| Page Range | 12503-12712 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 12711 - Women's History Month, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 12709 - Irish-American Heritage Month, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 12707 - American Red Cross Month, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 12602 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12629 - Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization Documentation for Beneficiaries Under El Salvador's Designation for Temporary Protected Status | |
| 82 FR 12556 - Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From India and Sri Lanka: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination for India and Countervailing Duty Orders | |
| 82 FR 12553 - Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From India: Antidumping Duty Order | |
| 82 FR 12508 - 340B Drug Pricing Program Ceiling Price and Manufacturer Civil Monetary Penalties; Delay of Effective Date | |
| 82 FR 12589 - Risk Evaluation Scoping Efforts Under TSCA for Ten Chemical Substances; Reopening of Comment Period | |
| 82 FR 12532 - Intention To Review and Rescind or Revise the Clean Water Rule | |
| 82 FR 12577 - Proposed Subsequent Arrangement | |
| 82 FR 12637 - Certain Integrated Circuits With Voltage Regulators and Products Containing Same; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Amending the Complaint and Notice of Investigation | |
| 82 FR 12576 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Evaluation of the ESSA Title I, Part C, Migrant Education Programs (Recruitment phase) | |
| 82 FR 12506 - Revising Procedures for the Freedom of Information Act | |
| 82 FR 12509 - Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Programs; Medicaid Managed Care, CHIP Delivered in Managed Care, and Revisions Related to Third Party Liability; Corrections | |
| 82 FR 12587 - Guthrie Natural Gas; Notice of Application | |
| 82 FR 12585 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
| 82 FR 12577 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
| 82 FR 12582 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Mountaineer Xpress and Gulf Xpress Projects | |
| 82 FR 12703 - Agency Information Collection Activity (Wrist Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire (VA Form 21-0960M-16)) | |
| 82 FR 12703 - Agency Information Collection Activity (Neck (Cervical Spine) Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire (VA Form 21-0960M-13)) | |
| 82 FR 12702 - Agency Information Collection Activity (Ankle Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire (VA Form 21-0960M-2)) | |
| 82 FR 12567 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 12536 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Technical Data Letter of Explanation | |
| 82 FR 12535 - Notice of Correction to Federal Register Notice for 2017 Puerto Rico Census Test | |
| 82 FR 12535 - Notice of Correction to Filing of Federal Register Notice for 2018 End-to-End Census Test-Address Canvassing Operation | |
| 82 FR 12567 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12566 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12568 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Pre-Assessment Webinar for Atlantic Blueline Tilefish; Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12640 - Request for a License To Import Radioactive Waste | |
| 82 FR 12641 - Request for a License To Export Radioactive Waste | |
| 82 FR 12640 - Request To Amend a License To Import Radioactive Waste | |
| 82 FR 12602 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension | |
| 82 FR 12582 - Perkins, Zac; Notice of Filing | |
| 82 FR 12584 - Innovative Solar 37, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 82 FR 12579 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 12586 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 12576 - Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Available for Licensing | |
| 82 FR 12544 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 12564 - Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 12551 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review | |
| 82 FR 12632 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Technical/Agency Draft Recovery Plan for the Yellowcheek Darter | |
| 82 FR 12536 - Approval of Subzone Status; TopShip, LLC, Gulfport, Mississippi | |
| 82 FR 12536 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 176-Rockford, Illinois, Authorization of Production Activity, Brake Parts Inc. (Automotive Parts Kitting), McHenry, Illinois | |
| 82 FR 12540 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 12536 - Large Residential Washers From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 12538 - Large Residential Washers From Mexico: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 12555 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order | |
| 82 FR 12682 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing | |
| 82 FR 12680 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 82 FR 12676 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 82 FR 12562 - Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Intent To Rescind, in Part; 2014-2015 | |
| 82 FR 12550 - Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review | |
| 82 FR 12558 - Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Reviews: Antidumping Duty Orders on Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China and Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China | |
| 82 FR 12538 - Certain Hardwood Plywood Products From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation | |
| 82 FR 12675 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 82 FR 12561 - Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker From Japan: Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order | |
| 82 FR 12592 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 82 FR 12702 - Sanctions Action Pursuant to Executive Order 13382 | |
| 82 FR 12683 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 82 FR 12678 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 82 FR 12685 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 82 FR 12617 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; NCI Genomic Data Commons (GDC) Data Submission Request Form (National Cancer Institute) | |
| 82 FR 12616 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, (National Cancer Institute) | |
| 82 FR 12618 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; CTEP Support Contracts Forms and Surveys, NCI, NIH | |
| 82 FR 12575 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 12638 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-National Armaments Consortium | |
| 82 FR 12615 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 12594 - Incentive Auction Task Force and Media Bureau Announce Procedures for the Post-Incentive Auction Broadcast Transition | |
| 82 FR 12636 - Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Cape Wind Energy Project MMAA104000 | |
| 82 FR 12638 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-ODVA, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 12639 - Proposed Collection: Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 12639 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Open Mobile Alliance | |
| 82 FR 12637 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-National Spectrum Consortium | |
| 82 FR 12639 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 12641 - IFRS Taxonomy for Foreign Private Issuers That Prepare Their Financial Statements in Accordance With International Financial Reporting Standards as Issued by the International Accounting Standards Board | |
| 82 FR 12635 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 82 FR 12633 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 82 FR 12687 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 12627 - Technical Mapping Advisory Council | |
| 82 FR 12510 - Final Flood Elevation Determinations | |
| 82 FR 12626 - Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 82 FR 12613 - Determination That FLONASE (Fluticasone Propionate) Nasal Spray, 0.05 Milligram, Was Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness | |
| 82 FR 12627 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 82 FR 12611 - Public Meeting on Patient-Focused Drug Development for Autism; Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 12614 - Issuance of Priority Review Voucher; Rare Pediatric Disease Product | |
| 82 FR 12533 - Summer Food Service Program; 2017 Reimbursement Rates | |
| 82 FR 12625 - Accreditation and Approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
| 82 FR 12624 - Accreditation and Approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
| 82 FR 12623 - Accreditation and Approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
| 82 FR 12622 - Accreditation and Approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
| 82 FR 12674 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Egypt-Greece-Rome: Cultures in Contact” Exhibition | |
| 82 FR 12533 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 12588 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 12587 - MS Solar 2, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 82 FR 12577 - Steppe Petroleum USA Inc., Bakken Hunter, LLC; Notice of Application | |
| 82 FR 12582 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 12580 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 12586 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 12581 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice | |
| 82 FR 12585 - MPLX Ozark Pipe Line LLC; Notice of Petiton for Declaratory Order | |
| 82 FR 12578 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 12588 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 12662 - Touchstone Investment Trust, et al.; Notice of Application | |
| 82 FR 12658 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to the Co-Location Services Offered by the Exchange Adding a Wireless Connection to Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) Third Party Data | |
| 82 FR 12667 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Unusual Market Conditions | |
| 82 FR 12642 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 103B | |
| 82 FR 12656 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX Options Rule 519, MIAX Order Monitor | |
| 82 FR 12649 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 7017 | |
