateral governmental organization for the purpose of consulting with that agency or entity: (1) To assist in making a determination regarding redress for an individual in connection with the operations of a DHS component or program; (2) for the purpose of verifying the identity of an individual seeking redress in connection with the operations of a DHS component or program; or (3) for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of information submitted by an individual who has requested such redress on behalf of another individual.
MM. To family members, guardians, committees, friends, or other agents identified by law or regulation to receive notification, decisions, and other papers as provided in 8 CFR 103.8 from DHS or EOIR following verification of a familial or agency relationship with an alien when DHS is aware of indicia of incompetency or when an immigration judge determines an alien is mentally incompetent.
NN. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information or when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS or is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent the Chief Privacy Officer determines that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
OO. To domestic governmental agencies seeking to determine the immigration status of persons who have applied to purchase/obtain a firearm in the United States, pursuant to checks conducted on such persons under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act or other applicable laws.
Records in this system are stored electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records may be stored on magnetic disc, tape, and digital media.
DHS/USCIS retrieves records by searching in CIS using the following data alone or in any combination:
• A-Number;
• Full name;
• Alias;
• Sounds-like name with or without date of birth;
• Certificate of Citizenship or Naturalization Certificate number;
• Driver's License number;
• FBI Identification/Universal Control Number;
• Fingerprint Identification Number;
• I-94 admission number;
• Passport number;
• SSN; or
• Travel Document number.
DHS/USCIS retrieves records by searching electronic A-Files in EDMS by any of the following fields alone or in any combination:
• A-Number;
• Last name;
• First name;
• Middle name;
• Aliases;
• Date of birth;
• Country of birth;
• Gender; and
• Through a full text-based search of records contained in the electronic A-File (based on optical character recognition of the scanned images).
DHS/USCIS retrieves records by searching in USCIS ELIS using the following data alone or in any combination:
• Full Name;
• Aliases;
• A-Number;
• USCIS Online Account Number;
• Date of birth;
• Immigration benefit type and/or agency action requested (
• Fee receipt data;
• Date benefit request was filed;
• Date benefit request was received;
• Representative name;
• Preparer name; and
• Interpreter name.
DHS/USCIS retrieves the location of A-Files, whether paper or electronic, by searching in NFTS using the following data:
• A-Number;
• USCIS Online Account Number; or
• Receipt File Number.
DHS/USCIS retrieves genealogy records and requests in MiDAS by searching the following data alone or in any combination:
• Requestor's first name;
• Requestor's last name;
• Requestor's Case and/or Control Number;
• Record subject's A-Number or immigration case file number;
• Record subject's first name;
• Record subject's last name; and
• Record subject's alias.
The official A-File record may take three possible forms: (1) Records contained within the paper A-File; (2) records contained within the electronic record from EDMS or USCIS ELIS; or (3) a combination of paper and electronic records and supporting documentation. A-File records are maintained in accordance with N1-566-08-11. DHS/USCIS transfers A-Files to the custody of NARA 100 years after the individual's date of birth.
CIS records are maintained in accordance with N1-566-10-01. CIS is an internal DHS-mission critical system that contains records that serve as a finding aid to agency case files. Records in CIS are permanently retained because they are the index of the A-File, summarize the history of an immigrant in the adjudication process, and identify the A-File location(s).
NFTS records are maintained in accordance with N1-566-06-01. NFTS records are temporary and deleted when they are no longer needed for agency business. NFTS records associated with an A-File will be retained on a permanent basis even after the A-File has been retired to NARA to retain accurate recordkeeping. Other immigration case files with a shorter retention period will have the associated NFTS record destroyed or deleted once the file has been destroyed.
MiDAS information (data and electronic images) pertaining to correspondence with the public and government requestor is retained and disposed every six years in accordance with the NARA General Records Schedules 4.2 and 14. The immigration case files contained in MiDAS are retained permanently. Records are transferred to NARA after 100 years after the last completed action.
Records replicated on the unclassified and classified networks for analysis and vetting will follow the same retention schedule.
DHS/USCIS safeguards records in this system according to applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. USCIS has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
The Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system from the notification, access, and amendment procedures of the Privacy Act, and those of the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) if applicable, because it is a law enforcement system. However, DHS/USCIS will consider individual requests to determine whether or not information may be released. Thus, individuals seeking access to and notification of any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the Chief Privacy Officer and USCIS Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer, whose contact information can be found at
When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer,
• Explain why you believe the Department would have information on you;
• Identify which component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you;
• Specify when you believe the records would have been created; and
• Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS component agency may have responsive records.
If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his/her records.
Without the above information, the component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
For records covered by the Privacy Act or covered JRA records, see “access procedures” above.
See “Record Access procedure.”
The Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2): 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8), (e)(12), (f), (g)(1), and (h). Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (k)(2): 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f).
When this system receives a record from another system exempted in that source system under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), DHS will claim the same exemptions for those records that are claimed for the original primary systems of records from which they originated and claims any additional exemptions set forth here.
DHS/USCIS/ICE/CBP-001 Alien File, Index, and National File Tracking
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security.
60-day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until November 17, 2017.
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), PRA Clearance Officer, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, 801 I Street NW., Mailstop 5800, Washington, DC 20536-5800.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will be submitting the following new information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until November 17, 2017.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1653-NEW in the subject box and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey of the following described lands were officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Arizona State Office, Phoenix, Arizona, on the dates indicated. Surveys announced in this notice are necessary for the management of lands administered by the agencies indicated.
These plats will be available for inspection in the Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land Management, One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona, 85004-4427. Protests of the survey should be sent to the Arizona State Director at this address.
Gerald Davis, Chief Cadastral Surveyor of Arizona; (602) 417-9558;
The supplemental plat, in two sheets, showing the relotting in sections 5 and 6, Township 14 North, Range 10 East, accepted July 13, 2017, and officially filed July 14, 2017, for Group 9110, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the United States Forest Service.
The plat, in two sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the Fourth Standard Parallel North (south boundary), a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the meanders of the abandoned left bank of the Colorado River, through sections 20 and 32, the survey of division of accretion lines, the traverse of a portion of the abandoned left bank of the Colorado River through sections 19 and 29, and a portion of the subdivision of section 20, and the survey of the fixed and limiting boundary of the abandoned left bank of the Colorado River through section 31, the subdivision of section 28, the metes-and-bounds survey in the northeast quarter of section 28, the survey of the north and south boundaries of the easement for the Topock Inlet Canal adjacent to the accretions in sections 19, 20 and 29, Township 17 North, Range 21 West, accepted August 2, 2017, and officially filed August 3,2017, for Group 1154, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Reclamation.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary, and the surveys of the division of accretion line between
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Reclamation.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and the 1883 meanders of the right bank of the Colorado River, and the subdivision of section 4, the survey of an informative traverse and metes-and-bounds survey of the right bank of the abandoned channel of the Colorado River, and the division of accretion line the northeast quarter of section 4, Township 8 North, Range 23 East, accepted August 2, 2017, and officially filed August 3, 2017, for Group 1154, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Reclamation.
The plat, in three sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south boundary, and a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the informative traverses of the 1883 right bank of the Colorado River through sections 33 and 34, the subdivision of section 33, the informative traverse and metes-and-bounds survey of the right bank of the abandoned channel of the Colorado River in sections 33 and 34, the informative traverse of the medial line of the abandoned channel of the Colorado River adjacent to sections 33 and 34, the survey of the north and south boundaries of the Topock Inlet Canal lease within the abandoned channel of the Colorado River, a retracement of a portion of a land description and a survey made part of CV-98-4072, in the Superior Court of Arizona, in and for the County of Mohave, Township 9 North, Range 23 East, accepted August 2, 2017, and officially filed August 3, 2017, for Group 1154, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Reclamation.
A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these surveys must file a written notice of protest within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication with the Arizona State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest.
A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be filed with the State Director within thirty (30) days after the protest is filed. Before including your address, or other personal information in your protest, please be aware that your entire protest, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge has issued a Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief, specifically a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders against respondents Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, and Sony Electronics Inc. This notice is soliciting public interest comments from the public only. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to Commission rules.
Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2301. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in these investigations. Accordingly, parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4). In addition, members of the public are hereby invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on September 12, 2017. Comments should address whether issuance of a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders 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 recommended orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended 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
(v) explain how the limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions from the public must be filed no later than by close of business on October 10, 2017.
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-1012”) 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 sections 201.10 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notice of open meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure will hold a meeting on November 7, 2017. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:
November 7, 2017.
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, FJC Training Rooms, One Columbus Circle NE., Washington, DC.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure
Notice of open meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure will hold a meeting on November 9, 2017. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:
November 9, 2017.
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Mecham Conference Center, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, One Columbus Circle NE., Washington, DC 20544.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
Notice is hereby given that, on August 23, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Beijing Internet Institute, Beijing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Open Platform for NFV Project intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On October 17, 2014, Open Platform for NFV Project filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 30, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on August 24, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and fd.io intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 4, 2016, fd.io filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 30, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before November 17, 2017.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on August 16, 2017, AMPAC Fine Chemicals LLC, Highway 50 and Hazel Avenue, Building 05001, Rancho Cordova, California 95670 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of levomethorphan (9210), a basic class of controlled substance in schedule II.
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substance as an intermediate in the bulk manufacture of other controlled substances for distribution to its customers.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before October 18, 2017. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before October 18, 2017.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on July 25, 2017, Catalent Centers, LLC, 10245 Hickman Mills Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64137 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import finished dosage unit products containing gamma-hydroxybutryic acid and cannabis extracts for clinical trial studies.
These cannabis extracts compounds are listed under drug code 7350. No other activity for these drug codes is authorized for this registration. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before November 17, 2017.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on August 9, 2017, Specgx LLC, 3600 North Second Street, Saint Louis, Missouri 63147 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for distribution to its customers.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before October 18, 2017. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before October 18, 2017.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on August 9, 2017, Specgx LLC, 3600 North Second Street, Saint Louis, Missouri 63147 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances to bulk manufacture into Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients for distribution to its customers. In reference to drug code 7360 (marihuana) the company plans to import a synthetic cannabidiol. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration. Placement of these drug codes onto the company's registration does not translate into automatic approval of subsequent permit applications to import controlled substances. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before November 17, 2017.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on July 11, 2017, Halo Pharmaceutical, Inc., 30 North Jefferson Road, Whippany, New Jersey 07981 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture Hydromorphone (9150) for distribution to its customers. Dihydromorphine (9145) is an intermediate in the manufacture of Hydromorphone and is not for commercial distribution.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before October 18, 2017. Such persons may also file a written request
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on April 19, 2017, Unither Manufacturing LLC, 331 Clay Road, Rochester, New York 14623 applied to be registered as an importer of methylphenidate (1724), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to import the listed substance solely for updated analytical testing purposes for EU customer requirements. This analysis is required to allow the company to export domestically-manufactured FDF to foreign markets.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before October 18, 2017. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before October 18, 2017.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on August 23, 2017, Sharp Clinical Services, Inc., 300 Kimberton Road, Phoenixville, Pennsylvania 19460 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for analytical research, testing, and clinical trials. No other activity for these drug codes is authorized for this registration. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before October 18, 2017. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before October 18, 2017.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on March 24, 2017, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2898 Manufacturers Road, Greensboro, North Carolina 27406 applied to be registered as an importer of nabilone (7379), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to import the FDA approved drug product in finished dosage form for distribution to its customers. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2).
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 17, 2017.
All comments, suggestions, or questions regarding additional information, to include obtaining a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, should be directed to Mrs. Amy C. Blasher, Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Information Services Division, Module E-3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306; facsimile (304) 625-3566.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
On September 12, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed this lawsuit under the Clean Water Act (CWA), Clean Air Act (CAA), Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The complaint seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties for violations of these statutes and their implementing regulations at defendants' seafood processing and canning facility in American Samoa. Specifically, the complaint alleges the following CWA violations: (1) Unpermitted discharges of wastewater through an outfall rupture in 2014; (2) violations of terms and conditions of the facility's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, including effluent limit violations; and (3) violations of the CWA's Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures regulations related to the facility's oil storage tanks. The complaint also alleges violations of the
The proposed consent decree requires the defendants to perform injunctive relief, pay a $6,300,000 civil penalty, and perform a Supplemental Environmental Project benefitting local first responders. The injunctive relief includes: Installing and operating upgrades to the facility's wastewater treatment system; upgrading the facility's oil storage tanks; making improvements to the facility's ammonia refrigeration system to prevent and minimize potential releases; discontinuing use of chlorine gas and a butane filling station at the facility; implementing an environmental management system for the facility; and performing annual third-party compliance audits. The Supplemental Environmental Project requires defendants to purchase and donate certain emergency response equipment to the American Samoa Fire Department.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $11.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of advisory committee meeting
We are announcing an upcoming National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee (NISPPAC) meeting, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and implementing regulation 41 CFR 101-6.
The meeting will be on November 1, 2017, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EST.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Archivist's Reception Room, Room 105, Washington, DC 20408.
Robert Tringali, Program Analyst, by mail at ISOO, National Archives Building, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20408, by telephone at (202) 357-5335, or by email at
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss National Industrial Security Program policy matters. The meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access procedures, you must submit the name and telephone number of individuals planning to attend to the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) no later than Friday, October 27, 2017. ISOO will then provide additional instructions for accessing the meeting's location.
Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
We are announcing an upcoming Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee meeting, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the second United States Open Government National Action Plan (NAP) released on December 5, 2013.
The meeting will be on October 19, 2017, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. EDT. You must register for the meeting by 5:00 p.m. EDT on October 17, 2017.
Amy Bennett, Designated Federal Officer for this committee, by mail at National Archives and Records Administration; Office of Government Information Services; 8601 Adelphi Road—OGIS; College Park, MD 20740-6001, by telephone at 202-741-5770, or by email at
This program will be live-streamed on the US National Archives' YouTube channel,
The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant Operations and Fire Protection will hold a meeting on September 20, 2017, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-2B1, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
This meeting will be open to public attendance. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review the Plant Operations and Fire Protection Program for New Reactors and will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Quynh Nguyen (Telephone 301-415-5844 or Email
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. After registering with Security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Northwest Medical Isotopes will hold a meeting on September 21, 2017, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-2B1, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The meetings will be open to public attendance with the exception of portions that may be closed to protect information that is proprietary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meetings shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review and comment on the Northwest Medical Isotopes construction permit application preliminary safety analysis report and the draft NRC safety evaluation reports for a Mo99 radioisotope production facility.
The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Kathy Weaver (Telephone 301-415-6236 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North Building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. After
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 October 18, 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.
* Reference information is collected only if an applicant is contacted for an interview.
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 October 18, 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.
a.
b.
c.
d.
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 October 18, 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.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Peace Corps.
60-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 60 days for public comment in the
Submit comments on or before November 17, 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.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.87-O (Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors) and Rule 6.65-O 953NY [sic] (Trading Halts and Suspensions). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to amend Rule 6.87-O, relating to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous transactions, and Rule 6.65-O, regarding trading halts and suspensions. The Exchange's proposal is based on that of Bats BZX (“BATS”), which the Commission approved on July 6, 2017, and those that the other options exchanges intend to file.
The Exchange and other options exchanges adopted a harmonized rule related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions, including a specific provision related to coordination in connection with large-scale events involving erroneous options transactions.
Under the harmonized rule, when reviewing a transaction as potentially erroneous, the Exchange needs to first determine the “Theoretical Price” of the option,
The Rule also contains various provisions governing specific situations where the NBB or NBO is not available or may not be reliable. Specifically, the Rule identifies situations in which there are no quotes or no valid quotes for comparison purposes, when the national best bid or offer (“NBBO”) is determined to be too wide to be reliable, and at the open of trading on each trading day. In each of these circumstances because the NBB or NBO is not available or is deemed to be unreliable, the Exchange determines the Theoretical Price. Under the current Rule, when determining Theoretical Price, Exchange personnel generally consult and refer to data such as the prices of related series, especially the closest strikes in the option in question. Exchange personnel may also take into account the price of the underlying security and the volatility characteristics of the option as well as historical pricing of the option and/or similar options. Although the Rule is administered by experienced personnel and the Exchange believes the process is currently appropriate, the Exchange recognizes that it is also subjective and could lead to disparate results for a transaction that spans multiple options exchanges.
The Exchange proposes new Commentary .06 to specify how the Exchange will determine Theoretical Price when required by sub-paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of the Rule (
Pursuant to proposed Commentary .06, when the Exchange must determine Theoretical Price pursuant to the sub-paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of the Rule, the Exchange will request the Theoretical Price from the third party vendor to which the Exchange and all other options exchanges have subscribed. Thus, as set forth in this proposed language, Theoretical Price would be provided to the Exchange by the TP Provider on request and not through a streaming data feed.
Because the purpose of the proposal is to move away from a subjective determination by Exchange personnel when the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable, the Exchange intends to use the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider in all such circumstances. However, the Exchange believes it is necessary to retain the ability to contact the TP Provider if it believes that the Theoretical Price provided is fundamentally incorrect and to determine the Theoretical Price in the limited circumstance of a systems issue experienced by the TP Provider, as described below.
As proposed, to the extent an Official
The Exchange believes that the proposal to allow an Exchange Official to contact the TP Provider if he or she believes the provided Theoretical Price is fundamentally incorrect is necessary, particularly because the Exchange and other options exchanges will be using the new process for the first time.
Pursuant to proposed paragraph (c) to Commentary .06, an Official of the Exchange may determine the Theoretical Price if the TP Provider has experienced a systems issue that has rendered its services unavailable to accurately calculate Theoretical Price and such issue cannot be corrected in a timely manner. The Exchange notes that it does not anticipate needing to rely on this provision frequently, if at all, but believes the provision is necessary nonetheless to best prepare for all potential circumstances. Further, consistent with existing text in Rule 6.87(e)(4), the Exchange has not proposed a specific time by which the service must be available in order to be considered timely.
The Exchange also proposes language in paragraph (d) of Commentary .06 to Rule 6.87 to disclaim the liability of the Exchange and the TP Provider in connection with the proposed rule, the TP Provider's calculation of Theoretical Price, and the Exchange's use of such Theoretical Price. Specifically, the proposed rule would state that neither the Exchange, the TP Provider, nor any affiliate of the TP Provider (the TP Provider and its affiliates are referred to collectively as the “TP Provider”), makes any warranty, express or implied, as to the results to be obtained by any person or entity from the use of the TP Provider pursuant to Commentary .06. The proposed rule would further state that the TP Provider does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the calculated Theoretical Price and that the TP Provider disclaims all warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use with respect to such Theoretical Price. Finally, the proposed rule would state that neither the Exchange nor the TP Provider shall have any liability for any damages, claims, losses (including any indirect or consequential losses), expenses, or delays, whether direct or indirect, foreseen or unforeseen, suffered by any person arising out of any circumstance or occurrence relating to the use of such Theoretical Price or arising out of any errors or delays in calculating such Theoretical Price. This proposed language is modeled after existing language in Exchange Rules regarding “reporting authorities” that calculate indices.
In connection with the proposed change described above, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 6.87 to state that the Exchange will rely on paragraph (b) and Commentary .06 when determining Theoretical Price.
As described above, one of the times where the NBB or NBO is deemed to be unreliable for purposes of Theoretical Price is when there are no quotes or no valid quotes for the affected series. In addition to when there are no quotes, the Exchange does not consider the following to be valid quotes: (i) All quotes in the applicable option series published at a time where the last NBB is higher than the last NBO in such
In order to continue to apply the Rule in a timely and organized fashion, however, the Exchange proposes to initially limit the scope of this proposed provision in two ways in new paragraph (C) to Rule 6.87(b)(2).
Below are examples of both the current rule and the rule as proposed to be amended.
For purposes of this example, assume the following:
• A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange (“Market Maker A”) is quoting in twenty series of options underlying security ABCD on the Exchange (and only the Exchange).
• Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell options at $1.05.
• In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.
• Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00 × $1.05 (with the Exchange representing the NBBO based on Market Maker A's quotes).
• Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.
• Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange a timely request for review of the trades with Member A as potentially erroneous transactions to buy.
• Based on the Exchange's current rules, the Exchange would identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and would consider Market Maker A's quotations invalid pursuant to Rule 6.87(b)(2).
• As there were no other valid quotes to use as a reference price, the Exchange would then determine Theoretical Price.
• Assume the Exchange determines a Theoretical Price of $0.05.
○ The execution price of $1.00 exceeds the $0.25 minimum amount set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether an obvious error has occurred (
○ Accordingly, the executions in all series would be adjusted by the Exchange to executions at $0.20 per contract (Theoretical Price of $0.05 plus $0.15) to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were non-Customer orders.
○ The executions in all series would be nullified to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were Customer orders.
For purposes of this example, assume the following:
• A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange (“Market Maker A”) is quoting in twenty series of options underlying security ABCD on the Exchange and on a second exchange (“Away Exchange”).
• Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes on both the Exchange and the Away Exchange in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell options at $1.05.
• In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.
• Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00 × $1.05 (with the Exchange and the Away Exchange representing the NBBO based on Market Maker A's quotes).
• Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.
• Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange and to the Away Exchange timely requests for review of the trades with Member A as potentially erroneous transactions to buy.
• Based on the Exchange's current rules, the Exchange would identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and would consider Market Maker A's quotations on the Exchange invalid pursuant to Rule 6.87(b)(2). The Exchange, however, would view the Away Exchange's quotations as valid, and would thus determine Theoretical Price to be $1.05 (
• The execution price of $1.00 does not exceed the $0.25 minimum amount set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether an obvious error has occurred (
• The transactions on the Exchange would not be nullified or adjusted.
• As the Exchange and all other options exchanges have identical rules with respect to the process described above, the transactions on the Away Exchange would not be nullified or adjusted.
• For purposes of this example, assume the following:
• A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange (“Market Maker A”) is quoting in twenty series of options underlying security ABCD on the Exchange and on a second exchange (“Away Exchange”).
• Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes on both the Exchange and the Away Exchange in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell options at $1.05.
• In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.
• Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00 × $1.05 (with the Exchange and the Away Exchange representing the NBBO based on Market Maker A's quotes).
• Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.
• Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange and to the Away Exchange timely requests for review of the trades with Member A as potentially erroneous transactions to buy. At the time of submitting the requests for review to the Exchange and the Away Exchange, Market Maker A identifies to the Exchange the quotes on the Away Exchange as quotes also represented by Market Maker A (and to the Away Exchange, the quotes on the Exchange as quotes also represented by Market Maker A).
• Based on the proposed rules, the Exchange would identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and would consider Market Maker A's quotations on the Exchange invalid pursuant to Rule 6.87(b)(2).
• The Exchange and the Away Exchange would also coordinate to confirm that the quotations identified by Market Maker A on the other exchange were indeed Market Maker A's quotations. Once confirmed, each of the Exchange and the Away Exchange would also consider invalid the quotations published on the other exchange.
• As there were no other valid quotes to use as a reference price, the Exchange would then determine Theoretical Price.
• Assume the Exchange determines a Theoretical Price of $0.05.
○ The execution price of $1.00 exceeds the $0.25 minimum amount set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether an obvious error has occurred (
○ Accordingly, the executions in all series would be adjusted by the Exchange to executions at $0.20 per contract (Theoretical Price of $0.05 plus $0.15) to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were non-Customer orders.
○ The executions in all series would be nullified to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were Customer orders.
• As the Exchange and all other options exchanges would have identical rules with respect to the process described above, as other options exchanges intend to adopt the same rule if the proposed rule is approved, the transactions on the Away Exchange would also be nullified or adjusted as set forth above.
• If this example was instead modified such that Market Maker A was quoting in 200 series rather than 20, the Exchange notes that Market Maker A could only request that the Exchange consider as invalid their quotations in 25 of those series on other exchanges. As noted above, the Exchange has proposed to limit the proposed rule to 25 series in order to continue to process requests for review in a timely and organized fashion in order to provide certainty to market participants. This is due to the amount of coordination that will be necessary in such a scenario to confirm that the quotations in question on an away options exchange were indeed submitted by a party to a transaction on the Exchange.
Rule 6.87(k)(1)(B) describes the procedure for appealing decisions relating to obvious errors. The current rule provides, in relevant part, that a “request for review on appeal must be made via facsimile or email within thirty (30) minutes after the party making the appeal is given notification of the initial determination being appealed.” The Exchange proposes to modify this rule to remove reference to “facsimile,” and allow that requests for appeal may only be made via email. The Exchanges believes this proposed change would update the rule to reflect current technology and add transparency to the rule text.
Rule 6.65-O describes the Exchange's authority to declare trading halts in one or more options traded on the Exchange (referred herein simply to as Rule 6.65). Currently, Commentary .04 to Rule 6.65 states that the Exchange shall nullify any transaction that occurs during a trading halt in the affected option on the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to add rule text providing that, with respect to equity options (including options overlaying Exchange Traded Funds (“ETFs”), that it shall nullify any transaction that occurs during a regulatory halt as declared by the primary listing market for the underlying security. Current Commentary .03 to Rule 6.65 defines a Regulatory Halt as one “initiated by a regulatory authority in the primary market.” The Exchange believes this change is necessary to distinguish a declared regulatory halt, where the underlying security should not be actively trading on any venue, from an operational issue on the primary listing exchange where the security may continue to trade on other trading venues. This proposed change would likewise be consistent with the rule of other options exchanges.
The Exchange will announce the operative date by Trader Update. The Exchange proposes to delay the operative date of this proposal to a date within ninety (90) days after the BATS Approval Order, dated July 6, 2017. The Exchange will announce the operative date in a Trader Update.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
As described above, the Exchange and other options exchanges are seeking to further modify their harmonized rules related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The Exchange believes that the proposal to utilize a TP Provider in the event the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable will provide greater transparency and clarity with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve consistent results for participants across U.S. options exchanges while maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and protecting the public interest. Thus, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange again reiterates that it has retained the standard of the current rule for most reviews of options transactions pursuant to Rule 6.87, which is to rely on the NBBO to determine Theoretical Price if such NBBO can reasonably be relied upon. The proposal to use a TP Provider when the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange also believes its proposal to adopt language in paragraph (d) of Commentary .06 to Rule 6.87 to disclaim the liability of the Exchange and the TP Provider in connection with the proposed rule, the TP Provider's calculation of Theoretical Price, and the Exchange's use of such Theoretical Price is consistent with the Act. As noted above, this proposed language is modeled after existing language in Exchange Rules regarding “reporting authorities” that calculate indices,
As described above, the Exchange proposes a modification to the valid quotes provision to also exclude quotes in a series published by another options exchange if either party to the transaction in question submitted the orders or quotes in the series representing such options exchange's best bid or offer. The Exchange believes this proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The proposed change to Rule 6.87(k)(1)(B), to remove reference to sending requests for appeal via facsimile, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed change would update the rule to reflect current technology. This proposed change would also protect investors and the general public because it would add transparency to the rule text.
Finally, with respect to the proposed modification to the Exchange's trading halt rule, Rule 6.65, the Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section (b)(8) of the Act
Importantly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose a burden on intermarket competition but rather that it will alleviate any burden on competition because it is the result of a collaborative effort by all options exchanges to further harmonize and improve the process related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes a burden on intramarket competition because the proposed provisions apply to all market participants equally.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to 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)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4703(a) to allow members to designate when an Order with a RTFY or SCAN routing Order Attribute will be activated.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 4703(a) to allow members to designate when an Order with a RTFY or SCAN routing Order Attribute
Rule 4703 provides the various Order Attributes that may be assigned to Orders entered into the System. All Orders have a Time-in-Force,
The Exchange will implement the proposed changes upon approval by the Commission.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
With this change, and as is currently the case, all Nasdaq members may use the SCAN Order Attribute, and all Nasdaq members may use the RTFY Order Attribute if they meet its
The Exchange believes that it is equitable to limit the proposed change to RTFY or SCAN Orders because of the nature of the members that use these Order types with the current order activation delay. Currently, members that enter Orders with a RTFY or SCAN Order Attribute with delayed activation tend to represent customers on an agency basis—for example, individual retail investors.
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. All Nasdaq members may use the SCAN Order Attribute, and Nasdaq members may use the RTFY Order Attribute if they meet its requirements. Any member that may use, or is eligible to use, Orders with RTFY or SCAN Order Attributes may avail itself of the proposed change. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change promotes competition by removing a restriction on the use of two Order Attributes, thereby making the process of entering Orders with RTFY and SCAN Order Attributes more efficient and less burdensome on members. Members may not have functionality that allows them to send large numbers of RTFY and SCAN Orders to the Exchange for execution at a designated time. As discussed above, such members must either enter RTFY and SCAN Orders for immediate execution or send them to the Exchange for execution at 8 a.m. ET, relying on the Exchange to queue and activate these Orders at this single time. The Exchange is proposing to allow such queuing and activation done by the Exchange to occur at any time, since the Exchange can better handle the large number of queued Orders received by certain members. Consequently, the proposed change eliminates the burden that affects these members, but will also allow any other member that currently queues RTFY and SCAN Orders for activation at a precise time to use the Exchange for this functionality instead. Should the Exchange find a similar burden placed on members using other Orders, it may extend the proposed activation functionality to other such Orders through rulemaking. The Exchange notes that providing members greater efficiency and control over their trading may make Nasdaq a more attractive venue, which may, in turn, cause other markets to consider similar changes that would remove unnecessary restrictions to the benefit of their members. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed change will not impose any burden on competition, but rather will reduce burdens, as described above.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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 “Exchange Act” or “Act”)
The MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend MSRB Rule G-34, on CUSIP numbers, new issue, and market information requirements, (the “proposed rule change”) to more clearly express in the rule language the MSRB's longstanding interpretation that brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (collectively, “dealers”) when acting as a placement agent in a private placement of municipal securities are subject to the CUSIP number requirements under Rule G-34(a); to expand the application of the rule to cover not only dealer municipal advisors but also non-dealer municipal advisors in competitive sales of municipal securities; and to provide a limited exception from the requirements to apply for CUSIP numbers and to apply for depository eligibility. The MSRB requests that the proposed rule change be effective six months from the date of Commission approval.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB 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 MSRB has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In 1983, the SEC approved MSRB Rule G-34, on CUSIP numbers, new issue and market information requirements.
(a) Complete name of issue and series designation, if any;
(b) interest rate(s) and maturity date(s) (
(c) dated date;
(d) type of issue (
(e) type of revenue, if the issue is a revenue issue;
(f) details of all redemption provisions;
(g) the name of any company or other person in addition to the issuer obligated, directly or indirectly, with respect to the debt service on all or part of the issue (and, if part of the issue, an indication of which part); and
(h) any distinction(s) in the security or source of payment of the debt service on the issue, and an indication of the part(s) of the issue to which such distinction(s) relate.
The MSRB has become aware of confusion over the application of Rule G-34(a)(i) among dealers in municipal securities. Some industry participants have questioned whether the obligation to apply for a CUSIP number pursuant to Rule G-34(a)(i) is conditioned on the underwriter's intent to conduct a distribution of the new issue, and therefore, applies only to public offerings and not private placements. The MSRB has publicly stated the view, however, that private placements of municipal securities “generally
Despite the guidance, there have been questions in the industry regarding the application of Rule G-34(a)(i) to private placements of municipal securities, including direct purchase transactions in which a dealer acts as a placement agent.
A person satisfying the applicable conditions of the Rule 144 safe harbor is deemed not to be engaged in a distribution of the securities and therefore not an underwriter of the securities for purposes of [Securities Act of 1933] section 2(a)(11). Therefore, such a person is deemed not to be an underwriter when determining whether a sale is eligible for the [Securities Act of 1933] Section 4(1) exemption for `transactions by any person other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer.'
Preliminary note to 17 CFR 230.144.
However, other MSRB rules define underwriter by reference to Rule 15c2-12(f)(8) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”),
It is well-understood that this definition of “underwriter” includes a dealer in both a public offering and a private placement of a municipal security and is therefore not limited to public distributions. Indeed, when adopting Rule 15c2-12, to ensure private placements of municipal securities were included, the SEC changed its originally proposed definition of “underwriter” to refer to “offerings” of municipal securities, as opposed to “distributions” of municipal securities. The SEC explained the reason for this change as follows:
Some commentators suggested that since the term `underwriter' in the Proposed Rule was defined as a broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer who participated in a `distribution' the Commission had created an implicit private placement exception. Specifically, they noted that persons selling securities in an offering that did not involve a distribution would not be subject to the Rule. The word `distribution,' which was used in the definition of “underwriter” in the Proposed Rule, has been replaced with the term `offering'. This change is intended to clarify that a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer may be acting as underwriter, for purposes of the Rule, in connection with a private offering.
In 1986, the MSRB amended Rule G-34(a) to require a dealer acting as a financial advisor (“dealer municipal advisor”) in a competitive sale of a new issue of municipal securities to apply for CUSIP numbers “in sufficient time to allow for assignment of a number prior to the date of award.”
As set forth in more detail below, the proposed rule change would:
•
As noted above, the MSRB is aware that, despite guidance issued in this area, there continues to be confusion and inconsistency in the application of the CUSIP number requirements under Rule G-34(a)(i). To alleviate these issues, the proposed rule change would amend paragraph (a)(i)(A) to delete the definition of “underwriter” from the rule text and would add a new definition of “underwriter” in new section (e) on definitions. Subsection (e)(vii) would cross reference the term “underwriter” to the same term as it is defined in Exchange Act Rule 15c2-12(f)(8). This proposed rule change would codify existing interpretations and clarify in the text of the rule that dealers acting as placement agents in private placement transactions, including direct purchases of municipal securities, are subject to the CUSIP-related requirements set forth in Rule G-34(a).
•
Many non-dealer municipal advisors advise issuers with respect to
Paragraph (a)(i)(A) would be amended to apply the CUSIP number requirements to all municipal advisors (whether dealers or non-dealers) advising on a competitive sale of a new issue of municipal securities. As noted above, in 1986, the MSRB amended Rule G-34(a)(i)(A) to require a dealer “acting as a financial advisor” in a competitive sale of a new issue to apply for CUSIP numbers so as to allow assignment of the number prior to the date of award.
Subparagraph (a)(i)(A)(3) clarifies the timeframe within which municipal advisors advising on a competitive sale must make application for a CUSIP number. The current provision indicates that the financial advisor must make application by no later than one business day after dissemination of a notice of sale. The proposed rule change would amend that paragraph to include “or other such request for bids.” This additional language would ensure the timing of the application for a CUSIP number in those instances where a municipal advisor seeks bids in a competitive sale of municipal securities using documentation other than a traditional notice of sale.
•
The MSRB understands that banks in direct purchase transactions are reluctant to engage in certain financing transactions if a CUSIP number is required. While a dealer may determine from its perspective that a transaction involves a municipal security for securities law purposes, the bank purchaser may consider the transaction to be a loan for certain banking or accounting purposes, thus making the bank less likely to engage in the financing where the new issue has a CUSIP number. As a result, dealers, on behalf of their municipal issuer clients, may be hindered in their ability to directly place municipal securities with banks and issuers may have fewer financing options or providers from which to choose.
In July 1992, the MSRB sought comment on possible exemptions from Rule G-34, including in sales of smaller issues, short-term issues and issues sold to a limited number of customers (
The MSRB continues to believe that obtaining CUSIP numbers is generally a necessary aspect of, for example, tracking the trading, recordkeeping, clearance and settlement, customer account transfers and safekeeping of municipal securities, including those issued in private placements. The MSRB also is of the view that the increase in the number of direct purchase transactions between municipal issuers and banks as an alternative to letters of credit and other similar types of financings supports a limited exception from the blanket requirement to apply for CUSIP numbers in all private placements.
The proposed rule change would amend Rule G-34(a)(i) to add paragraph (F). This paragraph would add an exception from the CUSIP number requirement for situations where municipal securities are purchased directly by a bank,
Unless the context otherwise specifically requires, the terms used in the rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board shall have the respective meanings set forth in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
Exchange Act Section 3(a)(6) defines “bank” to mean:
(A) a banking institution organized under the laws of the United States or a Federal savings association, as defined in section 2(5) of the Home Owners' Loan Act, (B) a member bank of the Federal Reserve System, (C) any other banking institution or savings association, as defined in section 2(4) of the Home Owners' Loan Act, whether incorporated or not, doing business under the laws of any State or of the United States, a substantial portion of the business of which consists of receiving deposits or exercising fiduciary powers similar to those permitted to national banks under the authority of the Comptroller of the Currency pursuant to the first section of Public Law 87-722 (12 U.S.C. 92a), and which is supervised and examined by State or Federal authority having supervision over banks or savings associations, and which is not operated for the purpose of evading the provisions of this title, and (D) a receiver, conservator, or other liquidating agent of any institution or firm included in clauses (A), (B), or (C) of this paragraph.
The proposed rule change would clarify that the depository eligibility requirements of Rule G-34(a)(ii)(A) do not apply in the case of an exemption under Rule G-34(d), which exempts securities that are ineligible for CUSIP number assignment and municipal fund securities. Further, the proposed rule change would add subparagraph (a)(ii)(A)(3), providing an exception from the depository eligibility requirements in instances where the new issue is purchased directly by a bank,
•
The proposed rule change also would make technical and non-substantive amendments as follows:
• The proposed rule change would move definitions that apply generally throughout the rule into a new section
• The proposed rule change would amend the rule to make more specific references to the provision that describes information necessary for CUSIP number assignments. Currently, the rule refers throughout to paragraph (a)(i)(A). The proposed rule change would amend these references to refer to subparagraph (a)(i)(A)(4). Similarly, references in the rule to the enumerated items to be included in a CUSIP number application would be changed from “(1) through (8)” to “(a) through (h).”
• Finally, the proposed rule change would change capitalized defined terms to lower case, as appropriate throughout the rule, and would amend references to sections, subsections, paragraphs and subparagraphs, as necessary, to be consistent with other MSRB rule formatting.
The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,
The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act requires that MSRB rules not be designed to impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
The intent of the proposed rule change is to (1) clarify in rule text the MSRB's longstanding view that dealers acting as placement agents in private placements of municipal securities, including direct purchases, are underwriters and thus must apply for CUSIP numbers for new issues; and (2) apply the CUSIP number requirements to all municipal advisors advising on a competitive sale of municipal securities. In addition, the proposed rule change provides a principles-based exception for dealers and municipal advisors from the CUSIP number requirements and for dealers from the depository eligibility requirements in certain direct purchase transactions.
The MSRB believes the proposed rule change would reduce regulatory uncertainty for underwriters and municipal advisors with regard to the requirement to apply for CUSIP numbers. Pursuant to the proposed rule change, dealers would know with greater certainty when application for a CUSIP number is required in private placement transactions. Similarly, while in practice some non-dealer municipal advisors may be applying for CUSIP numbers in a competitive offering before the final award is made,
The MSRB believes that the principles-based exception from the CUSIP number requirements for dealers and municipal advisors may limit or reduce those instances where a dealer or municipal advisor may be required to apply for a CUSIP number in a direct purchase transaction. The MSRB believes that for dealers currently complying with the CUSIP number requirements in private placement transactions, the proposed rule change
The MSRB believes that in instances where dealers or municipal advisors can rely on the principles-based exception based on their reasonable belief that, at the time of a purchase, a purchaser intends to hold the new issue of municipal securities to maturity, there is a risk of reduced transparency if, in the future, the purchaser decides to resell the securities without a CUSIP number. This could result in information asymmetry and price dislocation with respect to the subsequent purchaser.
While non-dealer municipal advisors would now be required to apply for CUSIP numbers when advising in competitive sales of new issue municipal securities, the rule change per se does not necessarily impose on them the cost of applying for the CUSIP number. According to staff at CUSIP Global Services (“CUSIP Services”), typically only the winning bidder for a competitive deal is billed after the CUSIP numbers are assigned. Even though the request for a CUSIP number may have come from a municipal advisor, it is not mandatory for the party applying for the CUSIP number to be billed for the fees (unless the applicant for the CUSIP number asks to be billed).
The MSRB believes non-dealer municipal advisors, and to a much lesser extent, dealers, are likely to incur new up-front costs associated with the development of regulatory compliance policies and procedures. Some industry stakeholders
Some industry stakeholders suggested that the MSRB should allow the use of other standard identifiers in addition to CUSIP numbers, as these commenters believed other identifiers may be easier and less costly to obtain.
On March 1, 2017, the MSRB published a request for comment (“First RFC”), proposing draft amendments to Rule G-34.
The majority of commenters to the First RFC opposed the MSRB's draft amendment to Rule G-34(a)(i) that would clarify the requirement for
Nine commenters supported an exception from the CUSIP number requirement for private placements sold to a single purchaser or a limited number of purchasers.
Two commenters objected to the proposed parenthetical in the draft amendment to Rule G-34(a), “. . . each broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer acting as an underwriter (
Some commenters stated that private placements, by their nature, should not have CUSIP numbers because they are private transactions, and others stated that not obtaining a CUSIP number ensures the municipal securities will not be resold.
One commenter indicated that while it does not take a position on when CUSIP numbers should or should not be obtained, it would be concerned about the potential disclosure consequences in the EMMA system if the proposed amendments and clarifications would result in more bank loans, direct purchases and private placements requiring CUSIP numbers.
One commenter suggested that the MSRB use this opportunity to consider allowing the use of open standard identifiers for financial transactions and products in place of CUSIP numbers as a regulatory alternative to mandating that only CUSIP numbers be used.
Finally, two commenters urged the MSRB to make any amendment prospective, regardless of whether it is deemed a clarification to an existing rule.
Five commenters believed non-dealer municipal advisors should not be required to apply for CUSIP numbers in competitive new issues of municipal securities.
Four commenters supported the draft amendment to require non-dealer municipal advisors to be subject to the requirements of Rule G-34(a) with respect to competitive transactions.
After carefully considering commenters' suggestions and concerns, on June 1, 2017, the MSRB published a second request for comment (“Second RFC”).
In response to commenters who opposed the clarification of the term “underwriter” that would result in a blanket requirement for dealers to apply for CUSIP numbers in all private placements, the MSRB proposed a limited exception from this requirement as noted above. Six of the 16 commenters generally supported the MSRB's proposed exception.
Some commenters supported the exception but suggested an expansion of the types of purchasers that could fit within its parameters. In particular, four commenters suggested that in addition to banks, as defined in the Second RFC, the MSRB should expand the exception also to apply to local governments privately purchasing municipal securities.
The ABA emphasized that many banks use bank holding company affiliates to provide municipal funding and the majority of these funding subsidiaries are non-bank entities. BDA similarly asked that further clarification be given to confirm that the exception would apply where a bank negotiates the purchase but the actual purchaser is a non-bank affiliate, and where there is more than one bank purchasing in a transaction.
Several commenters suggested that the principles-based exception needs further clarification. Specifically, three commenters believed additional language should be added to require the investor to represent its intention to hold the securities to maturity and limit resales.
Two commenters opposed the exception.
Upon consideration of the comments received in response to the Second RFC, the MSRB is proposing an expanded exception to include purchasers that are non-dealer control affiliates of a bank. Based on comments received, the MSRB understands that in many direct purchase transactions there may be business reasons to hold a new issue municipal security in an affiliated entity that is not a bank. The MSRB further agrees that the exception should not be available if the entity purchasing or holding the municipal security is a dealer affiliate. With respect to expanding the exception to include local governments purchasing municipal securities, the MSRB understands that in these scenarios the transactions are negotiated directly between the two parties, without the involvement of an underwriter. As a result, the CUSIP number requirements of Rule G-34(a)(i) would not apply and the need to expand the exception to include these scenarios is unnecessary.
In addition, the proposed exception would require the dealer to have a reasonable belief that the purchaser is purchasing with a present intent to hold the securities to maturity. Commenters asked for a more prescriptive requirement as to how one would show a reasonable belief. However, the MSRB believes dealers should determine the best way to make such a determination based on their particular business and practices. The determination could be made based upon, for example, a representation from the purchaser, though obtaining a representation is not required. Indeed, as a general matter, the proposed rule would not dictate the way in which a dealer must arrive at the “reasonable belief.” In addition, the proposed rule would not include
In the Second RFC, the MSRB proposed draft amendments that generally would require all municipal advisors in competitive new issues to apply for CUSIP numbers. Reference to “competitive offering” was meant to refer to competitive offerings in a typical public distribution of municipal securities. However, the MSRB noted its understanding that there are direct purchase scenarios in which the municipal advisor arranges competitive bids from, for example, three banks competing for a direct purchase. In circumstances like those, the MSRB indicated that the security purchased by the winning direct purchaser may not require a CUSIP number if the municipal advisor, like the dealer placement agent described above in a direct purchase by a bank, could make a principled determination that trading is unlikely and, thus, CUSIP numbers are not necessary. The Second RFC proposed draft amendments that would allow a municipal advisor to rely on the exception from the CUSIP number requirement if the conditions were met.
Five commenters believed Rule G-34 should not apply to any municipal advisors and that the obligation to obtain a CUSIP number should rest solely with the underwriter.
Two commenters indicated that the costs on non-dealer municipal advisors of complying with the proposed obligations, including creating and implementing policies and procedures, would be problematic and create a new regulatory burden.
Three commenters supported the MSRB's efforts to address any potential regulatory inefficiencies between dealer and non-dealer municipal advisors.
The MSRB believes the policy reasons to require dealer municipal advisors to apply for CUSIP numbers in competitive sales of new issue securities are just as applicable to non-dealer municipal advisors. Further, removing the municipal advisor (whether dealer or non-dealer) altogether from the requirement could result in trading delays where the winning dealer in a competitive transaction applies for the CUSIP number after the award is made. In the alternative, removal of dealer municipal advisors from the requirement could result in inefficiencies where multiple dealers apply for CUSIP numbers for the same transaction before the award is made and subsequently cancel them if they are not selected as the winning dealer. The proposed rule change therefore would require municipal advisors, both dealer and non-dealer alike, to apply for CUSIP numbers for new issue securities when advising on a competitive sale of such new issue securities. This ensures efficiencies in the market by requiring CUSIP numbers to be assigned prior to the award of the issue in a competitive sale where a municipal advisor is retained. Where the competitive sale might result in a direct purchase by a bank, its non-dealer control affiliates or a consortium thereof, the municipal advisor may determine not to obtain a CUSIP number if it reasonably believes the purchaser's present intent is to hold the municipal securities to maturity. If the structure of the transaction changes after a municipal advisor has applied for the CUSIP number, Rule G-34(a)(i)(A)(5) requires that the information provided in the CUSIP number application be updated as soon as it is known, but in any event, no later than a time sufficient to ensure CUSIP number assignment occurs prior to dissemination of the time of first execution. The MSRB would expect the regulated entity that originally applied for the CUSIP number to comply with Rule G-34(a)(i)(A)(5) to correct any CUSIP number information inconsistencies.
Three commenters expressed their view that the MSRB should not require the use of a proprietary, for-profit identifier such as CUSIP.
The MSRB understands commenters' concerns with respect to this issue, but, because this issue arises in numerous other contexts, believes it should be considered separately from this
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend paragraphs (b)(3)(M) and (N) of Rule 11.13, Order Execution and Routing, to expand the ability of Users
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.
Exchange Rule 11.13(b)(3)(N) describes the ROOC routing option, under which Users may designate their orders for participation in the opening or closing process, in addition to the re-opening (following a halt, suspension, or pause), of a primary listing market other than the Exchange, if received before the opening/re-opening/closing time of such market.
IEX announced that it intends to become a primary listing exchange and support IEX-listed companies beginning in October 2017.
Lastly, the Exchange also proposes non-substantive amendments to paragraphs (b)(3)(M) and (N) of Rule 11.13 as well as Rules 11.24(c)(1) and 11.26(a) to reflect the name change of NYSE MKT to NYSE American.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
Lastly, the non-substantive amendments to paragraphs (b)(3)(M) and (N) of Rule 11.13 as well as Rules 11.24(c)(1) and 11.26(a) to reflect the name change of NYSE MKT to NYSE American also removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it updates the rules to reflect the name change and does not alter the way in which orders in NYSE American listed securities are handled and routed.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that its proposal would increase competition because it offers Users an alternative means to route orders to participate in IEX's opening, closing, and re-opening following a halt, suspension, or pause as if they entered orders on that market directly.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms, 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
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: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) 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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to remove language from Chapter 19 related to a systems issue that has been resolved with the completed migration of the Exchange to Nasdaq INET.
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 remove language from Chapter 19 related to a systems issue that has been resolved with the completed migration of the Exchange to Nasdaq INET. On June 6, 2017, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to amend Chapter 19 to notify members of a systems issue related to allocations made pursuant to Supplementary Material .02(a)-(b) to Rule 1901 (“Flash auction”).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings 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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
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
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to: (i) Outline the fees for MidPoint Discretionary Orders (“MDO”)
In sum, an MDO is a limit order to buy that is displayed at and pegged to the National Best Bid (“NBB”), with discretion to execute at prices up to and including the midpoint of the National Best Bid and Offer (“NBBO”), or a limit order to sell that is displayed at and pegged to the National Best Offer (“NBO”), with discretion to execute at prices down to and including the midpoint of the NBBO.
Today, an MDO is subject to the standard rates for adding or removing liquidity when executed at the NBB or NBO to which it is pegged. The standard rate for adding or removing liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00 is $0.0003 per share and free for securities priced below $1.00.
The Exchange now proposes to adopt new fee codes DA and DR as well as amend the descriptions of fee codes DM and DT in order to outline the fees for MDOs. Today, a non-displayed order that adds liquidity yields fee code HA and is free for securities priced at, above, or below $1.00. A non-displayed order that removes liquidity yields fee code HR and is charged a fee of $0.0005 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.05% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00. Absent this proposed rule change, beginning on September 15, 2017, an MDO that is non-displayed on the EDGA Book would yield fee codes HA or HR when executed at its pegged price.
The Exchange now proposed to adopt new fee codes DA and DR that would apply to all MDO that are executed at their pegged price, regardless of whether they are displayed or not. Fee code DA would be appended to all MDOs that add liquidity not within their discretionary range (
The Exchange also proposes to amend the descriptions of fee codes DM and DT to clarify that those fee codes apply when an MDO is executed within its discretionary range. The description of fee code DM currently states that it applies to a non-displayed order that adds liquidity using an MDO. Likewise, the description of fee code DT states that it applies to a non-displayed order that removes liquidity using an MDO. These descriptions were designed to include an MDO executed at a non-displayed price within its discretionary range and not at its displayed pegged price. In light of the proposed fee codes DA and DR that set forth fees for MDOs executed at their pegged price, the Exchange proposed to amend the descriptions of fee codes DM and DT to make clear they apply to MDOs executed within their discretionary range. As such, the description of fee code DM would be amended to state that it applies when an MDO adds liquidity within its discretionary range and the description of fee code DT would be amended to state that it applies when an MDO removes liquidity within its discretionary range. The Exchange does not propose to amend the rates applicable to fee codes DM and DT.
The Exchange offers two tiers under footnote 1, the RMPT/RMPL Tiers under which a Member receives a discounted fee of either $0.0006 or $0.0008 per share for orders yielding fee code PX
The Exchange proposes to implement these changes to its fee schedule on September 1, 2017. The remaining changes to its fee schedule applicable to non-displayed MDOs will be applicable until September 15, 2017 when that functionality becomes available.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that its proposal to outline the fees for MDOs represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its facilities in that they are designed to clearly delineate the rates applicable when an MDO is executed at its pegged price or within its discretionary range, in light of upcoming functionality that would enable a User to elect that their MDO not be displayed on the EDGA Book. As noted above, proposed new fee codes DA and DR result in no rate change for displayed MDOs and a fee decrease from $0.0005 per share to $0.003 per share for non-displayed MDOs when both are executed at their pegged price [sic]. The Exchange believes it is equitable and reasonable to charge a lower fee to MDOs than other non-displayed orders here as MDOs add liquidity at the NBBO while offering price improvement opportunities to incoming contra-side orders that execute within its discretionary range. The amendments to the descriptions of fee codes DM and DT are also equitable and reasonable in that they clarify the application of those fee codes, thereby avoiding potential investor confusion. Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments are non-discriminatory because they apply uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange believe that the amendments to the RMPL/RMPT Tiers are also reasonable and equitable because it is designed to attract additional midpoint liquidity to the Exchange by removing a tier with lower ADV requirement, resulting in increased price improvement opportunities for orders seeking an execution at the midpoint of the NBBO on the Exchange or elsewhere. In addition, increasing the rate for the remaining tier is designed to cover the Exchange's routing costs while continuing to provide the Exchange revenue to be used to fund the Exchange generally. This includes the cost of maintaining and improving the technology used to handle and route orders from the Exchange as well as programs that the Exchange believes help to attract additional liquidity and thus improve the depth of liquidity available on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that routing through the Exchange is voluntary. The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments are non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
In addition, volume-based rebates such as that proposed herein have been widely adopted by exchanges and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to: (i) The value to an exchange's market quality; (ii) associated higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns; and (iii) the introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes. The Exchange believes that the proposed tier is a reasonable, fair and equitable, and not an unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees and rebates, because it will provide Members with an additional incentive to reach certain thresholds on the Exchange.
This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that this change represents a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or from pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. The proposed rates would apply uniformly to all Members, and Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. Further, excessive fees would serve to impair an exchange's ability to compete for order flow and members rather than burdening competition. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 975NY (Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors) and Rule 953NY (Trading Halts and Suspensions). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to amend Rule 975NY, relating to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous transactions, and Rule 953NY, regarding trading halts and suspensions. The Exchange's proposal is based on that of Bats BZX (“BATS”), which the Commission approved on July 6, 2017, and those that the other options exchanges intend to file.
The Exchange and other options exchanges adopted a harmonized rule related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions, including a specific provision related to coordination in connection with large-scale events involving erroneous options transactions.
Under the harmonized rule, when reviewing a transaction as potentially erroneous, the Exchange needs to first determine the “Theoretical Price” of the option,
The Rule also contains various provisions governing specific situations where the NBB or NBO is not available or may not be reliable. Specifically, the Rule identifies situations in which there are no quotes or no valid quotes for comparison purposes, when the national best bid or offer (“NBBO”) is determined to be too wide to be reliable, and at the open of trading on each trading day. In each of these circumstances because the NBB or NBO is not available or is deemed to be unreliable, the Exchange determines the Theoretical Price. Under the current Rule, when determining Theoretical Price, Exchange personnel generally consult and refer to data such as the prices of related series, especially the closest strikes in the option in question. Exchange personnel may also take into account the price of the underlying security and the volatility characteristics of the option as well as historical pricing of the option and/or similar options. Although the Rule is administered by experienced personnel and the Exchange believes the process is currently appropriate, the Exchange recognizes that it is also subjective and could lead to disparate results for a transaction that spans multiple options exchanges.
The Exchange proposes new Commentary .06 to specify how the Exchange will determine Theoretical Price when required by sub-paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of the Rule (
Pursuant to proposed Commentary .06, when the Exchange must determine Theoretical Price pursuant to the sub-paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of the Rule, the Exchange will request the Theoretical Price from the third party vendor to which the Exchange and all other options exchanges have subscribed. Thus, as set forth in this proposed language, Theoretical Price would be provided to the Exchange by the TP Provider on request and not through a streaming data feed.
Because the purpose of the proposal is to move away from a subjective determination by Exchange personnel when the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable, the Exchange intends to use the Theoretical Price provided by the TP Provider in all such circumstances. However, the Exchange believes it is necessary to retain the ability to contact the TP Provider if it believes that the Theoretical Price provided is fundamentally incorrect and to determine the Theoretical Price in the limited circumstance of a systems issue experienced by the TP Provider, as described below.
As proposed, to the extent an Official
The Exchange believes that the proposal to allow an Exchange Official to contact the TP Provider if he or she believes the provided Theoretical Price is fundamentally incorrect is necessary, particularly because the Exchange and other options exchanges will be using the new process for the first time.
Pursuant to proposed paragraph (c) to Commentary .06, an Official of the Exchange may determine the Theoretical Price if the TP Provider has experienced a systems issue that has rendered its services unavailable to accurately calculate Theoretical Price and such issue cannot be corrected in a timely manner. The Exchange notes that it does not anticipate needing to rely on this provision frequently, if at all, but believes the provision is necessary nonetheless to best prepare for all potential circumstances. Further, consistent with existing text in Rule 975NY(e)(4), the Exchange has not proposed a specific time by which the service must be available in order to be considered timely.
The Exchange also proposes language in paragraph (d) of Commentary .06 to Rule 975NY to disclaim the liability of the Exchange and the TP Provider in connection with the proposed rule, the TP Provider's calculation of Theoretical Price, and the Exchange's use of such Theoretical Price. Specifically, the proposed rule would state that neither the Exchange, the TP Provider, nor any affiliate of the TP Provider (the TP Provider and its affiliates are referred to collectively as the “TP Provider”), makes any warranty, express or implied, as to the results to be obtained by any person or entity from the use of the TP Provider pursuant to Commentary .06. The proposed rule would further state that the TP Provider does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the calculated Theoretical Price and that the TP Provider disclaims all warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use with respect to such Theoretical Price. Finally, the proposed Rule would state that neither the Exchange nor the TP Provider shall have any liability for any damages, claims, losses (including any indirect or consequential losses), expenses, or delays, whether direct or indirect, foreseen or unforeseen, suffered by any person arising out of any circumstance or occurrence relating to the use of such Theoretical Price or arising out of any errors or delays in calculating such Theoretical Price. This proposed language is modeled after existing language in Exchange Rules regarding “reporting authorities” that calculate indices.
In connection with the proposed change described above, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 975NY to state that the Exchange will rely on paragraph (b) and Commentary .06 when determining Theoretical Price.
As described above, one of the times where the NBB or NBO is deemed to be unreliable for purposes of Theoretical Price is when there are no quotes or no valid quotes for the affected series. In addition to when there are no quotes, the Exchange does not consider the following to be valid quotes: (i) All quotes in the applicable option series published at a time where the last NBB is higher than the last NBO in such series (a “crossed market”); (ii) quotes published by the Exchange that were submitted by either party to the transaction in question; and (iii) quotes published by another options exchange against which the Exchange has declared self-help. In recognition of today's market structure where certain participants actively provide liquidity on multiple exchanges simultaneously, the Exchange proposes to add a category of invalid quotes. Specifically, in order to avoid a situation where a market participant has established the market at an erroneous price on multiple exchanges, the Exchange proposes to consider as invalid the quotes in a series published by another options exchange if either party to the transaction in question submitted the quotes in the series representing such options exchange's best bid or offer. Thus, similar to being able to ignore for purposes of the Rule the quotes published by the Exchange if submitted by either party to the transaction in question, the Exchange would be able to ignore for purposes of the rule
In order to continue to apply the Rule in a timely and organized fashion, however, the Exchange proposes to initially limit the scope of this proposed provision in two ways in new paragraph (C) to Rule 975NY(b)(2).
Below are examples of both the current rule and the rule as proposed to be amended.
For purposes of this example, assume the following:
• A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange (“Market Maker A”) is quoting in twenty series of options underlying security ABCD on the Exchange (and only the Exchange).
• Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell options at $1.05.
• In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.
• Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00 × $1.05 (with the Exchange representing the NBBO based on Market Maker A's quotes).
• Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.
• Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange a timely request for review of the trades with Member A as potentially erroneous transactions to buy.
• Based on the Exchange's current rules, the Exchange would identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and would consider Market Maker A's quotations invalid pursuant to Rule 975NY(b)(2).
• As there were no other valid quotes to use as a reference price, the Exchange would then determine Theoretical Price.
• Assume the Exchange determines a Theoretical Price of $0.05.
○ The execution price of $1.00 exceeds the $0.25 minimum amount set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether an obvious error has occurred (
○ Accordingly, the executions in all series would be adjusted by the Exchange to executions at $0.20 per contract (Theoretical Price of $0.05 plus $0.15) to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were non-Customer orders.
○ The executions in all series would be nullified to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were Customer orders.
For purposes of this example, assume the following:
• A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange (“Market Maker A”) is quoting in twenty series of options underlying security ABCD on the Exchange and on a second exchange (“Away Exchange”).
• Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes on both the Exchange and the Away Exchange in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell options at $1.05.
• In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.
• Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00 × $1.05 (with the Exchange and the Away Exchange representing the NBBO based on Market Maker A's quotes).
• Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.
• Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange and to the Away Exchange timely requests for review of the trades with Member A as potentially erroneous transactions to buy.
• Based on the Exchange's current rules, the Exchange would identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and would consider Market Maker A's quotations on the Exchange invalid pursuant to Rule 975NY(b)(2). The Exchange, however, would view the Away Exchange's quotations as valid, and would thus determine Theoretical Price to be $1.05 (
• The execution price of $1.00 does not exceed the $0.25 minimum amount set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether an obvious error has occurred (
• The transactions on the Exchange would not be nullified or adjusted.
• As the Exchange and all other options exchanges have identical rules with respect to the process described above, the transactions on the Away Exchange would not be nullified or adjusted.
• For purposes of this example, assume the following:
• A Member acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange (“Market Maker A”) is quoting in twenty series of options underlying security ABCD on the Exchange and on a second exchange (“Away Exchange”).
• Market Maker A makes an error in calculating the market for options on ABCD, and publishes quotes on both the Exchange and the Away Exchange in all twenty series to buy options at $1.00 and to sell options at $1.05.
• In fact, options on ABCD in these series are nearly worthless and no other market participant is quoting in such series.
• Therefore, the NBBO in the twenty series at issue is $1.00 × $1.05 (with the Exchange and the Away Exchange representing the NBBO based on Market Maker A's quotes).
• Assume Member A immediately enters sell orders and executes against Market Maker A's quotes at $1.00.
• Assume Market Maker A submits to the Exchange and to the Away Exchange timely requests for review of the trades with Member A as potentially erroneous transactions to buy. At the time of submitting the requests for review to the Exchange and the Away Exchange, Market Maker A identifies to the Exchange the quotes on the Away Exchange as quotes also represented by Market Maker A (and to the Away Exchange, the quotes on the Exchange as quotes also represented by Market Maker A).