| 82 FR 12671 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to Qualified Contingent Cross Orders | |
| 82 FR 12653 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt DEEP, a New Depth of Book Market Data Feed, Rename TOPS Viewer to IEX Data Platform, and Include Depth of Book Market Data Therein | |
| 82 FR 12646 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to the Co-Location Services Offered by the Exchange Adding a Wireless Connection to Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) Third Party Data | |
| 82 FR 12663 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to the Co-Location Services Offered by the Exchange Adding a Wireless Connection to Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) Third Party Data | |
| 82 FR 12634 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 82 FR 12575 - Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 12568 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Rocky Intertidal Monitoring Surveys Along the Oregon and California Coasts | |
| 82 FR 12605 - Supplemental Evidence and Data Request on Effects of Dietary Sodium and Potassium Intake on Chronic Disease Outcomes and Related Risk Factors | |
| 82 FR 12673 - Nevada Disaster #NV-00044 | |
| 82 FR 12504 - Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Paragould, AR | |
| 82 FR 12674 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Kansas | |
| 82 FR 12526 - Proposed Establishment of Restricted Area R-2205 A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H, and Revocation of Restricted Area R-2205; Fairbanks, AK | |
| 82 FR 12531 - DSM Biomedical; Filing of Color Additive Petition | |
| 82 FR 12529 - Proposed Establishment of Restricted Areas R-2201 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and J; Fort Greely, AK. | |
| 82 FR 12505 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Mapleton, IA | |
| 82 FR 12523 - Proposed Amendment and Removal of VOR Federal Airways; Eastern United States | |
| 82 FR 12525 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Grayling, AK | |
| 82 FR 12503 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Barter Island, AK | |
| 82 FR 12522 - Proposed Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-7 and V-67; TN | |
| 82 FR 12618 - National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12621 - National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12616 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12615 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 12622 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 12618 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 12535 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Maine Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 12614 - Meeting of the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 12610 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request; Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection (ICR-REV); Centers for Independent Living Annual Performance Report (CILPPR); Correction | |
| 82 FR 12589 - Granting Petitions To Add n-Propyl Bromide to the List of Hazardous Air Pollutants | |
| 82 FR 12591 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Safer Choice Logo Redesign Consultations; Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 12590 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Request to Renew OMB Control No. 2070-0046 (EPA ICR No. 0794.16) Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 12610 - Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, President's Committee for People With Intellectual Disabilities | |
| 82 FR 12693 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
| 82 FR 12691 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
| 82 FR 12696 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
| 82 FR 12689 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of applications for special permits | |
| 82 FR 12512 - Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Broadcast, Common Carrier and Aeronautical Radio Licensees | |
| 82 FR 12591 - Extension of Comment Period To Review Materials To Inform the Derivation of a Water Concentration Value for Lead in Drinking Water |
Food and Nutrition Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Antitrust Division
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 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), DOT.
Final rule.
This action revises Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and adjusts the airport's geographic coordinates at Barter Island LRRS Airport, Barter Island, AK. The Barter Island Borough is relocating the airport due to high maintenance caused by weather erosion. The FAA found modification of standard instrument approach and departure procedures and supporting airspace necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the new airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, April 27, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11A and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Robert LaPlante, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4566.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it revises controlled airspace at Barter Island LRRS Airport, Barter Island, AK.
On October 13, 2016, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 revises Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Barter Island LRRS Airport, Barter Island, AK. Due to oceanic erosion issues at this remote location, the North Slope Borough is relocating the airport approximately 2 miles southwest of the existing airport. The new airspace area is revised to within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport to support new instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport. Additionally, the airport's geographic coordinates are revised to lat. 70°06′47″ N., long. 143°39′13″ W.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Barter Island LRRS Airport, and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 83-mile radius of Barter Island LRRS Airport, excluding that airspace east of 141° west longitude, and excluding that airspace that extends beyond 12 miles of the shoreline.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kirk Field, Paragould, AR. Decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDB), cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, June 22, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class E airspace at Kirk Field, Paragould, AR.
On August 25, 2016, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius (increased from the 6.4-mile radius) of Kirk Field, Paragould, AR, with an extension south of the airport from the 6.5-mile radius 10.1 miles.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of RNAV procedures at this airport for the safety and
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Kirk Field, and within 3 miles each side of the 019° radial from the Jonesboro VOR extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 10.1 miles south of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at James G. Whiting Memorial Field Airport, Mapleton, IA. Decommissioning of the Mapleton non-directional radio beacon (NDB), cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, June 22, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class E airspace at James G. Whiting Memorial Field Airport, Mapleton, IA.
On September 8, 2016, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016,
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius (increased from the 6.3-mile radius) of James G. Whiting Memorial Field Airport, Mapleton, IA, with an extension southwest of the airport from the 6.6-mile radius to 10.3 miles. The segment extending 10 miles northeast of the airport is removed.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Mapleton NDB, cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of RNAV procedures at the airport and for the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of James G. Whiting Memorial Field Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 204° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 10.3 miles southwest of the airport.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission issuing a set of rules amending existing regulations governing requests for agency records made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), in accordance in with the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016.
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On December 19, 2016, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise its regulations governing requests for agency records made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, to comply with the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 (the Act), Public Law 114-185, 130 Stat. 538 (2016).
The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 was signed into law on June 30, 2016. Among other things, the Act expands the dispute resolution process available to requesters, limits the use of FOIA exemptions, and codifies the so-called “Rule of 3” for frequently requested records.
On December 19, 2016, the Commission issued Order No. 3671, introducing proposed revisions to its rules. As Order No. 3671 indicates, revisions to the affected sections of 39 CFR part 3004 are necessary to implement the Act.
The Commission received two sets of comments on the proposed rules. The National Archives and Records Administration's Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) and the Public Representative submitted comments.
OGIS has reviewed the Commission's proposed rules and commends the Commission for its efforts in reviewing its disclosure policies and revising its regulations to comply with the Act.
First, OGIS suggests that the Commission clarify proposed § 3004.43, governing request responses.
Second, OGIS recommends that the Commission supplement its rule on final denials of appeals, set out in § 3004.44(c)(1).
Specifically, the Public Representative recommends that proposed § 3004.13 be revised to define how the Commission determines that a record is frequently requested.
The Public Representative also recommends that the Commission include its deadline for requesters to appeal adverse determinations in § 3004.44, the section addressing FOIA appeals.
The Commission's final rules incorporate the commenters' suggested revisions, as well as several additional changes that the Commission determined would be prudent upon review of guidance published by the Department of Justice, Office of Information Policy (OIP).