• Based on the proposed rules, the Exchange would identify Market Maker A as a participant to the trades at issue and would consider Market Maker A's quotations on the Exchange invalid pursuant to Rule 975NY(b)(2).
• The Exchange and the Away Exchange would also coordinate to confirm that the quotations identified by Market Maker A on the other exchange were indeed Market Maker A's quotations. Once confirmed, each of the Exchange and the Away Exchange would also consider invalid the quotations published on the other exchange.
• As there were no other valid quotes to use as a reference price, the Exchange would then determine Theoretical Price.
• Assume the Exchange determines a Theoretical Price of $0.05.
○ The execution price of $1.00 exceeds the $0.25 minimum amount set forth in the Exchange's table to determine whether an obvious error has occurred (
○ Accordingly, the executions in all series would be adjusted by the Exchange to executions at $0.20 per contract (Theoretical Price of $0.05 plus $0.15) to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were non-Customer orders.
○ The executions in all series would be nullified to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Member A were Customer orders.
• As the Exchange and all other options exchanges would have identical rules with respect to the process described above, as other options exchanges intend to adopt the same rule if the proposed rule is approved, the transactions on the Away Exchange would also be nullified or adjusted as set forth above.
• If this example was instead modified such that Market Maker A was quoting in 200 series rather than 20, the Exchange notes that Market Maker A could only request that the Exchange consider as invalid their quotations in 25 of those series on other exchanges. As noted above, the Exchange has proposed to limit the proposed rule to 25 series in order to continue to process requests for review in a timely and organized fashion in order to provide certainty to market participants. This is due to the amount of coordination that will be necessary in such a scenario to confirm that the quotations in question on an away options exchange were indeed submitted by a party to a transaction on the Exchange.
Rule 975NY(k)(1)(B) describes the procedure for appealing decisions relating to obvious errors. The current rule provides, in relevant part, that a “request for review on appeal must be made via facsimile or email within thirty (30) minutes after the party making the appeal is given notification of the initial determination being appealed.” The Exchange proposes to modify this rule to remove reference to “facsimile,” and allow that requests for appeal may only be made via email. The Exchanges believes this proposed change would update the rule to reflect current technology and add transparency to the rule text.
Rule 953NY describes the Exchange's authority to declare trading halts in one or more options traded on the Exchange. Currently, Commentary .04 to Rule 953NY states that the Exchange shall nullify any transaction that occurs during a trading halt in the affected option on the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to add rule text providing that, with respect to equity options (including options overlaying Exchange Traded Funds (“ETFs”)), that it shall nullify any transaction that occurs during a regulatory halt as declared by the primary listing market for the underlying security. Current Commentary .03 to Rule 953NY defines a Regulatory Halt as one “initiated by a regulatory authority in the primary market.” The Exchange believes this change is necessary to distinguish a declared regulatory halt, where the underlying security should not be actively trading on any venue, from an operational issue on the primary listing exchange where the security may continue to trade on other trading venues. This proposed change would likewise be consistent with the rule of other options exchanges.
The Exchange will announce the operative date by Trader Update. The Exchange proposes to delay the operative date of this proposal to a date within ninety (90) days after the BATS Approval Order, dated July 6, 2017. The Exchange will announce the operative date in a Trader Update.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
As described above, the Exchange and other options exchanges are seeking to further modify their harmonized rules related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The Exchange believes that the proposal to utilize a TP Provider in the event the NBBO is unavailable or unreliable will provide greater transparency and clarity with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve consistent results for participants across U.S. options exchanges while maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and protecting the public interest. Thus, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange again reiterates that it has retained the standard of the current rule for most reviews of options transactions pursuant to Rule 975NY, which is to rely on the NBBO to determine Theoretical Price if such NBBO can reasonably be relied upon. The proposal to use a TP Provider when
The Exchange also believes its proposal to adopt language in paragraph (d) of Commentary .06 to Rule 975NY to disclaim the liability of the Exchange and the TP Provider in connection with the proposed rule, the TP Provider's calculation of Theoretical Price, and the Exchange's use of such Theoretical Price is consistent with the Act. As noted above, this proposed language is modeled after existing language in Exchange Rules regarding “reporting authorities” that calculate indices,
As described above, the Exchange proposes a modification to the valid quotes provision to also exclude quotes in a series published by another options exchange if either party to the transaction in question submitted the orders or quotes in the series representing such options exchange's best bid or offer. The Exchange believes this proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The proposed change to Rule 975NY(k)(1)(B), to remove reference to sending requests for appeal via facsimile, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed change would update the rule to reflect current technology. This proposed change would also protect investors and the general public because it would add transparency to the rule text.
Finally, with respect to the proposed modification to the Exchange's trading halt rule, Rule 953NY, the Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section (b)(8) of the Act
Importantly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose a burden on intermarket competition but rather that it will alleviate any burden on competition because it is the result of a collaborative effort by all options exchanges to further harmonize and improve the process related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The Exchange does not believe that the rules applicable to such process is an area where options exchanges should compete, but rather, that all options exchanges should have consistent rules to the extent possible. Particularly where a market participant trades on several different exchanges and an erroneous trade may occur on multiple markets nearly simultaneously, the Exchange believes that a participant should have a consistent experience with respect to the nullification or adjustment of transactions. To that end, the selection and implementation of a TP Provider utilized by all options exchanges will further reduce the possibility that participants with potentially erroneous transactions that span multiple options exchanges are handled differently on such exchanges. Similarly, the proposed ability to consider quotations invalid on another options exchange if ultimately originating from a party to a potentially erroneous transaction on the Exchange represents a proposal intended to further foster cooperation by the options exchanges with respect to market events. The Exchange understands that all other options exchanges either have or intend to file proposals that are substantially similar to this proposal.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes a
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to 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)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to add a missing letter to Section IV, Part D of the Pricing Schedule.
The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed new language is italicized.
The Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”) is assessed by Phlx to each Phlx member for options transactions cleared by The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) in the Customer range where: (1) the execution occurs on Phlx or (2) the execution occurs on another exchange and is cleared by a Phlx member. The ORF is collected by OCC on behalf of Phlx from (1) Phlx
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 recently filed a proposal to amend the Exchange's Options Regulatory Fee at Section IV, Part D of the Pricing Schedule.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange proposes to correct the typographical error in the rule text of the Pricing Schedule related to the manner in which the Exchange collects the Options Regulatory Fee. The Exchange believes that clarifying the rule text is consistent with the Act in that it will protect investors and the public interest by correcting the spelling of a word to make clear the intended meaning.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is a non-substantive amendment to correct a typographical error related to the spelling of a word in the rule text.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (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)
The Exchange proposes to amend (i) NYSE Arca Rule 7.35-E (Auctions) to provide that Market-on-Open (“MOO”), Limit-on-Open (“LOO”) Orders, and Imbalance Offset (“IO”) Orders would be cancelled if the Re-Opening Time for a Trading Halt Auction would be in the last ten minutes of trading before the end of Core Trading Hours; (ii) NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E (Orders and Modifiers) regarding IO Orders; and (iii) NYSE Arca Rule 7.23-E (Obligations of Market Makers) to amend obsolete cross references. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend (i) NYSE Arca Rule 7.35-E (Auctions) (“Rule 7.35-E”) to provide that MOO, LOO, and IO Orders would be cancelled if the Re-Opening Time for a Trading Halt Auction would be in the last ten minutes of trading before the end of Core Trading Hours; (ii) NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E (Orders and Modifiers) (“Rule 7.31-E”) regarding IO Orders; and (iii) NYSE Arca Rule 7.23-E (Obligations of Market Makers) (“Rule 7.23-E”) to amend obsolete cross references.
Rule 7.35-E(e)(10) provides that if the Reopening Time for a Trading Halt Auction would be in the last ten minutes of trading before the end of Core Trading Hours, the Exchange will not conduct a Trading Halt Auction in that security, will not transition to continuous trading, will remain paused, and will conduct a Closing Auction in such security as provided for in Rule 7.35-E(d). Rule 7.35-E(e)(10)(A) further provides that in such circumstances, MOO Orders, LOO Orders, and IO Orders entered during the pause or halt will not participate in the Closing Auction and will expire at the end of the Core Trading Session.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.35-E(e)(10)(A) to provide that in such circumstances, MOO Orders, LOO Orders, and IO Orders entered during the pause or halt will not participate in the Closing Auction and will be cancelled. This proposed rule change is not intended to make any functional changes to when MOO Orders, LOO Orders, and IO Orders are eligible to trade at the Exchange; these orders still would not participate in a Closing
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 7.31-E(c)(5), which defines the term IO Order, to provide that such orders would be available only to ETP Holders using Pillar phase II protocols.
The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed amendments to Rules 7.35-E and 7.31-E at the same time that it implements previously-approved changes to Rule 7.35-E and 7.31-E, which the Exchange previously stated that it anticipated implementing in the third quarter of 2017.
The Exchange also proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rules 7.23-E(a)(1)(B)(iii) and (iv) to remove obsolete cross references and to reflect that the applicable percentages are based on how a security is designated under the Plan.
• The phrase “securities subject to Rule 7.11-E(a)(i)” would be replaced with the phrases “Tier 1 NMS Stocks under the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan” or “Tier 1 NMS Stocks;”
• the phrase “securities subject to Rule 7.11-E(a)(ii)” would be replaced with the phrases “Tier 2 NMS Stocks under the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan with a price equal to or greater than $1.00” or “Tier 2 NMS Stocks with a price equal to or greater than $1.00;”
• the phrase “securities subject to Rule 7.11-E(a)(iii)” would be replaced with the phrase “Tier 2 NMS Stocks with a price lower than $1.00;” and
• the phrase “when Rule 7.11-E is not in effect” would be deleted.
Because rights and warrants are not subject to the Plan, but are subject to market maker quoting requirements, the Exchange proposes to provide that for purposes of Rule 7.23-E(a)(1)(B)(iii) and (iv), rights and warrants would be considered Tier 2 NMS Stocks. This proposed rule text is consistent with current practice and the now-obsolete cross references to Rule 7.11.
The Exchange also proposes a non-substantive amendment to Rule 7.23-E(a)(2) to replace the current reference to “Rule 4.1-E” with a reference to “the provisions of Rule 15c3-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.” Rule 4.1-E requires ETP Holders to maintain minimum net capital in accordance with the provisions of Rule 15c3-1 under the Act. Accordingly, by referencing Rule 15c3-1 under the Act instead of Rule 4.1-E, the proposed rule change to Rule 7.23-E(a)(2) would not make any substantive changes to the rule. This proposed rule change is based on NYSE American Rule 7.23E(a)(2).
The Exchange proposes that the amendments to Rule 7.23-E would be operative upon the operative date of this proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 7.35-E would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed rule change would provide ETP Holders with timely information regarding the status of MOO Orders, LOO Orders, and IO Orders, which are intended to participate in a Trading Halt Auction, if there is a trading pause or halt that extends past the last ten minutes of trading of Core Trading Hours. In such
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to Rule 7.31-E would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed rule change would provide transparency to ETP Holders regarding which communication protocol should be used for entering IO Orders.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 7.23-E would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed rule change is designed to remove obsolete cross references. The proposed rule change is based on the rules of NYSE American and BZX.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues but rather to provide ETP Holders with more timely information about the status of orders intended for a Trading Halt Auction and which communication protocol to use for entering IO Orders. In addition, the proposed rule change is designed to remove obsolete cross references and is based on the rules of NYSE American and BZX.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to 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
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to list and trade under Nasdaq Rule 5745 (Exchange-Traded Managed Fund
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 list and trade the Shares of the Fund under Nasdaq Rule 5745, which governs the listing and trading of exchange-traded managed fund shares, as defined in Nasdaq Rule 5745(c)(1), on the Exchange.
The CMS Trust is registered with the Commission as an open-end investment company and has filed a Registration Statement with the Commission.
Calvert Research and Management,
In the event that (a) the Adviser registers as a broker-dealer or becomes newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or sub-adviser to the Fund is a registered broker-dealer or is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such adviser or sub-adviser will implement and will maintain a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel and/or such broker-dealer affiliate, if applicable, regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding such portfolio.
Foreside Fund Services, LLC will be the principal underwriter and distributor of the Fund's Shares. State Street Bank and Trust Company will act as the accounting agent, custodian and transfer agent to the Fund. ICE Data Services will be the intraday indicative value (“IIV”) calculator to the Fund.
The Fund will be actively managed and will pursue the principal investment strategies described below.
The investment objective of the Fund is to seek to maximize income, to the extent consistent with preservation of capital, through investment in bonds and income-producing securities.
The Fund will seek to achieve its investment objective by investing, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of its net assets (including borrowings for investment purposes) in a portfolio of floating-rate debt securities (
Shares will be issued and redeemed on a daily basis at the Fund's next-determined net asset value (“NAV”)
The creation and redemption process for the Fund may be effected “in kind,” in cash, or in a combination of securities and cash. Creation “in kind” means that an Authorized Participant—usually a brokerage house or large institutional investor—purchases the Creation Unit with a basket of securities equal in value to the aggregate NAV of the Shares in the Creation Unit. When an Authorized Participant redeems a Creation Unit in kind, it receives a basket of securities equal in value to the aggregate NAV of the Shares in the Creation Unit.
As defined in Nasdaq Rule 5745(c)(3), the Composition File is the specified portfolio of securities and/or cash that the Fund will accept as a deposit in issuing a Creation Unit of Shares, and the specified portfolio of securities and/or cash that the Fund will deliver in a redemption of a Creation Unit of Shares. The Composition File will be disseminated through the NSCC once each business day before the open of trading in Shares on such day and also will be made available to the public each day on a free Web site.
Securities that the Adviser is in the process of acquiring for the Fund generally will not be represented in the Fund's Composition File until their purchase has been completed. Similarly, securities that are held in the Fund's portfolio but in the process of being sold may not be removed from its Composition File until the sale program is substantially completed. When creating and redeeming Shares in kind, the Fund will use cash amounts to supplement the in-kind transactions to the extent necessary to ensure that Creation Units are purchased and redeemed at NAV. The Composition File also may consist entirely of cash, in which case it will not include any of the securities in the Fund's portfolio.
All persons purchasing or redeeming Creation Units are expected to incur a transaction fee to cover the estimated cost to the Fund of processing the transaction, including the costs of clearance and settlement charged to it by NSCC or DTC, and the estimated trading costs (
The purpose of transaction fees is to protect the Fund's existing shareholders from the dilutive costs associated with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units. Transaction fees may vary over time for the Fund depending on the estimated trading costs for its portfolio positions and Composition File, processing costs and other considerations. If the Fund specifies greater amounts of cash in its Composition File it may impose higher transaction fees. In addition, if the Fund's Composition File includes instruments that clear through DTC, it may impose higher transaction fees than if its Composition File consists solely of instruments that clear through NSCC, because DTC may charge more than NSCC in connection with Creation Unit transactions.
Because Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange, Shares will be available for purchase and sale on an intraday basis. Shares will be purchased and sold in the secondary market at prices directly linked to the Fund's next-determined NAV using a new trading protocol called “NAV-Based Trading.”
Bid and offer prices for Shares will be quoted throughout the day relative to NAV. The premium or discount to NAV at which Share prices are quoted and transactions are executed will vary
Because making markets in Shares will be simple to manage and low risk, competition among market makers seeking to earn reliable, low-risk profits should enable the Shares to routinely trade at tight bid-ask spreads and narrow premiums/discounts to NAV. As noted below, the Fund will maintain a public Web site that will be updated on a daily basis to show current and historical trading spreads and premiums/discounts of Shares trading in the secondary market.
To avoid potential investor confusion, Nasdaq will work with member firms and providers of market data services to seek to ensure that representations of intraday bids, offers and execution prices of Shares that are made available to the investing public follow the “NAV−$0.01/NAV+$0.01” (or similar) display format. All Shares listed on the Exchange will have a unique identifier associated with their ticker symbol, which would indicate that the Shares are traded using NAV-Based Trading. Nasdaq makes available to member firms and market data services certain proprietary data feeds that are designed to supplement the market information disseminated through the consolidated tape (“Consolidated Tape”). Specifically, the Exchange will use the NASDAQ Basic and NASDAQ Last Sale data feeds to disseminate intraday price and quote data for Shares in real time in the “NAV−$0.01/NAV+$0.01” (or similar) display format. Member firms could use the NASDAQ Basic and NASDAQ Last Sale data feeds to source intraday Share prices for presentation to the investing public in the “NAV−$0.01/NAV+$0.01” (or similar) display format. Alternatively, member firms could source intraday Share prices in proxy price format from the Consolidated Tape and other Nasdaq data feeds (
Prior to the commencement of market trading in Shares, the Fund will be required to establish and maintain a public Web site through which its current prospectus may be downloaded.
The Composition File will be disseminated through the NSCC before the open of trading in Shares on each business day and also will be made available to the public each day on a free Web site.
Reports of Share transactions will be disseminated to the market and delivered to the member firms participating in the trade contemporaneous with execution. Once the Fund's daily NAV has been calculated and disseminated, Nasdaq will price each Share trade entered into during the day at the Fund's NAV plus/minus the trade's executed premium/discount. Using the final trade price, each executed Share trade will then be disseminated to member firms and market data services via an FTP file to be created for exchange-traded managed funds and confirmed to the member firms participating in the trade to supplement the previously provided information to include final pricing.
Information regarding NAV-based trading prices, best bids and offers for Shares, and volume of Shares traded will be continuously available on a real-time basis throughout each trading day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services.
Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria as set forth under Nasdaq Rule 5745. A minimum of 50,000 Shares and no less than two Creation Units of the Fund will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily (on each day the New York Stock Exchange is open for trading) and provided to Nasdaq via the Mutual Fund Quotation Service (“MFQS”) by the fund accounting agent. As soon as the NAV is entered into MFQS, Nasdaq will disseminate the NAV to market participants and market data vendors via the Mutual Fund Dissemination Service (“MFDS”) so all firms will receive the NAV per Share at the same time. The Reporting Authority
An estimated value of an individual Share, defined in Nasdaq Rule 5745(c)(2) as the “Intraday Indicative Value,” will be calculated and disseminated at intervals of not more than 15 minutes throughout the Regular Market Session
The IIV will be based on current information regarding the value of the securities and other assets held by the Fund.
The Adviser is not a registered broker-dealer, although it is affiliated with a broker-dealer. The Adviser has implemented and will maintain a fire wall with respect to its relevant broker-dealer personnel or broker-dealer affiliate, as applicable, regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio. In the future event that (a) the Adviser registers as a broker-dealer or becomes newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or a sub-adviser to the Fund is a registered broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with a broker-dealer, it will implement a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel and/or such broker-dealer affiliate, if applicable, regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the relevant Fund's portfolio and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding such portfolio.
The Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in Shares. Nasdaq will halt trading in Shares under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and in Nasdaq Rule 5745(d)(2)(C). Additionally, Nasdaq may cease trading Shares if other unusual conditions or circumstances exist which, in the opinion of Nasdaq, make further dealings on Nasdaq detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market. To manage the risk of a non-regulatory Share trading halt, Nasdaq has in place back-up processes and procedures to ensure orderly trading. Because, in NAV-Based Trading, all trade execution prices are linked to end-of-day NAV, buyers and sellers of Shares should be less exposed to risk of loss due to intraday trading halts than buyers and sellers of conventional exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) and other exchange-traded securities.
Every order to trade Shares of the Fund is subject to the proxy price protection threshold of plus/minus $1.00, which determines the lower and upper threshold for the life of the order and whereby the order will be cancelled at any point if it exceeds $101.00 or falls below $99.00, the established thresholds.
Nasdaq deems Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in Shares to be subject to Nasdaq's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Nasdaq will allow trading in Shares from 9:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The Exchange represents that trading in Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both Nasdaq and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed with other markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”)
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material non-public information by its employees.
Prior to the commencement of trading in the Fund, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and noting that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) Nasdaq Rule 2111A, which imposes suitability obligations on Nasdaq members with respect to recommending transactions in Shares to customers; (3) how information regarding the IIV and Composition File is disseminated; (4) the requirement that members deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (5) information regarding NAV-Based Trading protocols.
As noted above, all orders to buy or sell Shares that are not executed on the day the order is submitted will be automatically cancelled as of the close of trading on such day. The Information Circular will discuss the effect of this characteristic on existing order types. The Information Circular also will identify the specific Nasdaq data feeds from which intraday Share prices in proxy price format may be obtained.
In addition, the Information Circular will advise members, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Fund. Members purchasing Shares from the Fund for resale to investors will deliver a summary prospectus to such investors. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
The Information Circular also will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Circular will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares and the applicable NAV calculation time for the Shares. The Information Circular will disclose that information about the Shares will be publicly available on the Fund's Web site.
Information regarding Fund trading protocols will be disseminated to Nasdaq members in accordance with current processes for newly listed products. Nasdaq intends to provide its members with a detailed explanation of NAV-Based Trading through a Trading Alert issued prior to the commencement of trading in Shares on the Exchange.
All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio or reference assets, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, (c) dissemination and availability of the reference asset or intraday indicative values, or (d) the applicability of Exchange listing rules shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange. In addition, the issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under the Nasdaq 5800 Series.
Nasdaq believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares would be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in Nasdaq Rule 5745. The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of Shares on Nasdaq and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Although the Adviser is not a registered broker-dealer, it is affiliated with a broker-dealer. The Adviser has implemented and will maintain a “fire wall” between the Adviser and the relevant broker-dealer personnel or broker-dealer affiliate with respect to access to information concerning the
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated on each business day that the New York Stock Exchange is open for trading and that the NAV will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information would be publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency.
Prior to the commencement of market trading in Shares, the Fund will be required to establish and maintain a public Web site through which its current prospectus may be downloaded. The Web site will display additional Fund information updated on a daily basis, including the prior business day's NAV, and the following trading information for such business day expressed as premiums/discounts to NAV: (a) Intraday high, low, average and closing prices of Shares in Exchange trading; (b) the Closing Bid/Ask Midpoint; and (c) the Closing Bid/Ask Spread. The Web site will also contain charts showing the frequency distribution and range of values of trading prices, Closing Bid/Ask Midpoints and Closing Bid/Ask Spreads over time. The Composition File will be disseminated through the NSCC before the open of trading in Shares on each business day and also will be made available to the public each day on a free Web site. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the IIV will be calculated and disseminated on an intraday basis at intervals of not more than 15 minutes during trading on the Exchange and provided to Nasdaq for dissemination via GIDS. A complete list of current portfolio positions for the Fund will be made available at least once each calendar quarter, with a reporting lag of not more than 60 days. The Fund may provide more frequent disclosures of portfolio positions at its discretion.
Transactions in Shares will be reported to the Consolidated Tape at the time of execution in proxy price format and will be disseminated to member firms and market data services through Nasdaq's trading service and market data interfaces, as defined above. Once the Fund's daily NAV has been calculated and the final price of its intraday Share trades has been determined, Nasdaq will deliver a confirmation with final pricing to the transacting parties. At the end of the day, Nasdaq will also post a newly created FTP file with the final transaction data for the trading and market data services. The Exchange expects that information regarding NAV-based trading prices and volumes of Shares traded will be continuously available on a real-time basis throughout each trading day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Because Shares will trade at prices based on the next-determined NAV, investors will be able to buy and sell individual Shares at a known premium or discount to NAV that they can limit by transacting using limit orders at the time of order entry. Trading in Shares will be subject to Nasdaq Rules 5745(d)(2)(B) and (C), which provide for the suspension of trading or trading halts under certain circumstances, including if, in the view of the Exchange, trading in Shares becomes inadvisable.
Every order to trade Shares of the Fund is subject to the proxy price protection threshold of plus/minus $1.00, which determines the lower and upper threshold for the life of the order and whereby the order will be cancelled at any point if it exceeds $101.00 or falls below $99.00, the established thresholds. With certain exceptions, each order also must contain the applicable order attributes, including routing instructions and time-in-force information, as described in Nasdaq Rule 4703.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of the Fund, which seeks to provide investors with access to 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.
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 would 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 Share trading would 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.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to make non-substantive, clarifying changes to ISE's Rulebook and Schedule of Fees.
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 make non-substantive, clarifying changes to the ISE Rulebook and Schedule of Fees to avoid confusion
The Exchange proposes to remove text from ISE Rule 721, entitled “Crossing Orders.” Specifically, the Exchange proposes to remove the following rule text, “ISE will migrate symbols to the INET platform pursuant to a symbol migration commencing in the second quarter of 2017. For symbols that have migrated to the INET platform, the functionality provided under ISE Rule 721(c) and the Supplementary Material thereto, permitting QCC with Stock Orders, will be temporarily suspended. The Exchange will specify the symbol migration schedule in an Options Trader Alert to be issued by the Exchange. The Exchange will recommence offering QCC with Stock Orders by announcing a date of implementation in a separate Options Trader Alert which will be issued prior to August 1, 2017. For symbols that have migrated to INET, QCC with Stock Orders will be rejected until the Exchange has recommenced this offering.” This rule text was added at the time the Exchange proposed to delay this functionality.
The Exchange also proposes to remove text from ISE Rule 1901, entitled “Order Protection.”
The Exchange further proposes to remove the following outdated sentences or footnotes, including any references thereto, in the Preface and in Sections I and III of the Schedule of Fees:
• There will be no fees or rebates for trades in symbol KANG executed on the INET trading system from June 27-30, 2017. Volume executed in KANG during this period will not be counted towards a member's tier for June activity.
• There will be no fees or rebates for trades executed on the INET trading system on June 30, 2017 in the following symbols: ACN, ACOR, AEO, AFSI, AMJ, AOBC, BKD, BTE, BV, CBI, CCL, CLR, CME, CNQ, ADM, ADSK, AGNC, ASHR, BBT, BK, BSX, CIEN, and IBM. Volume executed in these symbols on this date will not be counted towards a member's tier for June activity. In addition, June 30, 2017 will not be counted for purposes of determining Market Maker Plus tiers for the following symbols: ADM, ADSK, AGNC, ASHR, BBT, BK, BSX, CIEN, and IBM.
• Select Symbols which will migrate to INET from July 3rd through July 30th 2017 as noticed by Nasdaq ISE in Options Trader Alert #2017-51 (“Migrated Symbols”) will not be subject to Market Maker Plus Tiers 1-3 for the month of July 2017. These Migrated Symbols will be subject to Market Maker Plus Tiers 1-3 as of August 1, 2017 and thereafter. Additionally, Select Symbols which will migrate to INET on July 31, 2017 as noticed by Nasdaq ISE at Options Trader Alert #2017-51 (“July 31 Migrated Symbols”) will only use activity from July 3rd through July 30th 2017 for purposes of qualifying for Market Maker Plus Tiers 1-3 for the month of July 2017.
• There will be no fees or rebates for trades in FX Options executed on the INET trading system from June 12-30, 2017. Volume executed in FX Options during this period will not be counted towards a member's tier for June activity.
The operative dates for the pricing noted above have expired. The Exchange therefore desires to remove the outdated text from its Schedule of Fees to avoid confusion.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to make certain clarifying changes in Section II of the Schedule of Fees entitled, “Complex Order Fees and Rebates” (hereinafter, “Complex Fee Schedule”). In particular, the Exchange proposes to add references to footnotes 11 and 12 in the Complex Fee Schedule, both of which presently do not refer to any particular complex order fee or activity. Footnote 11 currently states that fees apply to the originating and contra order, but the footnote itself does not refer to any particular fees under the Complex Fee Schedule. The Exchange notes that when it adopted footnote 11 in the Complex Fee Schedule, it had appended references to the footnote to the fees for Crossing Orders and for orders executed in the Price Improvement Mechanism (“PIM”),
In addition, the Exchange proposes to clarify the application of footnote 12,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
As discussed above, the Exchange seeks to make non-substantive, clarifying amendments to its Rulebook and Schedule of Fees by removing outdated text and by appending references to footnotes 11 and 12 at particular places in the Complex Fee Schedule. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes herein will add further clarification to the Rulebook and Schedule of Fees, and will also alleviate potential confusion as to the applicability of the Exchange's rules, all of which will protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As discussed above, the proposed changes are non-substantive, clarifying amendments to the Exchange's Rulebook and Schedule of Fees, and are merely intended to add further clarification to the Exchange's rules and alleviate potential confusion.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings 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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-83. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
On June 1, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 14.11(k), which would govern the listing and trading of “Managed Portfolio Shares.”
The portfolio for each Fund will consist primarily of long and/or short positions in U.S.-exchange-listed securities and shares issued by other U.S. exchange-listed exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”).
The ClearBridge Appreciation ETF will seek to provide long-term appreciation of shareholders' capital. The Fund will seek to achieve its investment objective by investing primarily in U.S. exchange-listed equity securities. The Fund will typically invest in medium and large capitalization companies, but may also invest in small capitalization companies.
The ClearBridge Large Cap ETF will seek long-term capital appreciation. The Fund will seek to achieve its investment objective by taking long and possibly short positions in equity securities or groups of equities that the portfolio managers believe will provide long term capital appreciation. The Fund will normally invest at least 80% of its net assets (plus borrowings for investment purposes) in stocks included in the Russell 1000 Index and ETFs that primarily invest in stocks in the Russell 1000 Index. The Fund purchases securities that the Fund's sub-adviser, ClearBridge Investments, LLC (“Sub-Adviser”), believes are undervalued, and sells short securities that it believes are overvalued.
The ClearBridge Mid Cap Growth ETF will seek long-term growth of capital. The Fund will seek to achieve its investment objective by investing primarily in U.S. exchange-listed, publicly traded equity and equity-related securities of U.S. companies or other instruments with similar economic characteristics. The Fund may invest in securities of issuers of any market capitalization.
The ClearBridge Select ETF will seek to provide long-term growth of capital. The Fund will seek to achieve its investment objective by investing primarily in U.S. exchange-listed, publicly traded equity and equity-related securities of U.S. companies or other instruments with similar economic characteristics. The Fund may invest in securities of issuers of any market capitalization.
The ClearBridge All Cap Value ETF will seek long-term capital growth with current income as a secondary consideration. The Fund will seek to achieve its investment objective by investing primarily in common stocks and common stock equivalents, such as preferred stocks and securities convertible into common stocks, of companies the Sub-Adviser believes are undervalued in the marketplace. The Fund may invest up to 25% of its net assets in equity securities of foreign issuers through U.S. exchange-listed depositary receipts.
According to the Exchange, while each Fund, under normal market conditions, will invest primarily in U.S. exchange-listed securities, as described above, each Fund may invest its remaining assets in other securities and financial instruments as follows: (i) Repurchase agreements;
Each Fund may invest up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment),
The Funds will not invest in securities listed on non-U.S. exchanges. The Funds also will not invest in futures, forwards, or swaps. Further, each Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage. While a Fund may invest in inverse ETFs, a Fund will not invest in leveraged (
While Investment Companies issuing Managed Portfolio Shares would be actively-managed, and in that respect would be similar to those issuing Managed Fund Shares,
• First, issues of Managed Fund Shares are required to disseminate their “Disclosed Portfolio” at least once daily.
• Second, in connection with the redemption of shares in “Redemption Unit” size, the delivery of any portfolio securities in kind would be effected through a Confidential Account for the benefit of the redeeming authorized participant without disclosing the identity of the securities to the authorized participant.
• Third, for each series of Managed Portfolio Shares, a Verified Intraday Indicative Value (“VIIV”) would be disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every second during the Exchange's Regular Trading Hours (normally, 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time (“E.T.”)).
The Exchange asserts that market makers will be able to make efficient and liquid markets priced near the VIIV, as long as a VIIV is disseminated at least every second, market makers have knowledge of a Fund's means of achieving its investment objective, and market makers are permitted to engage in “bona fide arbitrage,” as described below. According to the Exchange, market makers would employ bona fide arbitrage in addition to risk-management techniques such as “statistical arbitrage,”
According to the Exchange, if an authorized participant believes that Shares of a Fund are trading at a price
According to the Exchange, a market participant that is not an authorized participant would also be able to establish a Confidential Account and could engage in arbitrage activity without using the creation or redemption processes described above. The Exchange states that if such a market participant believes that a Fund is overvalued relative to its underlying assets, the market participant could sell Shares short and instruct its Trusted Agent to buy portfolio securities in its Confidential Account, wait for the trading prices to move toward parity, and then close out the positions in both the Shares and the portfolio securities to realize a profit from the relative movement of their trading prices. Similarly, according to the Exchange, a market participant could buy Shares and instruct the Trusted Agent to sell the underlying portfolio securities in an attempt to profit when a Fund's Shares are trading at a discount to a Fund's underlying or reference assets.
The Exchange states that, generally, Shares will be purchased and redeemed on an in-kind basis. Accordingly, except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the circumstances described in the applicable Fund's registration statement, purchasers will be required to purchase “Creation Units” by making an in-kind deposit of specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their Shares will receive an in-kind transfer of specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”). On any given business day, the names and quantities of the instruments that constitute the Deposit Instruments and the names and quantities of the instruments that constitute the Redemption Instruments will be identical, and these instruments may be referred to, in the case of either a purchase or a redemption, as the “Creation Basket.”
In the case of a redemption, a Fund's custodian (“Custodian”) will typically deliver securities to the Confidential Account on a
If the Trusted Agent is instructed to sell all securities received at the close on the redemption date, the Trusted Agent will pay the liquidation proceeds net of expenses, plus or minus any cash balancing amount, to the authorized participant through DTC.
Each Fund will be required to file with the Commission its complete portfolio schedules for the second and fourth fiscal quarters on Form N-CSR under the 1940 Act, and to file its complete portfolio schedules for the first and third fiscal quarters on Form N-Q under the 1940 Act, within 60 days of the end of the quarter. Form N-Q requires funds to file the same schedules of investments that are required in annual and semi-annual reports to shareholders. The Trust's SAI and each Fund's shareholder reports will be available free upon request from the Trust. These documents and forms may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's Web site at
In addition, the VIIV will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every second during the Regular Trading Hours.
For purposes of the VIIV, securities held by a Fund will generally be valued throughout the day based on the mid-point between the disseminated current national best bid and offer. According to the Exchange, by utilizing the mid-point pricing for purposes of VIIV calculation, stale prices are eliminated and more accurate representation of the real-time value of the underlying securities is provided to the market. Specifically,
According to the Exchange, each Fund will utilize two independent pricing sources to provide two independent sources of pricing information. Each Fund will also utilize a “Pricing Verification Agent” and establish a computer-based protocol that will permit the Pricing Verification Agent to continuously compare the two data streams from the independent pricing sources on a real time basis.
The Exchange represents that trading of the Shares will be subject to its surveillance procedures for derivative products. The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws.
The Exchange represents that the Funds' Adviser will make available daily to FINRA and the Exchange the portfolio holdings of each Fund in order to facilitate the performance of the surveillances referred to above. In addition, the Exchange states that it has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
The Commission has received four comment letters on the proposed rule change, each of which expresses opposition to the proposed rule change.
A.
In addition, the commenter asserts that market makers will face significant impediments to successfully arbitrage the Shares and predicts that this will lead to the Shares trading at wider bid-ask spreads and more variable premiums/discounts than actively-managed ETFs available today. First, the commenter questions the Exchange's assertion that the VIIV will provide an adequate basis for ensuring a Fund's ongoing price value alignment and secondary market trading efficiency. In evaluating the Exchange's statements regarding VIIVs, the commenter asserts that their utility should be compared not to the intraday indicative values (“IIVs”) of existing ETFs but rather to the independently derived, real-time estimates of underlying fund value that ETF market makers use today to identify arbitrage opportunities and manage their risks (“MM IIVs”). The commenter asserts that, because existing actively-managed ETFs (and most index ETFs) provide full daily disclosure of their current portfolio, market makers of transparent funds have access to far better information about the current value of fund holdings than the proposed VIIVs would provide. Moreover, the commenter asserts that VIIVs will be significantly less precise than MM IIVs. The commenter also asserts that MM IIVs include significant information that would not be reflected in VIIVs, noting as follows:
• In calculating VIIVs, Fund securities would be valued based on the mid-point between the current national best bid and offer quotations. The commenter characterizes the bid-ask midpoint as a “fairly crude valuation metric” that does not capture important trading information incorporated into MM IIVs, such as the current bid-ask spread, the depth of the current order book on the bid and offer side of the market, and the predominance of current trading between bid-side and offer-side transactions.
• VIIVs would be disseminated at least every second, while internal valuations used by market makers update continuously (often at frequencies higher than once per second) and may be reflected in MM IIVs with less time lag.
• The VIIV verification process would leave significant room for dissemination of erroneous values. In particular, a Fund's Pricing Verification Agent would take no action to address observed discrepancies in VIIV input prices until the calculated Fund values differ by at least 25 bps for 60 seconds. The commenter characterizes that disparity as “huge,” asserting that it would be
• The VIIV process would not address all potential intraday valuation errors. The commenter notes that if the constituent basket file for a Fund includes material inaccuracies, the VIIVs would be erroneous. The commenter also describes that market makers would not be able to verify that corporate actions are appropriately reflected in a Fund's VIIVs because of the non-transparent portfolio.
• The process for adjusting VIIVs in the event of trading halts in portfolio securities is cumbersome and likely to result in errors in disseminated VIIVs. The commenter states that, throughout this process, which may be protracted, the Fund would continue to disseminate VIIVs that do not reflect fair values of the halted security, and therefore may vary significantly from the Fund's true underlying value at that time. The commenter asserts that the internal valuation process of any existing ETF's market makers would almost certainly arrive at a fair estimate of a Fund's current underlying value far faster than the VIIV adjustment process.
The commenter asserts that reliance on faulty VIIVs may expose market makers to unrecoverable losses, noting that: (1) No liability for the timeliness and accuracy of the VIIVs appears to rest with the Exchange, its agents, or the Reporting Authority; and (2) the circumstances under which the independent pricing sources and the Pricing Verification Agent are legally liable for such issues are limited. According to the commenter, market makers' forced reliance on VIIVs to determine intraday Fund valuations is a source of significant incremental risk for them versus making markets in existing ETFs. The commenter predicts that this will result in the Shares trading at wider bid-ask spreads and more variable premiums and discounts to NAV than similar existing ETFs.
The commenter also criticizes the Confidential Accounts structure. The commenter asserts that, compared to the usual manner in which market makers in existing ETFs engage in arbitrage and buy and sell creation basket instruments, the Confidential Accounts arrangement exposes market makers to significant additional costs, risks, and lost opportunities, including:
• Less control over trade execution and trade order management when implementing portfolio hedging and Creation Unit instrument transactions, which will result in more cost and risk, and less profit opportunity.
• No ability for market makers to use their market knowledge and their positions in other securities to enhance arbitrage profits and minimize costs.
• Reduced incentive for third-party service providers to trade expeditiously and with low market impact.
• Little or no ability for market makers to monitor trading in Confidential Accounts to ensure best execution or to evaluate trading performance.
• Forced
• Given the more-involved routing of trade instructions and trade orders that the Confidential Account structure would necessitate, hedging and Creation Unit instrument transactions through Confident Accounts will almost certainly take longer, on average, for a market maker to execute than similar transactions that the market maker executes internally. Slower executions may translate into less efficient arbitrage.
• Potentially significant explicit costs to establish and maintain Confidential Accounts.
Additionally, the commenter questions the Exchange's statements regarding the efficiency and utility of statistical arbitrage. The commenter states that while market makers may be able to gain some useful information about a Fund's current composition by knowing the Fund's investment objective and tracking performance correlations over time versus a known index, the amount of portfolio information that can be gleaned using this approach is limited. The commenter states that, as a result, any portfolio hedge constructed using this information would be subject to meaningful basis risk, especially during times of market stress or volatility.
The commenter expresses concerns regarding data security, and the misappropriation and misuse of a Fund's confidential portfolio information, in light of the dissemination of this information across a potentially broad network of Trusted Agents, affiliated broker-dealers, and other Confidential Account service providers. The commenter also raises concerns regarding the possibility that market participants could reverse-engineer the Funds' portfolio holdings, subjecting the Funds to the dilutive effects of front-running. The commenter asserts that “it is far from a settled question that the Funds would not ever be susceptible to reverse engineering.”
Moreover, the commenter raises concerns regarding the ability of the Funds, the authorized participants, and the non-authorized participant market makers, to comply with various laws, rules, and regulations. In addition, the commenter recommends certain limitations on the permitted investments of the Funds, and recommends the availability of certain information.
B.
• The likelihood that the Shares' trading performance will be especially poor during periods of market stress and volatility.
• The ability to ensure the security of confidential Fund information disseminated to Trusted Agents, their affiliates, and service providers.
• Potentially significant added Fund costs and risks associated with calculating, verifying, and disseminating the VIIV and associated Fund warranties.
• The potential for frequent Share trading halts.
• The likely incidence of erroneous Share trades and the absence of an Exchange program to detect and remedy such trades.
• The potential for reverse engineering of a Fund's portfolio holdings.
• The tax risk due to the Funds' distinctive in-kind redemption program.
• The costs, risks, and uncertainties to broker-dealers serving as authorized participants and non-authorized participant market makers in meeting their compliance obligations with respect to securities traded on their behalf through Confidential Accounts.
C.
In addition, the commenter expresses the following concerns:
• It is unclear whether a firm's risk management would have access to the contents of Confidential Accounts. If a firm's risk management does not have access to such information, the firm would be subject to too much risk, but if the firm's risk management does have access, information barriers would create compliance complexities.
• Positions held in the Confidential Account not closed out by the end of the day would have to be settled, and the settlement information would be available to settlement personnel.