The Commission accepts OGIS' proposed changes to help accommodate OGIS' statutory role as a mediator between agencies and FOIA requesters. The Commission finds that the proposed revisions will assist requesters by raising awareness that dispute resolution is available through OGIS. Furthermore, the Commission makes conforming changes to proposed § 3004.44 to clarify that administrative appeal is available even when the adverse determination is not a denial.
The Commission finds that the Public Representative's suggested changes supplement the proposed rules with additional explanation and improve their accessibility to the public. Accordingly, the Commission accepts the Public Representative's proposed changes.
The final rules also incorporate OIP's guidance on two of the FOIA request fee rules. The revisions eliminate a cross reference in proposed § 3004.52(e)(2) and revise proposed § 3004.52(f) to clarify which fees the Commission can collect when it issues a timely partial response but an untimely complete response. These changes clarify the Act's modifications to the FOIA fee structure in accordance with OIP's template.
1. Part 3004 of title 39, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below the signature of this Order, effective 30 days after publication in the
2. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission amends chapter III of title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552; 39 U.S.C. 503.
(a) The Commission shall be proactive and timely in identifying and posting public records and other frequently requested records to its Web site.
(b) It is the stated policy of the Commission that FOIA requests shall be administered with a clear presumption of openness. The Commission will only withhold information if it reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by a FOIA exemption, as enumerated in § 3004.11, or disclosure is otherwise prohibited by law.
(a) To request Commission records, please contact the Secretary of the Commission via letter or use the online request form provided on the Commission's Web site at
(b) Requests must describe the records sought in sufficient detail to enable the Commission to locate them with a reasonable amount of effort. To the extent possible, the requests should provide any specific information that might assist the Commission in responding to the request.
(c) Requesters must provide contact information to assist the Commission in communicating with them concerning requests and responding to the request.
(f) Inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency. This exemption shall not apply to records created 25 years or more before the date on which the records were requested.
(c) The Commission shall make available, in an electronic and physical reading room, records previously released under FOIA and which the Commission determines are or are likely to become of significant public interest, including agency records that have been requested three or more times.
(a) Decisions, advisory opinions, orders, public reports, and agency records that have been requested three or more times will be made available to the public by posting on the Commission's Web site at
(a) Within 20 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) after receipt of a request for a Commission record, the Secretary or Assistant Secretary will notify the requester of its determination to grant or deny the request and the right to seek assistance from the Commission's FOIA Public Liaison. In the case of an adverse determination, the Commission will notify the requester of their right to appeal and right to seek dispute resolution services from the Commission's FOIA Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services.
(b) A requester who seeks to appeal any adverse determination must file an appeal with the Commission within 1 year of the date of the Commission's response.
(c)(1) The Commission will grant or deny the appeal in writing within 20 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) of the date the appeal is received. If on appeal the adverse determination is upheld, the Commission will notify the requester of the availability of dispute resolution services from the Office of Government Information Services as a voluntary, non-exclusive alternative to litigation and the provisions for judicial review of that determination pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(c).
(a) The Commission may extend the time limit for a response to a request or appeal for up to 10 business days due to unusual circumstances, as specified in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(B)(iii). In such a case, the Commission will notify the requester in writing of the unusual circumstance causing the extension and the date by which the Commission estimates that the request can be processed.
(b) If an extension will exceed 10 business days, the Commission will:
(1) Provide the requester with an opportunity to limit the scope of the request or to arrange an alternative timeframe for processing the request or a modified request. The applicable time limits are not tolled while the Commission waits for a response from the requester under this subsection; and
(2) Make its FOIA Public Liaison available to the requester and apprise the requester of their right to seek dispute resolution services from the Office of Government Information Services.
(e) No requester will be charged a fee after any search or response which occurs after the applicable time limits as described in §§ 3004.43 and 3004.44, unless:
(1) The Commission extends the time limit for its response due to unusual circumstances, pursuant to § 3004.45(a), and the Commission completes its response within the extension of time provided under that section; or
(2) The Commission extends the time limit for its response due to unusual circumstances and more than 5,000 pages are necessary to respond to the request and the Commission has discussed with the requester how they could effectively limit the scope of the request or made at least three good faith attempts to do so; or
(3) A court has determined that exceptional circumstances exist and excused the Commission from responding by court order.
(f) The Commission may, however, charge fees for review, and in some cases duplication, for a partial grant of a request while it reviews records that may be exempt and may be responsive to the request, so long as the partial grant is made within the applicable time limits.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” this action temporarily delays for 60 days from the date of the memorandum the effective date of the final rule titled “340B Drug Pricing Program Ceiling Price and Manufacturer Civil Monetary Penalties Regulation,” published in the January 5, 2017,
CAPT Krista Pedley, Director, Office of Pharmacy Affairs (OPA), Healthcare Systems Bureau (HSB), HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 08W05A, Rockville, MD 20857, or by telephone at 301-594-4353.
The January 20, 2017 memorandum from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, titled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” published in the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Final rule; correcting amendment.
This document corrects technical errors that appeared in the correcting amendment published in the January 3, 2017
Elmer Barksdale, 410-786-1943, Gaysha Brooks, 410-409-3837, or Annette Brewer, 410-786-6580.
In FR Doc. 2016-31650 (82 FR 37 through 40), the correcting amendment entitled, “Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Programs; Medicaid Managed Care, CHIP Delivered in Managed Care, and Revisions Related to Third Party Liability; Corrections” there were technical errors that are identified and corrected in this correcting document. These corrections are applicable immediately.
On page 39, we made technical errors in the amendatory instructions amending the regulation text of § 438.358(c)(3) and (4). Therefore, the Office of the Federal Register was not able to properly correct the regulations text as intended.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the
In our view, this correcting document does not constitute a rulemaking that would be subject to these requirements. This document merely corrects technical errors in the Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Programs; Medicaid Managed Care, CHIP Delivered in Managed Care, and Revisions Related to Third Party Liability; Corrections correcting amendment. The corrections contained in this document are consistent with, and do not make substantive changes to, the policies and payment methodologies that were adopted subject to notice and comment procedures in the Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Programs; Medicaid Managed Care, CHIP Delivered in Managed Care, and Revisions Related to Third Party Liability final rule. As a result, the corrections made through this correcting document are intended to ensure that the Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Programs; Medicaid Managed Care, CHIP Delivered in Managed Care, and Revisions Related to Third Party Liability final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that rule.
Even if this were a rulemaking to which the notice and comment and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Programs; Medicaid Managed Care, CHIP Delivered in Managed Care, and Revisions Related to Third Party Liability final rule or delaying the effective date of the corrections would be contrary to the public interest because it could result in a period of confusion about the applicability of the rules while those procedures are pending. Further, such procedures would be unnecessary, because the corrections in this document do not make substantive changes in the underlying policies but are limited to technical errors. This correcting document is intended solely to ensure that the Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Programs; Medicaid Managed Care, CHIP Delivered in Managed Care, and Revisions Related to Third Party Liability final rule accurately reflects the final policy determinations that were set forth in the overall rulemaking record. For these reasons, we believe there is good cause to waive the requirements for notice and comment and delay in effective date.
Grant programs—health, Medicaid, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In FR Doc. 2016-31650, published on January 3, 2017 (82 FR 37), make the following correction:
On page 39, in the third column, remove amendatory instructions 8 and 9 and their amendments to § 438.358.
Accordingly, 42 CFR chapter IV is corrected by making the following correcting amendments to part 438:
Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated in the table below.
The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; technical amendment.
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) published a document revising Commission rules applicable to foreign ownership of broadcast, common carrier, aeronautical en route and aeronautical fixed radio station licensees. Due to an error in the effective date language, the Commission's rules were prematurely removed from the CFR. This technical amendment restores these rules to the CFR.
This technical amendment is effective March 6, 2017.
Kimberly Cook or Francis Gutierrez, Telecommunications and Analysis Division, International Bureau, FCC, (202) 418-1460 or via email to
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) published a document in the
Communications common carriers, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Satellites, Telecommunications.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 1 as follows:
15 U.S.C. 79,
These rules establish the requirements and conditions for obtaining the Commission's prior approval of foreign ownership in common carrier, aeronautical en route, and aeronautical fixed radio station licensees and common carrier spectrum lessees that would exceed the 25 percent benchmark in section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 310(b)(4)). These rules also establish the requirements and conditions for obtaining the Commission's prior approval of foreign ownership in common carrier (but not aeronautical en route or aeronautical fixed) radio station licensees and spectrum lessees that would exceed the 20 percent limit in section 310(b)(3) of the Act (47 U.S.C. 310(b)(3)).
(a)(1) A common carrier, aeronautical en route or aeronautical fixed radio station licensee or common carrier spectrum lessee shall file a petition for declaratory ruling to obtain Commission approval under section 310(b)(4) of the Act, and obtain such approval, before the aggregate foreign ownership of any controlling, U.S.-organized parent company exceeds, directly and/or indirectly, 25 percent of the U.S. parent's equity interests and/or 25 percent of its voting interests. An applicant for a common carrier, aeronautical en route or aeronautical fixed radio station license or common carrier spectrum leasing arrangement shall file the petition for declaratory ruling required by this paragraph at the same time that it files its application.
Paragraph (a)(1) of this section implements the Commission's foreign ownership policies under section 310(b)(4) of the Act (47 U.S.C. 310(b)(4)), for common carrier, aeronautical en route, and aeronautical fixed radio station licensees and common carrier spectrum lessees. It applies to foreign equity and/or voting interests that are held, or would be held, directly and/or indirectly in a U.S.-organized entity that itself directly or indirectly controls a common carrier, aeronautical en route, or aeronautical fixed radio station licensee or common carrier spectrum lessee. A foreign individual or entity that seeks to hold a controlling interest in such a licensee or spectrum lessee must hold its controlling interest indirectly, in a U.S.-organized entity that itself directly or indirectly controls the
(2) A common carrier radio station licensee or spectrum lessee shall file a petition for declaratory ruling to obtain approval under the Commission's section 310(b)(3) forbearance approach, and obtain such approval, before aggregate foreign ownership, held through one or more intervening U.S.-organized entities that hold non-controlling equity and/or voting interests in the licensee, along with any foreign interests held directly in the licensee or spectrum lessee, exceeds 20 percent of its equity interests and/or 20 percent of its voting interests. An applicant for a common carrier radio station license or spectrum leasing arrangement shall file the petition for declaratory ruling required by this paragraph at the same time that it files its application. Foreign interests held directly in a licensee or spectrum lessee, or other than through U.S.-organized entities that hold non-controlling equity and/or voting interests in the licensee or spectrum lessee, shall not be permitted to exceed 20 percent.
Paragraph (a)(2) of this section implements the Commission's section 310(b)(3) forbearance approach adopted in the First Report and Order in IB Docket No. 11-133, FCC 12-93 (released August 17, 2012), 77 FR 50628 (Aug. 22, 2012). The section 310(b)(3) forbearance approach applies only to foreign equity and voting interests that are held, or would be held, in a common carrier licensee or spectrum lessee through one or more intervening U.S.-organized entities that do not control the licensee or spectrum lessee. Foreign equity and/or voting interests that are held, or would be held, directly in a licensee or spectrum lessee, or indirectly other than through an intervening U.S.-organized entity, are not subject to the Commission's section 310(b)(3) forbearance approach and shall not be permitted to exceed the 20 percent limit in section 310(b)(3) of the Act (47 U.S.C. 310(b)(3)).
(b) The petition for declaratory ruling required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be filed electronically on the Internet through the International Bureau Filing System (IBFS). For information on filing your petition through IBFS, see subpart Y of this part and the IBFS homepage at
(c)(1) Each applicant, licensee, or spectrum lessee filing a petition for declaratory ruling required by paragraph (a) of this section shall certify to the information contained in the petition in accordance with the provisions of § 1.16 and the requirements of this paragraph. The certification shall include a statement that the applicant, licensee and/or spectrum lessee has calculated the ownership interests disclosed in its petition based upon its review of the Commission's rules and that the interests disclosed satisfy each of the pertinent standards and criteria set forth in the rules.
(2) Multiple applicants and/or licensees shall file jointly the petition for declaratory ruling required by paragraph (a) of this section where the entities are under common control and contemporaneously hold, or are contemporaneously filing applications for, common carrier licenses, common carrier spectrum leasing arrangements, or aeronautical en route or aeronautical fixed radio station licenses. Where joint petitioners have different responses to the information required by § 1.991, such information should be set out separately for each joint petitioner, except as otherwise permitted in § 1.991(h)(2).
(i) Each joint petitioner shall certify to the information contained in the petition in accordance with the provisions of § 1.16 with respect to the information that is pertinent to that petitioner. Alternatively, the controlling parent of the joint petitioners may certify to the information contained in the petition.
(ii) Where the petition is being filed in connection with an application for consent to transfer control of licenses or spectrum leasing arrangements, the transferee or its ultimate controlling parent may file the petition on behalf of the licensees or spectrum lessees that would be acquired as a result of the
(3) Multiple applicants and licensees shall not be permitted to file a petition for declaratory ruling jointly unless they are under common control.