• The Trusted Agents would have serious compliance burdens, and these burdens could drive up the cost of being a Trusted Agent, which would drive up the cost of arbitrage. Higher costs and compliance risks would severely limit the number of firms willing to take on the burden of becoming Trusted Agents, and less competition could lead to higher fees and inferior service. In the event that there were many Trusted Agents, the likelihood of data breaches would increase.
In addition, the commenter believes that the VIIV calculations are dangerously flawed because they rely on sometimes flawed bid-ask quotes. The commenter believes that the VIIV should instead be based on the last trade, and if the underlying market is closed or the underlying asset has not traded recently, then a reasonable fair value methodology should be used.
Moreover, the commenter states that the proposed Funds are very different from ETFs and should not be labeled or approved as ETFs.
D.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by October 10, 2017. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by October 23, 2017.
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in the Notice,
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule, pursuant to IEX Rule 15.110 (a) and (c), to make a correction related to the fees for executions that involve taking non-displayed resting interest with a displayable order. Subject to certain exceptions, the Exchange charges $0.0009 per share (or 0.30% of the total dollar value of the transaction for securities priced below $1.00) to Members for executions on IEX that include resting non-displayed interest
On August 7, 2017, the Exchange filed an immediately effective rule change to reflect that the calculation used to determine if a Member's MPID(s) qualify for the 90% display discount is done on a per MPID basis (rather than a per Member basis, as originally reflected in the Fee Schedule).
Specifically, the parenthetical, which was intended to describe the mechanical calculation of the 90% display discount, contains several typographical errors. It currently states that the 90% display discount is applicable if a Member's execution reports reflect that the sum of executions with Fee Code L and a Last Liquidity Indicator (FIX tag 851) of '1' (Added Liquidity) (
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to correct the parenthetical in the single asterisked footnote appurtenant to the Non-Displayed Match Fee in the IEX Fee Schedule to correctly describe the mechanical calculation of the 90% display discount as follows (proposed new language is underlined; proposed deletions are in brackets):
• * $0.0009 (0.30% of TDVT for <$1.00), otherwise FREE if Taking Non-Displayed Liquidity with a Displayable Order and at least 90% of TMVD, on a per MPID basis, was identified by IEX as Providing Displayed Liquidity (
As modified, the parenthetical would make clear that all of an MPID's executions that receive Fee Code L and a Last Liquidity Indicator of `1' (which together indicate that an order added displayed liquidity) on all of an MPID's displayable orders (which necessarily includes all orders that have neither a Max Floor value of zero,
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
IEX 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. The proposed rule change is designed to correct an inadvertent error rather than a competitive issue. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will result in a burden on intramarket competition because all Members will continue to be subject to the Non-Displayed Match Fee and will be eligible for the 90% display discount in the same manner on a fair and consistent basis. While different fees will be assessed in some circumstances, these different fees are not based on the type of Member entering the order and all Members can submit any type of order. Lastly, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if fee schedules at other venues are viewed as more favorable.
The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on intermarket competition because other venues are free to adopt comparable pricing.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the On-Floor Lead Market-Maker (“LMM”) program. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.
(a) No change.
(b) LMM Obligations: Each LMM must fulfill all the obligations of a Market-Maker under the Rules and satisfy each of the following requirements:
(i) Provide continuous electronic quotes (as defined in Rule 1.1 (ccc)) in at least the lesser of 99% of the non-adjusted option series or 100% of the non-adjusted option series minus one call-put pair, with the term “call-put pair” referring to one call and one put that cover the same underlying instrument and have the same expiration date and exercise price. This obligation does not apply to intra-day add-on series on the day during which such series are added for trading. Compliance with this quoting obligation applies to all of an LMM's appointed classes on each platform collectively. The Exchange will determine compliance by an LMM with this quoting obligation on a monthly basis. However, determining compliance with this obligation on a monthly basis does not relieve an LMM from meeting this obligation on a daily basis, nor does it prohibit the Exchange from taking disciplinary action against an LMM for failing to meet this obligation each trading day. In option classes in which both an On-Floor LMM and an Off-Floor DPM or Off-Floor LMM have been appointed, the On-Floor LMM will not be obligated to comply with this paragraph (b)(i) and instead will be obligated to comply with the obligations of Market-Makers in Rule 8.7(d).
(ii)-(iv) No change.
(v) enter opening quotes within one minute of the initiation of an opening rotation in any series that is not open due to the lack of a quote (see Rule 6.2B(d)(i)(A) or (ii)(A)) and participate in other rotations described in Rule 6.2B (including the modified opening rotation set forth in Interpretation and Policy .01) or 24.13, as applicable. In option classes in which both an On-Floor LMM and an Off-Floor DPM or
(vi)-(viii) No change.
(c)-(d) No change.
.01 An LMM generally will operate on CBOE's trading floor (“On-Floor LMM”). However, as provided below, an LMM can request that the Exchange authorize the LMM to function remotely away from CBOE's trading floor (“Off-Floor LMM”) on a class-by-class basis.
(a)-(b) No change.
(c) Notwithstanding Rule 8.15(a)[,]:
.02-.04 No change.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the On-Floor LMM program. Currently, Rule 8.15, Interpretation and Policy .01 permits an LMM that is approved to operate as an Off-Floor LMM in one or more classes can request the Exchange authorize it to operate as an On-Floor LMM in those classes. Additionally, in an option class in which an Off-Floor LMM or Off-Floor Designated Primary Market-Maker (“DPM”) has been appointed in accordance with Rule 8.15 or Rule 8.83, respectively, the Exchange in its discretion may appoint an On-Floor LMM (which may be the same firm or different firm serving as the Off-Floor LMM or Off-Floor DPM), which will be eligible to receive a participation entitlement under Rule 8.15 with respect to orders represented in open outcry. Pursuant to Rule 8.15(b), in an option class in which both an On-Floor LMM and an Off-Floor DPM or Off-Floor LMM have been appointed, the On-Floor LMM will not be obligated to comply with the continuous electronic quoting obligation in subparagraph (i) or opening quoting obligation in subparagraph (v) (the Off-Floor LMM or Off-Floor DPM would be required to comply with those quoting obligations).
Pursuant to Rule 6.45(a)(ii), which permits the exchange to determine, on a class-by-class basis, certain priority overlays, including participation entitlements to LMMs (as well as DPMs and Preferred Market-Makers). The Exchange may grant an LMM a participation entitlement only if it has applied the priority customer overlay. LMMs operating on the trading floor may also receive a participation entitlement.
Therefore, under current Rules, the Exchange may appoint an On-Floor LMM in a class if there is also an Off-Floor LMM or Off-Floor DPM in that class (which, as noted above, the same firm or different firms may be operating as the On-Floor LMM and Off-Floor LMM or Off-Floor DPM). Additionally, the Rules provide an On-Floor LMM does not have to satisfy heightened electronic quoting standards if there is also an Off-Floor LMM or Off-Floor DPM in that class, who must satisfy those standards. However, the Rules do not expressly contemplate the Exchange appointing an On-Floor LMM in a class if it has not appointed an Off-Floor DPM or Off-Floor LMM in that class. Additionally, current Rules do not explicitly permit the Exchange to not impose a heightened electronic quoting obligation on an On-Floor LMM if there is no Off-Floor LMM or Off-Floor DPM (in other words, if the Exchange were to appoint an On-Floor LMM who operates only on the floor, and no Off-Floor LMM or Off-Floor DPM, the On-Floor LMM would still be required to satisfy heightened quoting standards). The proposed rule change explicitly states the Exchange may appoint an On-Floor LMM in a class, under specific circumstances (as further discussed below), even if there is no Off-Floor LMM or Off-Floor DPM in that class, which On-Floor LMM must satisfy certain floor-based obligations and is eligible for an open outcry participation entitlement, but will not have to satisfy heightened electronic quoting obligations and will not be eligible for an electronic participation entitlement. The proposed rule change merely expands the Exchange's flexibility with respect to appointing On-Floor LMMs in a circumstance not currently contemplated in the Rules—in classes in which it has not appointed an Off-Floor DPM or Off-Floor LMM—and specifies the obligations and entitlement in such a circumstance.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 8.15, Interpretation and Policy .01 to permit the Exchange to appoint an On-Floor LMM to operate only on the trading floor with open-outcry obligations only in a class in which the Exchange appointed no Off-Floor LMM or Off-Floor DPM and does not grant an electronic participation entitlement pursuant to Rule 6.45(a)(ii) (in addition to classes in which the Exchange has appointed an Off-Floor
The Exchange believes it is reasonable for an On-Floor LMM with open-outcry obligations only to be eligible for an open outcry entitlement, because priority customer orders in the book always receive priority over in-crowd market participants, including LMMs who may be eligible for an open outcry entitlement. Additionally, as proposed, the On-Floor LMM must satisfy the proposed heightened standard to be in the crowd for the entire trading day to be eligible for the open outcry entitlement.
If the Exchange eliminates an electronic participation entitlement from a class, the Exchange believes there is no incentive for a Market-Maker to satisfy a heightened electronic quoting standard in that class due to the allocation algorithm determined by the Exchange. The Exchange does not believe the open outcry participation entitlement is a sufficient benefit to balance the requirement to satisfy the heightened electronic quoting obligation (due to the significant electronic trading volume) if an LMM or DPM is not also receiving an electronic participation entitlement. However, the Exchange believes it will benefit price discovery in the trading crowd for an LMM to be present in that class if it is eligible to receive a participation entitlement, even though there may be no LMM streaming quotes remotely. The proposed rule change will permit the Exchange to appoint an LMM to a trading crowd in this circumstance with an appropriate balance of floor-based benefits and obligations, consistent with the LMM's on-floor role.
The proposed rule change permits the Exchange to appoint an On-Floor LMM as it already can do pursuant to current Rules, which is appoint an On-Floor LMM that must satisfy regular market-maker quoting obligations rather than heightened LMM quoting obligations and only receive an open outcry participation entitlement (with the expectation a designee of the LMM will have a presence on the trading floor for the entire trading day). The proposed rule change merely provides the Exchange with discretion to make such an appointment in a different circumstance not currently contemplated in the Rules—in a class with no Off-Floor DPM or Off-Floor LMM. The Exchange may make such an appointment in the limited circumstance of classes in which it does not grant an electronic participation entitlement, and it will consider, among other factors, electronic liquidity in the class prior to making such an appointment. An On-Floor LMM in such a class will be subject to the same obligations and receive the same benefits as current On-Floor LMMs in other classes, subject to a different heightened quoting standard of maintaining a floor presence all day (subject to a de minimis exception) (which is expected of current On-Floor LMMs). Any violation of the proposed heightened quoting standard will be subject to potential discipline under Chapter XVII.
The Exchange notes current On-Floor LMMs in classes in which there is a different Off-Floor DPM or Off-Floor LMM, as well as On-Floor LMMs in classes with no Off-Floor DPM or Off-Floor LMM pursuant to the proposed rule change, are not subject to the heightened electronic quoting obligation or opening quoting obligation in Rule 8.15(b), but receive the participation entitlement in Rule 8.15(d). While there is no current obligation in the rules requiring an On-Floor LMM to have a designee on the floor during the entire trading day, the Exchange expects current On-Floor LMMs to do so and may consider trading floor presence when determining whether to renew an On-Floor LMM's term.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of trade by creating a balance between the obligations imposed on and benefits provided to On-Floor LMMs that only operate on the trading floor and only have open-outcry obligations. The Exchange believes if an On-Floor LMM was obligated to satisfy a heightened continuous electronic quoting standard in a class in which there was no electronic participation entitlement, the obligations would outweigh the benefit of an open outcry entitlement. The proposed rule change imposes a more reasonable heightened open outcry obligation that balances the eligibility of the open outcry benefit, as the proposed rule change imposes an on-floor requirement to be eligible for the on-floor entitlement rather than an electronic quoting obligation unrelated to the corresponding potential entitlement.
The proposed rule change permits the Exchange to appoint an On-Floor LMM as it does pursuant to current Rules; it merely provides the Exchange with discretion to appoint an On-Floor LMM
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to limit its ability to appoint an On-Floor LMM with open-outcry obligations only in classes in which it determines to have no electronic participation entitlement, as it wants to incentivize firms to remain LMMs (and provide liquidity) in the trading crowd when there is no incentive for firms to satisfy heightened electronic quoting standards. The Exchange will, among other factors, consider electronic liquidity in the class prior to making such an appointment. The Exchange believes the continued presence of an LMM in the trading crowd enhances price discovery and provides potential price improvement, and such requirement creates a balance with eligibility for an open outcry participation entitlement. The Exchange believes requiring an On-Floor LMM that operates only on the trading floor to satisfy heightened electronic quoting standards would outweigh the benefit of an open outcry only entitlement. The proposed rule change has no impact on intermarket competition, as it relates solely to the presence of an LMM on CBOE's trading floor.
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)
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (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)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges (the “Fee Schedule”) to (i) adopt an additional tiered credit applicable to Lead Market Makers (“LMMs”)
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to adopt an additional tiered credit applicable to LMMs and to ETP Holders and Market Makers affiliated with the LMM that provide displayed liquidity to the NYSE Arca Book in Tape B Securities; and (ii) add a second way by which an ETP Holder or Market Maker could qualify for the Step Up Tier. The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed fee changes on September 1, 2017.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to adopt an additional tiered credit applicable to LMMs and to ETP Holders and Market Makers affiliated with the LMM that provide displayed liquidity to the NYSE Arca Book in Tape B Securities. The Exchange currently provides tier-based incremental credits for orders that provide displayed liquidity to the NYSE Arca Book in Tape B Securities. Specifically, LMMs that are registered as the LMM in Tape B Securities that have a consolidated average daily volume (“CADV”) in the previous month of less than 100,000 shares, or 0.0070% of Consolidated Tape B ADV, whichever is greater (“Less Active ETP Securities”), and the ETP Holders and Market Makers affiliated with such LMMs, currently receive an additional credit for orders that provide displayed liquidity to the Book in any Tape B Securities that trade on the Exchange.
• An additional credit of $0.0004 per share if an LMM is registered as the LMM in at least 300 Less Active ETP Securities
• An additional credit of $0.0003 per share if an LMM is registered as the LMM in at least 200 but less than 300 Less Active ETP Securities
• An additional credit of $0.0002 per share if an LMM is registered as the LMM in at least 100 but less than 200 Less Active ETP Securities
The number of Less Active ETP Securities for the billing month is based on the number of Less Active ETP Securities in which an LMM is registered as the LMM on the last business day of the previous month. The incremental credits also apply to ETP Holders and Market Makers affiliated with the LMM whose orders in Tape B Securities provide displayed liquidity to the NYSE Arca Book.
The Exchange proposes to adopt an additional tier pursuant to which LMMs and ETP Holders and Market Makers affiliated with the LMM that provide displayed liquidity to the NYSE Arca Book in Tape B Securities would receive an additional credit of $0.0001 per share if the LMM is registered as the LMM in at least 75 but less than 100 Less Active ETP Securities.
For example, currently, a LMM that provides liquidity to the NYSE Arca Book in a security for which the LMM is registered as the LMM which has a CADV in the previous month of at least 5,000,000 shares would receive a credit of $0.0033 per share. If that LMM is also registered as an LMM in 80 Less Active ETP Securities, the LMM would receive an incremental credit of $0.0001 per share under the proposed new rebate structure, for a total credit of $0.0034 per share. Additionally, if the affiliated ETP Holders and Market Makers of such LMM that provide displayed liquidity in Tape B Securities are a Tier 1 firm, they would receive a total credit of $0.0024 per share,
With the proposed additional tier, the Exchange hopes to provide incentives for increased trading in Less Active ETP Securities for the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange proposes to add a second way by which an ETP Holder or Market Maker could qualify for the existing Step Up Tier. Currently, to qualify for the Step Up Tier, ETP
(i) Directly execute providing average daily volume that is an increase of no less than 0.15% of US CADV
(ii) sets a new NYSE Arca Best Bid or Offer with at least 25% in each of the ETP Holder's or Market Maker's Tape A, Tape B and Tape C providing ADV.
ETP Holders and Market Makers that qualify for the Step Up Tier receive a $0.0029 per share credit for orders that provide liquidity to the Book for Tape A and Tape C Securities and $0.0028 per share credit for orders that provide liquidity to the Book for Tape B Securities.
As proposed, the Exchange would keep these qualifying requirements, and add a second way by which an ETP Holder or Market Maker could qualify for the Step Up Tier. As proposed, an ETP Holder or Market Maker could also qualify for the Step Up Tier if such ETP Holder or Market Maker, on a daily basis, measured monthly:
(i) Directly execute providing average daily volume that is an increase of no less than 0.15% of US CADV
(ii) sets a new NYSE Arca Best Bid or Offer with at least 20% in the ETP Holder's or Market Maker's Tape A providing ADV, at least 25% in the ETP Holder's or Market Maker's Tape B providing ADV, and at least 30% in the ETP Holder's or Market Maker's Tape C providing ADV, and
(iii) directly execute taking average daily volume of at least 15 million shares.
For example, an ETP Holder that has a providing ADV of 15 million shares in the Baseline Month would be required to execute, at a minimum, an additional 9.75 million shares of providing ADV if CADV is 6.5 billion shares in the billing month, or 0.15% over the Baseline Month, for a total providing ADV of 24.75 million shares for the billing month. Further, of the 24.75 million shares, assume 10.75 million shares are in Tape A Securities, and 7 million shares are each in Tape B and Tape C Securities. The ETP Holder would be required to have a providing ADV that sets a new BBO on the Exchange of at least 2.15 million shares in Tape A Securities, of at least 1.750 million shares in Tape B Securities, and of at least 2.1 million shares in Tape C Securities.
The Exchange believes that combining the existing providing average daily volume requirement with both specified setting Exchange Best Bid or Offer requirements, depending on whether the securities are Tape A, B, or C, and a requirement to meet certain volume of executing taking volume on the Exchange would encourage ETP Holders or Market Makers that are active traders on the Exchange to step up their provide volume to qualify for the Step Up Tier.
As an incentive for ETP Holders and Market Makers to direct their order flow to the Exchange, for the months of September 2017 and October 2017 only, the Exchange proposes adopting lower providing ADV criteria for ETP Holders and Market Makers to qualify for the Step Up Tier. For the month of September 2017 only, the ETP Holder or Market Maker would need to directly execute providing average daily volume that is an increase of no less than 0.05% of US CADV for that month over the ETP Holder's or Market Maker's providing average daily volume in July 2016.
Using the previous example, that ETP Holder would be required to execute, at a minimum, an additional 3.25 million shares of providing ADV, or 0.05% over the Baseline Month, for a total providing ADV of 18.25 million shares for that billing month. Further, of the 18.25 million shares, assume 10 million shares are in Tape A Securities, 5 million shares are in Tape B Securities and 3.25 million shares are in Tape C Securities. The ETP Holder would be required to have a providing ADV that sets a new BBO on the Exchange of at least 2 million shares in Tape A Securities, of at least 1.250 million shares in Tape B Securities, and of at least 0.975 million shares in Tape C Securities.
For the month of October 2017 only, the ETP Holder or Market Maker would need to directly execute providing average daily volume that is an increase of no less than 0.10% of US CADV for that month over the ETP Holder's or Market Maker's providing average daily volume in July 2016. For the months on and after November 2017, ETP Holders and Market Makers would need to meet the new proposed qualifying requirement of 0.15% of CADV.
Using the previous example, that ETP Holder would be required to execute, at a minimum, an additional 6.5 million shares of providing ADV, or 0.10% over the Baseline Month, for a total providing ADV of 21.5 million shares for the billing month. Further, of the 21.5 million shares, assume 12 million shares are in Tape A Securities, 7 million shares are in Tape B Securities and 2.5 million shares are in Tape C Securities. The ETP Holder would be required to have a providing ADV that sets a new BBO on the Exchange of at least 2.4 million shares in Tape A Securities, of at least 1.75 million shares in Tape B Securities, and of at least 0.75 million shares in Tape C Securities.
Because the goal of the Step-Up Tier is to incentivize ETP Holders and Market Makers to increase the orders sent directly to NYSE Arca and therefore provide liquidity that supports the quality of price discovery and promotes market transparency, the Exchange believes that the proposed new qualifying requirement for the Step Up Tier will provide an additional incentive for ETP Holders or Market Makers that are active traders on the Exchange to increase the orders sent to the Exchange that would provide liquidity.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed additional tier for Less Active ETP Securities is reasonable because the proposed credit of $0.0001 per share that would apply if an LMM is registered as the LMM in at least 75 but less than 100 Less Active ETP Securities would relate to displayed liquidity to the NYSE Arca Book in Tape B Securities, which would be identical to the type of volume to which the credit would apply.
The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to establish an additional tier applicable to
The proposed fee change is intended to encourage LMMs to promote price discovery and market quality in Less Active ETP Securities for the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes the proposed additional tier to the current rebate structure would allow LMMs that are registered as the LMM in a fewer number of Less Active ETP Securities to qualify for a rebate. The Exchange believes the proposed credit is reasonable and appropriate in that it is based on the amount of business transacted on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that providing the proposed additional credit to ETP Holders and Market Makers that are affiliated with a LMM that add liquidity in Tape B Securities to the Exchange is reasonable because the Exchange believes that by providing increased rebates to affiliated ETP Holders and Market Makers of a LMM, more LMMs will register to quote and trade in Less Active ETP Securities. The Exchange further believes the proposed incremental credit for adding liquidity is also reasonable because it will encourage liquidity and competition in Tape B Securities quoted and traded on the Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee change will incentivize LMMs to register as an LMM in Less Active ETP Securities and thus, add more liquidity in these and other Tape B Securities to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange also believes the lower requirement of the additional tier is reasonable because it may allow a greater number of LMMs and their affiliated ETP Holders and Market Makers to qualify for the proposed additional credit.
The Exchange believes the proposed incremental credit is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is open to all ETP Holders and Market Makers affiliated with a LMM on an equal basis and provides a discount that is reasonably related to the value to the Exchange's market quality associated with higher volumes. The Exchange further believes that the proposed incremental rebate is not unfairly discriminatory because it is consistent with the market quality and competitiveness of benefits associated with the proposed fee program and because the magnitude of the additional rebate is not unreasonably high in comparison to the rebate paid with respect to other displayed liquidity-providing orders. The Exchange does not believe that it is unfairly discriminatory to offer increased rebates to LMMs as LMMs are subject to additional requirements and obligations (such as quoting requirements) that other market participants are not.
The Exchange also believes that allowing ETP Holders to receive enhanced credits based on activities of their affiliates is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange believes that ETP Holders affiliated with LMMs may qualify to earn enhanced credits in recognition of their shared economic interest, which includes the heightened obligations and costs imposed on LMMs. ETP Holders unaffiliated with LMMs do not share the same type of economic interests. Further, ETP Holders not affiliated with a LMM have an opportunity to establish such affiliation by several means, including but not limited to, a business combination or the establishment of their own market making operation, which each unaffiliated firm has the potential to establish.
The Exchange believes that the proposed second way to qualify for the Step-Up Tier is equitable because it is open to all market participants on an equal basis and provides credits that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with higher volumes. As stated above, the Exchange believes that the Step-Up Tier incentivizes market participants to increase the orders sent directly to NYSE Arca that would provide liquidity. Additional order flow that provides liquidity supports the quality of price discovery and promotes market transparency. The Exchange believes that adding a second way to qualify for the Step Up Tier would benefit market participants that already are active traders on the Exchange and whose increased order flow provides meaningful added levels of liquidity, thereby contributing to the depth and market quality on the Exchange. In addition, by offering a second way to qualify for the Step-Up Tier, the Exchange believes more market participants that are active traders on the Exchange may provide increased liquidity-providing order flow and more market participants would be eligible to receive the proposed credits for their orders.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposal is reasonable and would create an added incentive for ETP Holders and Market Makers to execute additional orders on the Exchange. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to require ETP Holders and Market Makers' providing ADV set a new BBO on the Exchange of at least 20% of their Tape A providing ADV, at least 25% of their Tape B providing ADV, and at least 30% of their Tape C providing ADV as it would create an incentive for ETP Holders and Market Makers to improve displayed quotes on the Exchange, which would benefit all market participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because providing incentives for orders that are executed on a registered national securities exchange would contribute to investors' confidence in the fairness of their transactions and would benefit all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor protection. The Exchange further believes it is reasonable to require ETP Holders or Maker Makers to also directly execute taking average daily volume of at least 15 million shares because it would provide an incentive for market participants that are active traders on the Exchange to increase orders that provide liquidity on the Exchange, thereby further promoting price discovery on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that adopting lower providing ADV criteria for September 2017 and October 2017 is reasonable because it may allow a greater number of ETP Holders and Market Makers to qualify for the proposed credits while also providing ETP Holders and Market Makers the opportunity to gradually increase their activity in order to qualify for the Step Up Tier. The Exchange believes that adopting lower providing ADV criteria for September 2017 and October 2017 is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the lower criteria would apply uniformly to all ETP Holders and Market Makers during September 2017 and October 2017.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that this proposal promotes a competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated 09/10/2017.
Issued on 09/11/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Florida, dated 09/10/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-4329-DR), dated August 9, 2017.
Issued on September 11, 2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of New Hampshire, dated 08/09/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of Intent To Waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Positive Airway Pressure Devices and Supplies Manufacturing.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is considering granting a request for a class waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule (NMR) for Positive Airway Pressure Devices and Supplies Manufacturing. This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) devices, Bi-level Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) devices, and other products intended to treat sleep apnea by keeping a person's airways open during sleep. According to the request, no small business manufacturers supply this product to the Federal government. If granted, the class waiver would allow otherwise qualified regular dealers to supply the product of any manufacturer on a Federal contract set aside for small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), women-owned small business (WOSB), economically disadvantaged women-owned small business (EDWOSB), or participants in the SBA's 8(a) Business Development (BD) program.
Comments and source information must be submitted by October 18, 2017.
You may submit comments and source information via the Federal Rulemaking Portal at
Roman Ivey, Program Analyst, by telephone at 202-401-1420; or by email at
Section 8(a)(17) and 46 of the Small Business Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17) and 657, and SBA's implementing regulations require that recipients of Federal supply contracts (except those valued between $3,500 and $150,000) set aside for small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), women-owned small business (WOSB), economically disadvantaged women-owned small business (EDWOSB), or participants in the SBA's 8(a) Business Development (BD) program provide the product of a small business manufacturer or processor, if the recipient is other than the actual manufacturer or processor of the product. This requirement is commonly referred to as the Nonmanufacturer Rule (NMR). 13 CFR 121.406(b). Sections 8(a)(17)(B)(iv)(II) and 46(a)(4)(B) of the Act authorize SBA to waive the NMR for a “class of products” for which there are no small business manufacturers or processors available to participate in the Federal market.
As implemented in SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.1202(c), in order to be considered available to participate in the Federal market for a class of products, a small business manufacturer must have submitted a proposal for a contract solicitation or been awarded a contract to supply the class of products within the last 24 months.
The SBA defines “class of products” based on a combination of (1) the six digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, (2) the four digit Product Service Code (PSC), and (3) a description of the class of products.
The SBA is currently processing a request to waive the NMR for Positive Airway Pressure Devices and Supplies under NAICS codes 339112 and 339113, PSC 6515. The public is invited to comment or provide source information on any small business manufacturers of this class of products that are available to participate in the Federal market. The public comment period will run for 30 days after the date of publication in the
More information on the NMR and Class Waivers can be found at
Department of State.
Notice of a New System of Records.
Ombudsperson Mechanism Records includes information about individuals who have submitted requests relating to national security access to data transmitted to the United States pursuant to the Privacy Shield
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this system of records notice is effective upon publication, with the exception of the routine uses that are subject to a 30-day period during which interested persons may submit comments to the Department. Please submit any comments by October 18, 2017.
Questions can be submitted by mail or email. If mail, please write to: U.S Department of State; Office of Global Information Systems, Privacy Staff; A/GIS/PRV; SA-2, Suite 8100; Washington, DC 20522-0208. If email, please address the email to the Chief Privacy Officer, Margaret P. Grafeld, at
Margaret P. Grafeld, Chief Privacy Officer; U.S. Department of State; Office of Global Information Services, A/GIS/PRV; SA-2, Suite 8100; Washington, DC 20522-0208.
None.
Ombudsperson Mechanism Records, State-83.
Unclassified.
Department of State (“Department”), located at 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20520, and within a government cloud provided, implemented, and overseen by the Department's Enterprise Server Operations Center (ESOC), 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20520.
International Communication and Information Policy Officer for Europe, Office of Communications & Information Policy, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs; U.S. Department of State, 2201 C St. Washington, DC 20520. System Managers can be reached at (202) 647-8784.
(a) State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2708
The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework and the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework create a mechanism for companies on both sides of the Atlantic to comply with EU data protection requirements when transferring personal data from the European Union and Switzerland, respectively, to the United States in support of transatlantic commerce. The Frameworks each established an Ombudsperson Mechanism to address appropriate inquiries by individuals relating to U.S. Intelligence Community access to personal data transmitted from the EU or Switzerland to the United States through Privacy Shield and related commercial transfer mechanisms. The information will be used by the Ombudsperson to ensure that requests are properly investigated and addressed in a timely manner, and that the relevant U.S. laws have been complied with or, if the laws have been violated, that the situation has been remedied.
Individuals whose requests relating to national security access to data transmitted from the European Union to the United States under the Privacy Shield Framework (81 FR 51042), and the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Ombudsperson Mechanism Regarding Signals Intelligence (“Ombudsperson Mechanism”) thereunder, are submitted by the “EU individual complaint handling body” to the Department. Individuals who submit requests relating to national security access to data transmitted under any similar mechanism established between the United States and another country or countries. The Privacy Act defines an individual at 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(2) as a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident.
These records may include biographic and contact information, such as name, address, email address, phone number, and information about residency or nationality, as well as other information that requesters and foreign government officials include in the requests submitted to the Department. The records also may include information about an individual's request and the processing of that request.
Individuals who submit requests for review under the Privacy Shield Ombudsperson Mechanism or similar arrangement are the primary source of record information, although that information is provided to the Department by the EU Individual Complaint Handling Body or corresponding body under similar arrangements. Additional information necessary to process individual requests may be provided by these bodies as well as other federal agencies.
The information in Ombudsperson Mechanism Records may be disclosed:
A. To other Federal Agencies or bodies to facilitate the consideration, processing and resolution of requests consistent with Section 2 of the Ombudsperson Mechanism (accessed via
B. To an EU individual complaint handling body and any other complaint handling body established under a similar arrangement with another country to coordinate the discharge of commitments made therein. For example, the Privacy Shield Ombudsperson will communicate directly with the EU individual complaint handling body regarding requests submitted pursuant to the Ombudsperson Mechanism for reasons including acknowledging receipt of the request from the EU individual complaint handling body, requesting additional information necessary to perfect the request, and providing a final response. The EU individual complaint handling body will in turn be responsible for all communications with individuals who submit requests.
C. To a contractor of the Department having need for the information in the performance of the contract, but not operating a system of records within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).
D. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Department of State suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Department of State has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Department of State (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department of State efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
E. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Department of State determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
F. To an agency, whether federal, state, local or foreign, where a record indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, so that the recipient agency can fulfill its responsibility to investigate or prosecute such violation or enforce or implement the statute, rule, regulation, or order.
G. To the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Counter-Terrorism Center (NCTC), the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), or other appropriate federal agencies, for the integration and use of such information to protect against terrorism, if that record is about one or more individuals known, or suspected, to be or to have been involved in activities constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism. Such information may be further disseminated by recipient agencies to Federal, State, local, territorial, tribal, and foreign government authorities, and to support private sector processes as contemplated in Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-6 and other relevant laws and directives, for terrorist screening, threat-protection and other homeland security purposes.
H. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the Congressional office made at the request of that individual.
I. To a court, adjudicative body, or administrative body before which the Department is authorized to appear when (a) the Department; (b) any employee of the Department in his or her official capacity; (c) any employee of the Department in his or her individual capacity where the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) or the Department has agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the Government of the United States, when the Department determines that litigation is likely to affect the Department, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the use of such records by the Department is deemed to be relevant and necessary to the litigation or administrative proceeding.
J. To the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for its use in providing legal advice to the Department or in representing the Department in a proceeding before a court, adjudicative body, or other administrative body before which the Department is authorized to appear, where the Department deems DOJ's use of such information relevant and necessary to the litigation, and such proceeding names as a party or interests:
(a) The Department or any component of it;
(b) Any employee of the Department in his or her official capacity;
(c) Any employee of the Department in his or her individual capacity where DOJ has agreed to represent the employee; or
(d) The Government of the United States, where the Department determines that litigation is likely to affect the Department or any of its components.
K. To the National Archives and Records Administration and the General Services Administration: For records management inspections, surveys and studies; following transfer to a Federal records center for storage; and to determine whether such records have sufficient historical or other value to warrant accessioning into the National Archives of the United States.
Records are stored both in hard copy and on electronic media. A description of standard Department of State policies concerning storage of electronic records is found here
By individual name or other personal identifier, if available, and by a tracking number.
The Department of State is in the process of developing a retention schedule for these records. Once the schedule is approved by the National Archives and Records Administration, the Records will be retired in accordance with published Department of State Records Disposition Schedule that shall be published here:
All users are given cyber security awareness training that covers the procedures for handling Sensitive but Unclassified information, including personally identifiable information (PII). Annual refresher training is mandatory. In addition, all Foreign Service and Civil Service employees and those Locally Employed Staff who handle PII are required to take the Foreign Service Institute distance learning course instructing employees on privacy and security requirements, including the rules of behavior for handling PII and the potential consequences if it is handled improperly. Before being granted access to Ombudsperson Mechanism Records, a user must first be granted access to the Department of State computer system.
Department of State employees and contractors may remotely access this system of records using non-Department owned information technology. Such access is subject to approval by the Department's access program, and is limited to information maintained in unclassified information systems. Remote access to the Department's information systems is configured in compliance with OMB Circular A-130 multifactor authentication requirements and includes a time-out function.
All Department of State employees and contractors with authorized access to records maintained in this system of records have undergone a thorough background security investigation. Access to the Department of State, its annexes and posts abroad is controlled by security guards and admission is limited to those individuals possessing a valid identification card or individuals under proper escort. While the majority of records in Ombudsperson Mechanism will be in an electronic format, paper mailings from the EU individual complaint handling body could be included in the system. All paper records containing personal information are maintained in secured file cabinets in restricted areas, access to which is limited to authorized personnel only. Access to computerized files is password-protected and under the direct supervision of the system manager. The system manager has the capability of printing audit trails of access from the computer media,
When it is determined that a user no longer needs access, the user account is disabled. The Department of State will store records maintained in this system of records in cloud systems. All cloud systems that provide IT services and process Department of State information must be authorized to operate by the Department of State Authorizing Official and Senior Agency Official for Privacy. Only information that conforms with Department-specific definitions for FISMA low or moderate categorization are permissible for cloud usage unless specifically authorized by the Department's Cloud Computing Governance Board. The categorization of information in this system of records is designated as low. Prior to operation, all Cloud systems must comply with applicable security measures that are outlined in FISMA, FedRAMP, OMB guidance, NIST Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) and Special Publications, and Department of State policy and standards.
Individuals who wish to gain access to or to amend records pertaining to themselves should write to U.S. Department of State; Director, Office of Information Programs and Services; A/GIS/IPS; SA-2, Suite 8100; Washington, DC 20522-0208. The individual must specify that he or she wishes the Ombudsperson Mechanism Records to be checked. At a minimum, the individual must include: Full name (including maiden name, if appropriate) and any other names used; current mailing address and zip code; date and place of birth; notarized signature or statement under penalty of perjury; a brief description of the circumstances that caused the creation of the record (including the city and/or country and the approximate dates) which gives the individual cause to believe that the Ombudsperson Mechanism Records include records pertaining to him or her. Detailed instructions on Department of State procedures for accessing and amending records can be found at
Individuals who wish to contest record procedures should write to U.S. Department of State; Director, Office of Information Programs and Services; A/GIS/IPS; SA-2, Suite 8100; Washington, DC 20522-0208.
Individuals who have reason to believe that this system of records may contain information pertaining to them may write to U.S. Department of State; Director, Office of Information Programs and Services; A/GIS/IPS; SA-2, Suite 8100; Washington, DC 20522-0208. The individual must specify that he or she wishes the Ombudsperson Mechanism Records to be checked. At a minimum, the individual must include: Full name (including maiden name, if appropriate) and any other names used; current mailing address and zip code; date and place of birth; notarized signature or statement under penalty of perjury; a brief description of the circumstances that caused the creation of the record (including the city and/or country and the approximate dates) which gives the individual cause to believe that the Ombudsperson Mechanism Records include records pertaining to him or her.
None.
None.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of State, including under section 7045(b)(6) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2017 (Div. J, Pub. L. 115-31) I hereby certify and report that:
(1) The Peace Tribunal and other judicial bodies within the special jurisdiction for peace are independent and have authority to document “truth declarations” from perpetrators of gross violations of human rights and to sentence such perpetrators to meaningful sanctions, including victims' reparations, guarantee of non-repetition, and deprivation of liberty;
(2) Military personnel responsible for ordering, committing, or covering up cases of false positives, including those in command authority, are being investigated, prosecuted, and appropriately sanctioned, and military officers credibly alleged to have committed such crimes are removed from positions of command authority until the completion of judicial proceedings; and
(3) The Government of Colombia is continuing to dismantle illegal armed groups, taking effective steps to protect the rights of human rights defenders, journalists, trade unionists, and other social activists, and protecting the rights and territory of indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities.
This Certification shall be published in the
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is publishing the names of the members selected to serve on its Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board (PRB). This notice supersedes all previous PRB membership notices.
Ron Nerida, Human Capital Specialist, Office of Human Capital and Services, at (202) 395-7360 or
Provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(1)-(5)), require USTR to establish a PRB to review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, and make recommendations regarding performance ratings to the United States Trade Representative or his designee. The Act (5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4)) requires USTR to publish the PRB membership in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Request for public comments.
Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC), to change the current land use from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use of a 4.2-acre parcel of land. The parcel is located in the western quadrant of the airport. The Airport Layout Plan was updated with a Pen and Ink Change to designate the parcel for non-aeronautical use. The annual savings in electrical costs created by the solar farm will offset the fair market value of the land lease over the lease period.
Comments must be received on or before October 16, 2017.
You may send comments using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Interested persons may inspect the request and supporting documents by contacting the FAA at the address listed under
Mr. Jorge E. Panteli, Compliance and Land Use Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration New England Region Airports Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803. Telephone: 781-238-7618.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.
Notice of request to release airport property for non-aeronautical purposes.
The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the release of land for non-aeronautical purposes at the Lehigh Valley International Airport (ABE), Allentown, Pennsylvania.
Comments must be received on or before October 18, 2017.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the following address: Ryan Meyer, Senior Aviation Planner, Lehigh Valley International Airport, 3311 Airport Road Allentown, Pennsylvania 18109; and at the FAA Harrisburg Airports District Office: Lori K. Pagnanelli, Manager, Harrisburg Airports District Office, 3905 Hartzdale Dr., Suite 508, Camp Hill, PA 17011.
Rick Harner, Civil Engineer, Harrisburg Airports District Office, location listed above.
The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release airport property for non-aeronautical purposes at the Lehigh Valley International Airport under the provisions of Section 47125(a) of Title 49 U.S.C. On September 6, 2017, the FAA determined that the request to release airport property for non-aeronautical purposes at the Lehigh Valley International Airport (ABE), Pennsylvania, submitted by the Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority (Authority), met the procedural requirements. Final release of the property is subject to FAA's NEPA determination made on April 17, 2017.
The following is a brief overview of the request:
The Authority requests the release of a portion of airport property totaling 244.427 acres, which is no longer needed for aeronautical purposes. Of the total 244.427 acres, 174.887 acres are part of Parcel H-1, 49.068 acres are part of Parcel V, 16.177 acres are part of Parcel N-2, and 4.294 acres are part of Parcel X-2. These parcels are located in Allen Township and were originally included as part of larger property purchased with federal funds over multiple AIP grants.
The 244.427 acres requested for non-aeronautical use are to be released to the Rockefeller Group Development Corporation (Rockefeller Group), 500 International Drive North, Suite 345, Mt. Olive, NJ 07828. The property is located in the northwest corner of existing airport property and is being used for contract farming purposes. The undeveloped property is located in Allen Township at the intersection of Willowbrook Road and Race Street. As shown on ABE's approved Airport Layout Plan, the property does not serve an aeronautical purpose and is not needed for current or future airport development. The property was part of an inverse condemnation judgment against the Authority. The proceeds from the Fair Market Value (FMV) sale of the 244.427 acres of property will be used for eligible airport development purposes, as outlined in FAA Order 5190.6B, Airport Compliance Manual.
Any person may inspect the request by appointment at the FAA office address listed above. Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed release. All comments will be considered by the FAA to the extent practicable.
Issued in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, September 12, 2017.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 37 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before October 18, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0233 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a two year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the two year period.
The 37 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population.
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441). The revision must provide for individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305). Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for three years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the three year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e).
Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary.
The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified by the notice in the
Mr. Blanchet, 61, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Blanchet understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Blanchet meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Rhode Island.
Mr. Brunke, 43, has had ITDM since 1984. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brunke understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brunke meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Wisconsin.
Mr. Climaco, 57, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Climaco understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Climaco meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts.