(d) The following definitions shall apply to this section and §§ 1.991 through 1.994.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
The petition for declaratory ruling required by § 1.990(a)(1) and/or § 1.990(a)(2) shall contain the following information:
(a) With respect to each petitioning applicant or licensee, provide its name; FCC Registration Number (FRN); mailing address; place of organization; telephone number; facsimile number (if available); electronic mail address (if available); type of business organization (
(b) If the petitioning applicant or licensee is represented by a third party (
(c)(1) For each named licensee, list the type(s) of radio service authorized (
(2) If the petition is filed in connection with an application for a radio station license or a spectrum leasing arrangement, or an application to acquire a license or spectrum leasing arrangement by assignment or transfer of control, specify for each named applicant:
(i) The File No(s). of the associated application(s), if available at the time the petition is filed; otherwise, specify the anticipated filing date for each application; and
(ii) The type(s) of radio services covered by each application (
(d) With respect to each petitioner, include a statement as to whether the petitioner is requesting a declaratory ruling under § 1.990(a)(1) and/or § 1.990(a)(2).
(e)(1)
(2)
(3) Where no individual or entity holds, or would hold, directly 10 percent or more of the equity interests and/or voting interests, or a controlling interest, in the controlling U.S. parent (for petitions filed under § 1.990(a)(1)) or in the applicant or licensee (for petitions filed under § 1.990(a)(2)), the petition shall state that no individual or entity holds or would hold directly 10 percent or more of the equity interests and/or voting interests, or a controlling interest, in the U.S. parent, applicant or licensee.
(4)(i) Where a named U.S. parent, applicant, or licensee is organized as a corporation, provide the name of any individual or entity that holds, or would hold, 10 percent or more of the outstanding capital stock and/or voting stock, or a controlling interest.
(ii) Where a named U.S. parent, applicant, or licensee is organized as a general partnership, provide the names
(iii) Where a named U.S. parent, applicant, or licensee is organized as a limited partnership or limited liability partnership, provide the name(s) of the general partner(s) (in the case of a limited partnership), any uninsulated partner(s), and any insulated partner(s) with an equity interest in the partnership of at least 10 percent (calculated according to the percentage of the partner's capital contribution). With respect to each named partner (other than a named general partner), the petitioner shall state whether the partnership interest is insulated or uninsulated, based on the insulation criteria specified in § 1.993.
(iv) Where a named U.S. parent, applicant, or licensee is organized as a limited liability company, provide the name(s) of each uninsulated member, regardless of its equity interest, any insulated member with an equity interest of at least 10 percent (calculated according to the percentage of its capital contribution), and any non-equity manager(s). With respect to each named member, the petitioner shall state whether the interest is insulated or uninsulated, based on the insulation criteria specified in § 1.993, and whether the member is a manager.
The Commission presumes that a general partner of a general partnership or limited partnership has a controlling interest in the partnership. A general partner shall in all cases be deemed to hold an uninsulated interest in the partnership.
(f)(1)
(2)
(3) Where no individual or entity holds, or would hold, indirectly 10 percent or more of the equity interests and/or voting interests, or a controlling interest, in the controlling U.S. parent (for petitions filed under § 1.990(a)(1)) or in the petitioning applicant(s) or licensee(s) (for petitions filed under § 1.990(a)(2)), the petition shall specify that no individual or entity holds indirectly 10 percent or more of the equity interests and/or voting interests, or a controlling interest, in the U.S. parent, applicant(s), or licensee(s).
The Commission presumes that a general partner of a general partnership or limited partnership has a controlling interest in the partnership. A general partner shall in all cases be deemed to hold an uninsulated interest in the partnership.
(g) For each 10 percent interest holder named in response to paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, specify the equity interest held and the voting interest held (each to the nearest one percent); in the case of an individual, his or her citizenship; and in the case of a business organization, its place of organization, type of business organization (
(h)(1)
(2)
(i)
(1) Each petitioning common carrier or aeronautical radio station applicant or licensee filing under § 1.990(a)(1) shall identify and request specific approval for any foreign individual, entity, or group of such individuals or entities that holds, or would hold, directly and/or indirectly, more than 5 percent of the equity and/or voting interests, or a controlling interest, in the petitioner's controlling U.S. parent unless the foreign investment is exempt under paragraph (i)(3) of this section. Equity and voting interests shall be calculated in accordance with the principles set forth in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section and in § 1.992.
(2) Each petitioning common carrier radio station applicant or licensee filing under § 1.990(a)(2) shall identify and request specific approval for any foreign individual, entity, or group of such individuals or entities that holds, or would hold, directly, and/or indirectly through one or more intervening U.S.-organized entities that do not control the applicant or licensee, more than 5 percent of the equity and/or voting interests in the applicant or licensee unless the foreign investment is exempt
Two or more individuals or entities will be treated as a “group” when they have agreed to act together for the purpose of acquiring, holding, voting, or disposing of their equity and/or voting interests in the licensee and/or controlling U.S. parent of the licensee or in any intermediate company(ies) through which any of the individuals or entities holds its interests in the licensee and/or controlling U.S. parent of the licensee.
(3) A foreign investment is exempt from the specific approval requirements of paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section where:
(i) The foreign individual or entity holds, or would hold, directly and/or indirectly, no more than 10 percent of the equity and/or voting interests of the U.S. parent (for petitions filed under § 1.990(a)(1)) or the petitioning applicant or licensee (for petitions filed under § 1.990(a)(2)); and
(ii) The foreign individual or entity does not hold, and would not hold, a controlling interest in the petitioner or any controlling parent company, does not plan or intend to change or influence control of the petitioner or any controlling parent company, does not possess or develop any such purpose, and does not take any action having such purpose or effect. The Commission will presume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the following interests satisfy this criterion for exemption from the specific approval requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section:
(A) Where the relevant licensee, controlling U.S. parent, or entity holding a direct or indirect equity and/or voting interest in the licensee or U.S. parent is a “public company,” as defined in § 1.990(d)(9),
Common carrier applicant (“Applicant”) is preparing a petition for declaratory ruling to request Commission approval for foreign ownership of its controlling, U.S.-organized parent (“U.S. Parent”) to exceed the 25 percent benchmark in section 310(b)(4) of the Act. Applicant does not currently hold any FCC licenses. Shares of U.S. Parent trade publicly on the New York Stock Exchange. Based on a shareholder survey and a review of its shareholder records, U.S. Parent has determined that its aggregate foreign ownership on any given day may exceed an aggregate 25 percent, including a six percent common stock interest held by a foreign-organized mutual fund (“Foreign Fund”). U.S. Parent has confirmed that Foreign Fund is not currently required to report its interest pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13d-1(a) and instead is eligible to report its interest pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13d-1(b). U.S. Parent also has confirmed that Foreign Fund does not hold any other interests in U.S. Parent's equity securities, whether of a class of voting or non-voting securities. Applicant may, but is not required to, request specific approval of Foreign Fund's six percent interest in U.S. Parent.
Where an institutional investor holds voting, equity securities that are subject to reporting under Exchange Act Rule 13d-1, 17 CFR 240.13d-1, or a substantially comparable foreign law or regulation, and equity securities that are not subject to such reporting the investor's total capital stock interests may be aggregated and treated as exempt from the 5 percent specific approval requirement in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section so long as the aggregate amount of the institutional investor's holdings does not exceed ten percent of the company's total capital stock or voting rights and the investor is eligible to certify under Exchange Act Rule 13d-1(b), 17 CFR 240.13d-1(b), or a substantially comparable foreign law or regulation that it has acquired its capital stock interests in the ordinary course of business and not with the purpose nor with the effect of changing or influencing the control of the company. In calculating foreign equity and voting interests, the Commission does not consider convertible interests such as options, warrants and convertible debentures until converted, unless specifically requested by the petitioner,
(B) Where the relevant licensee, controlling U.S. parent, or entity holding a direct and/or indirect equity and/or voting interest in the licensee or U.S. parent is a “privately held” corporation, as defined in § 1.990(d)(8),
(C) Where the relevant licensee, controlling U.S. parent, or entity holding a direct and/or indirect equity and/or voting interest in the licensee or U.S. parent is “privately held,” as defined in § 1.990(d)(8), and is organized as a limited partnership, limited liability company (“LLC”), or limited liability partnership (“LLP”),
(4) A petitioner may, but is not required to, request specific approval for any other foreign individual or entity that holds, or would hold, a direct and/or indirect equity and/or voting interest in the controlling U.S. parent (for petitions filed under § 1.990(a)(1)) or in the petitioning applicant or licensee (for petitions filed under § 1.990(a)(2)).
(5) The minority shareholder protections referenced in paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(B) of this section consist of the following rights:
(i) The power to prevent the sale or pledge of all or substantially all of the assets of the corporation or a voluntary filing for bankruptcy or liquidation;
(ii) The power to prevent the corporation from entering into contracts with majority shareholders or their affiliates;
(iii) The power to prevent the corporation from guaranteeing the obligations of majority shareholders or their affiliates;
(iv) The power to purchase an additional interest in the corporation to prevent the dilution of the shareholder's
(v) The power to prevent the change of existing legal rights or preferences of the shareholders, as provided in the charter, by-laws or other operative governance documents;
(vi) The power to prevent the amendment of the charter, by-laws or other operative governance documents of the company with respect to the matters described in paragraphs (i)(5)(i) through (v) of this section.
(6) The Commission reserves the right to consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether voting or consent rights over matters other than those listed in paragraph (i)(5) of this section shall be considered permissible minority shareholder protections in a particular case.
(j) For each foreign individual or entity named in response to paragraph (i) of this section, provide the following information:
(1) In the case of an individual, his or her citizenship and principal business(es);
(2) In the case of a business organization:
(i) Its place of organization, type of business organization (
(ii) The name of any individual or entity that holds, or would hold, directly and/or indirectly, through one or more intervening entities, 10 percent or more of the equity interests and/or voting interests, or a controlling interest, in the foreign entity for which the petitioner requests specific approval. Specify for each such interest holder, his or her citizenship (for individuals) or place of legal organization (for entities). Equity interests and voting interests held indirectly shall be calculated in accordance with the principles set forth in § 1.992.
(iii) Where no individual or entity holds, or would hold, directly and/or indirectly, 10 percent or more of the equity interests and/or voting interests, or a controlling interest, the petition shall specify that no individual or entity holds, or would hold, directly and/or indirectly, 10 percent or more of the equity interests and/or voting interests, or a controlling interest, in the foreign entity for which the petitioner requests specific approval.
(k)
(1)
(2)
(a) The criteria specified in this section shall be used for purposes of calculating indirect equity and voting interests under § 1.991.
(b)(1)
(2)
(i) Voting interests that are held through one or more intervening corporations shall be calculated by successive multiplication of the voting percentages for each link in the vertical ownership chain, except that wherever the voting interest for any link in the chain is equal to or exceeds 50 percent or represents actual control, it shall be treated as if it were a 100 percent interest.
(ii) Voting interests that are held through one or more intervening partnerships shall be calculated depending upon whether the individual or entity holds a general partnership interest, an uninsulated partnership interest, or an insulated partnership interest as specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A)
The Commission presumes that a general partner of a general partnership or limited partnership has a controlling interest in the partnership. A general partner shall in all cases be deemed to hold an uninsulated interest in the partnership.
(B)
(iii) Voting interests that are held through one or more intervening limited liability companies shall be calculated depending upon whether the individual or entity is a non-member manager, an uninsulated member or an insulated member as specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A)
(B)
(a) A limited partner of a limited partnership and a partner of a limited liability partnership shall be treated as uninsulated within the meaning of § 1.992(b)(2)(ii)(A) unless the partner is prohibited by the limited partnership agreement, limited liability partnership agreement, or other operative agreement from, and in fact is not engaged in, active involvement in the management or operation of the partnership and only the usual and customary investor protections are contained in the partnership agreement or other operative agreement. These criteria apply to any relevant limited partnership or limited liability partnership, whether it is the licensee, a controlling U.S.-organized parent, or any partnership situated above them in the vertical chain of ownership.
(b) A member of a limited liability company shall be treated as uninsulated for purposes of § 1.992(b)(2)(iii)(A) unless the member is prohibited by the limited liability company agreement from, and in fact is not engaged in, active involvement in the management or operation of the company and only the usual and customary investor protections are contained in the agreement. These criteria apply to any relevant limited liability company, whether it is the licensee, a controlling U.S.-organized parent, or any limited liability company situated above them in the vertical chain of ownership.
(c) The usual and customary investor protections referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall consist of:
(1) The power to prevent the sale or pledge of all or substantially all of the assets of the limited partnership, limited liability partnership, or limited liability company or a voluntary filing for bankruptcy or liquidation;
(2) The power to prevent the limited partnership, limited liability partnership, or limited liability company from entering into contracts with majority investors or their affiliates;
(3) The power to prevent the limited partnership, limited liability partnership, or limited liability company from guaranteeing the obligations of majority investors or their affiliates;
(4) The power to purchase an additional interest in the limited partnership, limited liability partnership, or limited liability company to prevent the dilution of the partner's or member's
(5) The power to prevent the change of existing legal rights or preferences of the partners, members, or managers as provided in the limited partnership agreement, limited liability partnership agreement, or limited liability company agreement, or other operative agreement;
(6) The power to vote on the removal of a general partner, managing partner, managing member, or other manager in situations where such individual or entity is subject to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, or other proceedings relating to the relief of debtors; adjudicated insane or incompetent by a court of competent jurisdiction (in the case of a natural person); convicted of a felony; or otherwise removed for cause, as determined by an independent party;
(7) The power to prevent the amendment of the limited partnership agreement, limited liability partnership agreement, or limited liability company agreement, or other organizational documents of the partnership or limited liability company with respect to the matters described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section.
(d) The Commission reserves the right to consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether voting or consent rights over matters other than those listed in paragraph (c) of this section shall be considered usual and customary investor protections in a particular case.