Mr. Combs, 59, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Combs understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Combs meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Davis, 72, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Davis understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Davis meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Montana.
Mr. Dent, 54, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dent understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dent meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Gardner, 38, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gardner understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gardner meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Florida.
Mr. Gintner, 27, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gintner understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gintner meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Wisconsin.
Mr. Glick, 53, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist
Mr. Godoy, 56, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Godoy understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Godoy meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Hawaii.
Mr. Gordon, 49, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gordon understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gordon meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Massachusetts.
Mr. Grady, 52, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Grady understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Grady meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
Mr. Helm, 26, has had ITDM since 1996. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Helm understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Helm meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Jackson, 33, has had ITDM since 1988. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Jackson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jackson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Ohio.
Mr. James, 67, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. James understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. James meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Oregon.
Mr. Johnson, 62, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Johnson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Johnson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Arkansas.
Mr. Jones, 55, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Jones understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jones meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida.
Mr. LaRue, 56, has had ITDM since 1997. His endocrinologist examined him
Mr. Lessman, 56, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lessman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lessman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Louis, 58, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Louis understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Louis meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Carolina.
Mr. McNall, 43, has had ITDM since 1979. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McNall understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McNall meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New York.
Mr. Mitchell, 75, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mitchell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mitchell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Texas.
Mr. Moos, 73, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Moos understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Moos meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Dakota.
Mr. Pesina, 54, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pesina understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pesina meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Iowa.
Mr. Salmon, 47, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Salmon understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Salmon meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Virginia.
Mr. Shives, 61, has had ITDM since 1995. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Shives understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Shives meets the
Mr. Siegrist, 31, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Siegrist understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Siegrist meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Sims, 60, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sims understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sims meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
Mr. Skeens, 67, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Skeens understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Skeens meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.
Mr. Spilker, 45, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Spilker understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Spilker meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Montana.
Mr. Strait, 67, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Strait understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Strait meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey.
Mr. Tanner, 72, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tanner understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tanner meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Ms. Thomas, 60, has had ITDM since 2002. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Thomas understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Thomas meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class B CDL from Delaware.
Mr. Thompson, 24, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Thompson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Thompson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from California.
Mr. Vaughan, 60, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function
Mr. White, 53, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. White understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. White meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.
Mr. Wolf, 73, has had ITDM since 1986. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wolf understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wolf meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date's section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 25 individuals for an exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
Comments must be received on or before October 18, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0023 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a two year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the two year period.
The 25 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal Meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard red, green, and amber.
In July 1992, the Agency first published the criteria for the Vision Waiver Program, which listed the conditions and reporting standards that CMV drivers approved for participation would need to meet (Qualification of Drivers; Vision Waivers, 57 FR 31458, July 16, 1992). The current Vision Exemption Program was established in 1998, following the enactment of amendments to the statutes governing exemptions made by § 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 401 (June 9, 1998). Vision exemptions are considered under the procedures established in 49 CFR part 381 subpart C, on a case-by-case basis upon application by CMV drivers who do not meet the vision standards of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past three years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrated the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used three consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first two years with their experiences in the final year.
Mr. Bartels, 73, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion, he has sufficient vision to perform the daily tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Bartels reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 17 years, accumulating 1.8 million miles. He holds an operator's license from Wisconsin. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Bartley, 49, has aphakia in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Bartley has sufficient vision to drive a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Bartley reported that he has driven straight trucks for 13 years, accumulating 260,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for nine years, accumulating 270,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Kentucky. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Berns, 54, has fibrotic scarring in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is hand motion, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “It is my opinion that this patient has stable, long-standing vision deficiency in the right eye only and has sufficient visual acuity and peripheral vision in the left eye to operate a commercial vehicle safely.” Mr. Berns reported that he has driven straight trucks for 26 years, accumulating 39,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 56 years, accumulating 42,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His driving record for the last three years shows no
Mr. Boyle, 31, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “Based on today's exam, in my medical opinion the patient has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Boyle reported that he has driven straight trucks for six years, accumulating 273,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Maryland. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Casey, 37, has a cataract in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, Jeremiah Casey has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Casey reported that he has driven straight trucks for two years, accumulating 10,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for seven years, accumulating 525,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes but one conviction for speeding in a CMV; he exceeded the speed limit by ten mph.
Mr. Cassieri, 69, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic incident in 1975. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “Patient has sufficient vision for driving and operating a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Cassieri reported that he has driven straight trucks for 50 years, accumulating 110,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 50 years, accumulating 110,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from California. His driving record for the last three years shows one crash, which he was not cited for, and one conviction for speeding in a CMV; he exceeded the speed limit by 22 mph.
Mr. Conrad, 63, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic incident in 1972. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Based on these findings, I feel Randy J. Conrad has the visual abilities to continue operating a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce because the loss of his left eye occurred in 1972 and he has been driving a commercial vehicle since around 1973.” Mr. Conrad reported that he has driven straight trucks for 40 years, accumulating two million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for two years, accumulating 50,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Curtis, 36, has had retinal neovascularization in his left eye since 2010. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my medical opinion, he is visually capable of driving a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Curtis reported that he has driven straight trucks for 16 years, accumulating 402,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 16 years, accumulating 402,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New Mexico. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Delano, 60, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 1990. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, Mr. Daniel Delano has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Delano reported that he has driven straight trucks for five years, accumulating 190,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Virginia. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Edwards, 42, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, Jonathan Edwards has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks for a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Edwards reported that he has driven straight trucks for six years, accumulating 210,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Green, 61, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/80. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion, Mr. Green has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Green reported that he has driven straight trucks for 35 years, accumulating 27,335 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Healy, 52, has retinal scarring in his left eye due to an infection in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, counting fingers. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my medical opinion, Richard Healy has sufficient vision to perform all driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Healy reported that he has driven straight trucks for 14 years, accumulating 560,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Maryland. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Hillis, 63, has had a chorioretinal scar in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, light perception. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, Mr. Tommy Hillis has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Hillis reported that he has driven straight trucks for two years, accumulating 100,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 35 years, accumulating 2.5 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Honstad, 44, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist
Mr. Lovell, 61, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is count fingers, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “He is safe to operate a commercial vehicle in my opinion, even though his vision is uniocular.” Mr. Lovell reported that he has driven straight trucks for 38 years, accumulating 3.23 million miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Maio, 30, has had amblyopia in left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my professional opinion, Mr. Maio has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Maio reported that he has driven straight trucks for eight years, accumulating 600,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for eight years, accumulating 4,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Maine. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Marquez, 49, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 1975. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, hand motion. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “Mr. Carlos Marquez has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Marquez reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for ten years, accumulating one million miles. He holds a Class ABCD CDL from Wisconsin. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. McBride, 40, has complete loss of vision of his left eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “I believe he has adequate vision for operation of a commercial vehicle.” Mr. McBride reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 16 years, accumulating 2.4 million miles. He holds a Class CA CDL from Michigan. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Olson, 55, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/125. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, Dennis Olson has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Olson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 10,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 20 years, accumulating 8,000 miles. He holds a Class ABCD CDL from Wisconsin. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Quinalty, 27, has had macular coloboma in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Quinalty exhibits excellent visual skills . . . in my professional opinion, based on the testing performed today, Mr. Quinalty should function well enough to continue drive [
Mr. Sagert, 53, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to a traumatic incident 1999. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, after evaluating Mr. Sagert with a formal eye examination on 4/26/2017 and field of vision test on 4/28/2017, Mr [sic] Sagert has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks involved with operating a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Sagert reported that he has driven straight trucks for 17 years, accumulating 442,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 17 years, accumulating 442,000 miles. He holds a Class ABCD CDL from Wisconsin. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Steele, 55, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion, this man has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Steele reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 37 years, accumulating 2.59 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Strassburg, 62, has phthisis bulbi in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 2013. The visual acuity in his right eye is light perception, and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “I do believe that the patient does have sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Strassburg reported that he has driven straight trucks for 45 years, accumulating 450,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 44 years, accumulating 3.3 million miles, and buses for two years, accumulating 20,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from New York. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Studebaker, 41, has had a prosthetic right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion, Jeremy appears to have sufficient vision in his left eye to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Studebaker reported that he has driven straight trucks for 13 years, accumulating 130,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Indiana. His driving record for the last
Mr. Woodworth, 56, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/150. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, I do believe that the patient has sufficient vision to perform the driving task [
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comments from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments and material received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt seven individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on August 1, 2017. The exemptions expire on August 1, 2019.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On June 29, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from seven individuals requesting an exemption from the epilepsy prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) and requested comments from the public (82 FR 29624). The public comment period ended on July 31, 2017, and no were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding. However, FMCSA was informed that the notice published on June 29, 2017, identified the driver but not their resident State. It has been corrected in this notice. Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the epilepsy/seizure standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
In reaching the decision to grant these exemption requests, FMCSA considered the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP). The January 15, 2013,
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical information, including the root cause of the respective seizure(s) and medical information about the applicant's seizure history, the length of time that has elapsed since the individual's last seizure, the stability of each individual's treatment regimen and the duration of time on or off of anti-seizure medication. In addition, the Agency reviewed the treating clinician's medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV with a history of seizure and each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) for commercial driver's license (CDL) holders, and interstate and intrastate inspections recorded in the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). A summary of each applicant's seizure history was discussed in the June 29, 2017,
These seven applicants have been seizure-free over a range of 8-36 years while taking anti-seizure medication and have maintained a stable medication treatment regimen for the last two years. In each case, the applicant's treating physician verified his or her seizure history and supports the ability to drive commercially.
The Agency acknowledges the potential consequences of a driver experiencing a seizure while operating a CMV. However, the Agency believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they are unlikely to have a seizure and their medical condition does not pose a risk to public safety.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the epilepsy/seizure standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the seven exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the seizure standard, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for three individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The renewed exemptions were applicable on June 10, 2017. The renewed exemptions will expire on June 10, 2019. Comments must be received on or before October 18, 2017.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0381; FMCSA-2014-0382; FMCSA-2015-0115 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for two years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the two-year period.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391—MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: § 391.41(b)(8), paragraphs 3, 4, and 5.]
The three individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the three applicants has satisfied the conditions for obtaining an exemption from the Epilepsy and Seizure Disorder requirements and were published in the
The three drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous two-year exemption period. FMCSA has concluded that renewing the exemptions for each of these applicants is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. Therefore, FMCSA has decided to renew each exemption for a two-year period for the following applicants:
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the three exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders requirement in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(8). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that on August 10, 2017, the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (FWTA) on behalf of TexRail Commuter Railroad (TEXR) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations for the purchase of eight new trainsets from Stadler Bussnang AG (Stadler). Specifically, TEXR is requesting relief from 49 CFR part 229, Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards (§ 229.47); 49 CFR part 231, Railroad Safety Appliance Standards (§§ 231.14(a)(2), (b)-(d), (f), (g)); and 49 CFR part 238, Passenger Equipment Safety Standards (§ 238.305). FRA assigned the petition docket number FRA-2017-0087.
The TexRail commuter rail system consists of a single rail line, running from Fort Worth, Texas, to the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW), a distance of 27-miles, with 9 stations. Service is scheduled to begin in December 2018.
TexRail will purchase eight new FLIRT Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) trainsets manufactured by Stadler in Salt Lake City, Utah. The delivery of vehicles is expected to begin in October 2017 and end in May 2018. TexRail asserts that the FLIRT trainset is a service-proven design built to European design standards. It was first delivered to European customers in 2004. There are approximately 1,100 FLIRT trainsets in operation worldwide. TexRail vehicles will be the first FLIRT models in the United States. The new vehicles are designed and built to current European design and regulatory standards, which differ in several areas from current U.S. design standards and regulations. TexRail believes that the design characteristics of the Stadler FLIRT vehicles provide an equivalent or higher level of safety and security to the passengers and crew.
TexRail has organized its regulatory compliance efforts into two distinct but related parts: Part 1 represents the “base” compliance assessment effort (this petition) and Part 2 represents a separate petition to utilize Alternative Vehicle Technology crashworthiness technology as outlined in “Technical Criteria and Procedures for Evaluating the Crashworthiness and Occupant Protection Performance of Alternatively-Designed Passenger Rail Equipment for Use in Tier I Service” and the recent notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Standards for Alternative Compliance and High-Speed Trainsets (81 FR 88006, December 6, 2016). Noting that certain provisions in 49 CFR part 231 pertaining to safety appliances are statutorily required, and therefore not subject to FRA's waiver authority, TEXR also requested that FRA exercise its authority under 49 U.S.C. 20306 to exempt TEXR from certain provisions of Chapter 203, Title 49 of the United States Code because the FLIRT DMU vehicles will be equipped with their own array of safety devices resulting in equivalent safety.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a new hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by November 2, 2017 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under part 235 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this provides the public notice that on July 27, 2017, the Grenada Railroad, LLC (GRYR) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking extension
The GRYR seeks an extension of FRA's approval to discontinue and remove of the automatic block signal (ABS) system between Southaven, Mississippi, milepost (MP) 403.0 and Grenada, Mississippi, MP 617.4.
The automatic block signal (ABS) system between Southaven, milepost (MP) 403.0 and Grenada, MS, MP 617.4 is out of service, but remains in place under conditions of FRA's February 2, 2016, decision letter.
The reasons given for the proposed changes were that the GRYR only operates one train a day at any given time, under Track Warrant Control (TWC), making the ABS redundant as well as expensive to maintain, with replacement parts becoming hard to acquire.
Grenada Railroad, LLC, was sold to the North Central Mississippi Regional Railroad Authority (NCMRRA). Iowa Pacific Railroad (IPRR) has been designated as the operating railroad for this property by the NCMRRA.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by November 2, 2017 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is providing notice that on August 16, 2017, the Yadkin Valley Railroad submitted an Informational Filing (IF) pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 236.913(j). This submission was assigned docket number FRA-2017-0083.
The YVRR submitted an IF requesting FRA approval to conduct field testing of a Train Detection System supplied by Next Generation Rail Technologies S.L. (NGRT) at Bethania Road highway-rail crossing in Rural Hall, North Carolina. YVRR estimates that once installed, it will take seven days to configure the system to current rail traffic. After installation of the system, the proposed period of data collection will be approximately four months. YVRR asserts that its IF addresses all requirements of 49 CFR 236.913(j)(1), and that the system will be operating in shadow mode only to collect data, and will not interfere, impact, or communicate with the current signaling system.
A copy of the IF and any related documents have been placed in docket number FRA-2017-0083 and are available for public inspection online at
Under part 235 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this provides the public notice that on July 14, 2017, Ann Arbor Railroad (AARR) and CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) jointly petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2017-0079.
AARR seeks to modify the Hallett Interlocking, at Toledo, Ohio, by converting power-operated switches numbers 13A, 13B, 15, and 21 to hand-operation. AARR signals 10L, 14R, 16L, 18L, 18R, 18RC, and 22R are to be retired with signals 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 installed closer to the diamond. CSXT signals 2L, 4L, and 6R will become CSXT 2, 4, and 6, with new signal 8 installed. CSXT switch #20 to become CSXT switch #3.
This modification is to be done in conjunction with the CSXT positive train control (PTC) project.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by November 2, 2017 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under part 235 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides notice that on August 31, 2017, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2017-0091.
NS seeks to discontinue the signal system on the Meadville Line between Greenville, PA, milepost (MP) MI 128.6 and control point (CP) Hubbard MP MI 150.8 at Hubbard, OH.
This includes CP Cole, CP Sharpsville, two head block signals and 18 automatic signals. New operative approach signals will be placed at MP Ml 148.6 in approach to CP Hubbard and at MP Ml 133.8 in approach to Shenango.
The main track between MP Ml 128.6 and CP Hubbard MP Ml 150.8 will be converted to NS Rule 171 operation. The sidings within the application limits at Cole, Budd, Clark and Sharpsville will be made noncontrolled, other than main track.
The reason for the proposed change is that operations no longer require a signal system.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by November 2, 2017 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides
Specifically, the SLC seeks to renew an existing waiver of compliance from the glazing regulations in 49 CFR 223.11,
Since SLC's original waiver was granted in 2003, there have been no accidents, incidents, or injuries to employees that involved the window glazing of locomotives SLC 70 and SLC 71.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by October 18, 2017 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under part 235 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that on August 21, 2017, the Denver Regional Transportation District Commuter Rail (RTDC) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2017-0082.
The Regional Transportation District (RTD) is the owner of the line segment and BNSF Railway (BNSF) and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) are the operators. RTDC seeks to modify the Automatic Block Signal (ABS) and Traffic Control System (TCS) on the BNSF and RTDC line segment between the 41D and 43D derails, switch 29, and the 8S signal, on the East and West Yard Track segments near Denver Union Station (DUS) Interlocking, between MP 0.00 and MP 0.49.
The application states that BNSF uses this 500-foot line segment between the 41D and 43D derails, switch 29, and the 8S signal primarily for locomotive switching moves and Amtrak operates on this line segment to move in and out of DUS Tracks #4 and #5 for passenger operations.
The current signal system design uses the 41D, East yard track, and 43D West yard track, switch indication lights to govern traffic in advance of the derails on the yard tracks and in approach to the 8S signal at DUS Interlocking. The 41D and 43D derails and switch 29 are interlocked with the 8S signal at DUS Interlocking. The violation of the 8S signal, toward DUS, is safeguarded by the 49D derail.
Disconnecting the circuitry of the 41D and 43D derail and switch 29 from 8S signal at DUS Interlocking is proposed in order to comply with provisions of 49 CFR part 236. The application goes on to describe the work that would be done if approved. All existing home signals will be retained. The 41D and 43D derails, switch 29, and associated switch indication lights will remain powered but will be controlled and monitored independently from the DUS Interlocking. The movement of switch 29 will be electrically tied to the 41D and 43D derails. Positioning of switch 29 will be determined by the position of the corresponding derail, aligning to the derail which is in the non-derailing position and locked. Although the switch and derails will be removed from the DUS Interlocking logics, a minimum of two indications from switch 29—switch position and the locked indication—will be established in order to provide safe routing through DUS between the platform and beyond the 41D and 43D derails in both directions. The design will be fail-safe. Sufficient provision will exist to protect unauthorized access to DUS Interlocking via the 49D derail to protect against any train that may violate the 8S signal at DUS Interlocking. As an additional safety measure a minimum of 100 feet of center gauge restraining rail will be installed south of the 49D derail, toward DUS, to protect against incursion into the RTDC tracks.
The reasons given by RTDC for the proposed changes are improvements to reliability and safety, expedited train movements, and compliance with 49
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by November 2, 2017 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of persons whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to Executive Order 13581 of July 24, 2011, “Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations.”
OFAC's actions described in this notice took place on February 16, 2017.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202-622-2410.
The list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site at
On February 16, 2017, OFAC removed from the SDN List the persons listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13581.
1. SNYMAN, Estelle, Shannon Airport House, Shannon, County Clare, Ireland; DOB 01 Nov 1964 to 30 Nov 1964 (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: PACNET HOLDINGS LIMITED; Linked To: PACNET GROUP).
2. WEEKES, Brian, Attyterilla, Ballygriffey Road, Ruan, County Clare, Ireland; DOB 18 Feb 1963 (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: PACNET EUROPE; Linked To: PACNET GROUP).
(b) Provisions of law, other than section 721 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701
(a) The proposed acquisition of Lattice by the Purchasers (the proposed transaction) is prohibited, and any substantially equivalent transaction, whether effected directly or indirectly by the Purchasers, through the Purchasers' shareholders or shareholders' immediate, intermediate, or ultimate foreign person beneficial owners, or through the Purchasers' subsidiaries, is also prohibited.
(b) The Purchasers and Lattice shall take all steps necessary to fully and permanently abandon the proposed transaction not later than 30 days after the date of this order, unless such date is extended by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) for a period not to exceed 90 days, on such conditions as CFIUS may require. Immediately upon completion of all steps necessary to terminate the proposed transaction, the Purchasers and Lattice shall certify in writing to CFIUS that such termination has been effected in accordance with this order and that all steps necessary to fully and permanently abandon the proposed transaction have been completed.
(c) From the date of this order until the Purchasers and Lattice provide a certification of termination of the proposed transaction to CFIUS pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, the Purchasers and Lattice shall certify to CFIUS on a weekly basis that they are in compliance with this order and include with that certification a description of all efforts to permanently abandon the proposed transaction and a timeline for projected completion of remaining actions necessary to effectuate the abandonment.
(d) Any transaction or other device entered into or employed for the purpose of, or with the effect of, avoiding or circumventing this order is prohibited.
(e) The Attorney General is authorized to take any steps necessary to enforce this order.
(b) I hereby direct the Secretary of the Treasury to transmit a copy of this order to the parties to the proposed transaction named in section 1 of this order.
| 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 |