Foreign ownership rulings issued pursuant to §§ 1.990 through 1.993 shall be subject to the following terms and conditions, except as otherwise specified in a particular ruling:
(a)(1)
(2)
Licensees have an obligation to monitor and stay ahead of changes in foreign ownership of their controlling U.S.-organized parent companies (for rulings issued pursuant to § 1.990(a)(1)) and/or in the licensee itself (for rulings issued pursuant to § 1.990(a)(2)), to ensure that the licensee obtains Commission approval before a change in foreign ownership renders the licensee out of compliance with the terms and conditions of its declaratory ruling(s) or the Commission's rules. Licensees, their controlling parent companies, and other entities in the licensee's vertical ownership chain may need to place restrictions in their bylaws or other organizational documents to enable the licensee to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of its declaratory ruling(s) and the Commission's rules.
As required by the rules, U.S. Corp. files a section 310(b)(4) petition concurrently with its application. The petition identifies and requests specific approval for the ownership interests held in U.S. Parent by Foreign Entity A and its sole shareholder (5 percent equity and 20 percent voting interest); Foreign Entity B and its sole shareholder (10 percent equity and 20 percent voting interest), Foreign Entity C (20 percent equity and 20 percent voting interest), and Foreign Entity D (21 percent equity and 20 percent voting interest) and its fund manager (20 percent voting interest). The Commission's ruling specifically approves these foreign interests. The ruling also provides that, on a going-forward basis, U.S. Parent may be 100 percent owned in the aggregate, directly and/or indirectly, by other foreign investors, subject to the requirement that U.S. Corp. seek and obtain Commission approval before any previously unapproved foreign investor acquires more than five percent of U.S. Parent's equity and/or voting interests, or a controlling interest, with the exception of any foreign investor that acquires an equity and/or voting interest of ten percent or less,
In this case, foreign entities F, G, and H would each be considered a previously unapproved foreign investor (along with any new foreign investors). However, prior approval for F, G and H would only apply to an increase of F's interest above five percent (because the ten percent exemption under § 1.991(i)(3) does not apply to F) or to an increase of G's or H's interest above ten percent (because G and H do qualify for this exemption). U.S. Corp. would also need Commission approval before Foreign Entity D appoints a new fund manager that is a non-U.S. citizen and before Foreign Entities A, B, C, or D increase their respective equity and/or voting interests in U.S. Parent, unless the petition previously sought and obtained Commission approval for such increases (up to non-controlling 49.99 percent interests). (
(b)
(1) The subsidiary or affiliate of a licensee named in a foreign ownership
(2) The subsidiary or affiliate of a licensee named in a foreign ownership ruling issued under § 1.990(a)(2) may rely on that ruling for purposes of filing its own application for an initial common carrier radio station license or spectrum leasing arrangement, or an application to acquire such license or spectrum leasing arrangement by assignment or transfer of control
(3) The certifications required by paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section shall also include the citation(s) of the relevant ruling(s) (
(c)
(2) Where a previously unapproved foreign-organized entity is inserted into the vertical ownership chain of a licensee, or its controlling U.S.-organized parent, without prior Commission approval pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the licensee shall file a letter to the attention of the Chief, International Bureau, within 30 days after the insertion of the new, foreign-organized entity. The letter must include the name of the new, foreign-organized entity and a certification by the licensee that the entity complies with the 100 percent common ownership and control requirement in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. The letter must also reference the licensee's foreign ownership ruling(s) by IBFS File No. and FCC Record citation, if available. This letter notification need not be filed if the ownership change is instead the subject of a
(3) Nothing in this section is intended to affect any requirements for prior approval under 47 U.S.C. 310(d) or conditions for forbearance from the requirements of 47 U.S.C. 310(d) pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 160.
(d)
Where a licensee has received a foreign ownership ruling under § 1.990(a)(2) and the ruling specifically authorizes a named, foreign investor to hold a non-controlling interest directly in the licensee (subject to the 20 percent aggregate limit on direct foreign investment), the ruling shall permit the insertion of new, foreign-organized companies in the vertical ownership chain of the approved foreign investor without prior Commission approval
(2) Where a previously unapproved foreign-organized entity is inserted into the vertical ownership chain of a licensee, or its controlling U.S.-organized parent, without prior Commission approval pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the licensee shall file a letter to the attention of the Chief, International Bureau, within 30 days after the insertion of the new, foreign-organized entity. The letter must include the name of the new, foreign-organized entity and a certification by the licensee that the entity complies with the 100 percent common ownership and control requirement in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The letter must also reference the licensee's foreign ownership ruling(s) by IBFS File No. and FCC Record citation, if available. This letter notification need not be filed if the ownership change is instead the subject of a
(e)
(f)(1)
(2) Any individual or entity that, directly or indirectly, creates or uses a trust, proxy, power of attorney, or any other contract, arrangement, or device with the purpose or effect of divesting itself, or preventing the vesting, of an equity interest or voting interest in the licensee, or in a controlling U.S. parent company, as part of a plan or scheme to evade the application of the Commission's rules or policies under section 310(b) shall be subject to enforcement action by the Commission, including an order requiring divestiture of the investor's direct and/or indirect interests in such entities.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-7 and V-67, in the eastern United States due to the planned decommissioning of the Graham, TN, VORTAC navigation aid.
Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2017.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1 (800) 647-5527 or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0109 and Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-13 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify three air traffic service route structures in the eastern United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0109 and Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-13) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0109 and Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-13.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016 and effective
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the descriptions of VOR Federal airwaysV-7, and V-67, due to the planned decommissioning of the Graham, TN, VORTAC. The proposed route changes are described below.
In addition, the V-67 description incorrectly lists the state location of the Choo Choo VORTAC as “Georgia” instead of “Tennessee.” This action would correct the route description to reflect the proper state.
Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016 and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Dolphin, FL; INT Dolphin 299° and Lee County, FL, 120° radials; Lee County; Lakeland, FL; Cross City, FL; Seminole, FL; Wiregrass, AL; INT Wiregrass 333° and Montgomery, AL, 129° radials; Montgomery; Vulcan, AL; to Muscle Shoals, AL. From Central City, KY; Pocket City, IN; INT Pocket City 016° and Terre Haute, IN, 191° radials; Terre Haute; Boiler, IN; Chicago Heights, IL; INT Chicago Heights 358° and Falls, WI, 170° radials; Falls; Green Bay, WI; Menominee, MI; to Sawyer, MI. The airspace below 2,000 feet MSL outside the United States is excluded. The portion outside the United States has no upper limit.
From Choo Choo, TN; to Shelbyville, TN. From Cunningham, KY; Marion, IL; Centralia, IL; INT Centralia 010° and Vandalia, IL, 162° radials; Vandalia; Spinner, IL; Burlington, IA; Iowa City, IA; Cedar Rapids, IA; Waterloo, IA; Rochester, MN.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-14, V-265, V-464, and V-522; and to remove airway V-90, in the eastern United States. The modifications are required due to the planned decommissioning of the Dunkirk, NY, VORTAC navigation aid which provides navigation guidance for portions of the above routes.
Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2017.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1 (800) 647-5527 or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0107 and Airspace Docket No. 16-AEA-11 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the VOR Federal airway route structure in the eastern United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0107 and Airspace Docket No. 16-AEA-11) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0107 and Airspace Docket No. 16-AEA-11.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016 and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the descriptions of VOR Federal airways V-14, V-265, V-464, and V-522; and to remove V-90, due to the planned decommissioning of the Dunkirk, NY, VORTAC. The proposed route changes are described below.
Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016 and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Chisum, NM; Lubbock, TX; Childress, TX; Hobart, OK; Will Rogers, OK; INT Will Rogers 052° and Tulsa, OK 246° radials; Tulsa; Neosho, MO; Springfield, MO; Vichy, MO; INT Vichy 067° and St. Louis, MO, 225° radials; St. Louis; Vandalia, IL; Terre Haute, IN; Brickyard, IN; Muncie, IN; Flag City, OH; INT Flag City 079° and Dryer, OH, 240° radials; Dryer; Jefferson, OH; to Erie, PA. From Buffalo, NY; Geneseo, NY; Georgetown, NY; INT Georgetown 093° and Albany, NY, 270° radials; Albany; INT Albany 084° and Gardner, MA, 284° radials; Gardner; to Norwich, CT.
From INT Washington, DC, 043° and Westminster, MD, 179° radials; via Westminster;
Harrisburg, PA; Philipsburg, PA; Keating, NY; Bradford, PA; to Jamestown, NY.
From Salem, MI; via INT Salem 082° and Aylmer, ON, Canada, 261° radials; to Aylmer, ON. The airspace within Canada is excluded.
From Dryer, OH; INT Dryer 049° and Erie, PA, 258° radials; to Erie.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Grayling Airport, Grayling, AK to support the development of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations under standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport, and for the safety and management of controlled airspace within the National Airspace System.
Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2017.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-9333; Airspace Docket No. 16-AAL-4, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Robert LaPlante, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4566.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Grayling Airport, Grayling, AK.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Grayling Airport, Grayling, AK. This airspace is necessary to support the development of IFR operations in standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport. Class E airspace would be established within a 6.5-mile radius of Grayling Airport, with segments extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 8 miles northeast of the airport, and 11.2 miles south of the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Grayling Airport, and that airspace 2 miles either side of the 024° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 8 miles northeast of the airport, and that airspace 2 miles either side of 182° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 11.2 miles south of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to expand upon the current Restricted Area R-2205 by subdividing 8 separate areas in the vicinity of Fairbanks, AK, over the Digital Multipurpose Training Range (DMPTR) and the Yukon Training Area (YTA), to provide a more realistic protective airspace required for hazardous activities within the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC).
Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2017.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
Kenneth Ready, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish restricted airspace at Fairbanks AK, to contain activities deemed hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket Number FAA-2016-9479 and Airspace Docket No. 15-AAL-4) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket Number FAA-2016-9479 and Airspace Docket Number 15-AAL-4.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
The Air Force and Army are currently developing YTA as one of JPARC's most important training areas. Expanding R-2205 would provide larger airspace to more realistically conduct service and joint hazardous training activities, consistent with current and future combat environments. The restricted area and Surface Danger Zones (SDZ) must be large enough to encompass the DMPTR and other ranges in the YTA.
This proposed airspace would allow for manned and unmanned teaming of aviation assets and allow Air-to-Ground Integration (AGI) during large training exercises such as Red Flag and Distant Frontier. Additionally, the expansion of the restricted area over the DMPTR would allow for greater training complexity by incorporating AGI and more consistent training due to a reduction in non-participatory aircraft over the flying range.
The activities within the proposed expansion of R-2205 are to meet the overall training objectives of the Department of Defense. The activities would include live and inert precision and unguided munitions, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) laser operations, joint combined arms live fire exercises, gunnery collective skills training, demolitions, indirect fire and helicopter integration with UAVs.
The proposed restricted area would be subdivided into segmented blocks to enable restricted area activation for only the needed block. Segments activation would reduce the impact to non-participating aircraft. Some subdivisions will overlap with existing Military Operating Areas (MOAs). Considering the new proposed restricted areas are not continuous and the MOAs are not continuous, the potential exist for both the restricted areas and MOAs to be active at the same time. To alleviate this situation, the MOA descriptions will be amended to exclude those portions that overlap into the restricted areas when the restricted areas are active at the same time as the MOAs. This proposal would provide the Air Force and the Army with the necessary expansion to meet both current and future training requirements.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 to remove the current Restricted area R-2205, Stuart Creek, AK, and establish R-2205A through H, Fairbanks, AK. The FAA is proposing this action at the request of the United States Army in Alaska. The proposed restricted areas are described below.
R-2205A and E would overlap the current R-2205 with a 1-mile extension to the east along the eastern boundary and a 3-mile extension to the north along the northern boundary. The western boundary is the same as R-2205B and F. The altitudes would be from the surface up to but not including 10,000 feet MSL (R-2205A) and 10,000 feet MSL to 31,000 feet MSL (R-2205E).
R-2205B and F would be established west of R-2205A and E and east of R-2205C/D/G/H areas. The northern and southern boundaries are the same as R-2205A and E. The altitudes would be from the surface up to but not including
R-2205C and G would be established northeast and southeast of Eilson Air Force Base bordering R-2205D and H on the western boundary. The altitudes would be from the surface up to but not including 10,000 feet MSL (R-2205C) and 10,000 feet MSL to 31,000 feet MSL (R-2205G).
R-2205D and H would be established east of Eielson Air Force Base bordering R-2205C and G to the northeast and southeast. The altitudes would be from the surface up to but not including 10,000 feet MSL (R-2205D) and 10,000 feet MSL to 31,000 feet MSL (R-2205H).
Finally, R-2205, Stuart Creek AK would be removed.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA is proposing the establishment of Restricted Area R-2201A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and J; Fort Greely AK, on behalf of/by the United States Army Alaska (USARAK), over the Battle Area Complex (BAX) and Combined Arms Collective Training Facility (CACTF), in the vicinity of Allen Army Airfield, AK. The proposed restricted airspace would contain hazardous activities and be available for joint military use, including active, National Guard and Reserve elements.
Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2017.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; telephone: 1 (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket Number FAA-2016-9495 and Airspace Docket Number 15-AAL-6 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Kenneth Ready, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish restricted airspace in the vicinity of Allen Army Airfield, to contain activities deemed hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket Number FAA-2016-9495 and Airspace Docket Number 15-AAL-6) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket Number FAA-2016-9495 and Airspace Docket Number 15-AAL-6.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
The current BAX Controlled Firing Area (CFA) does not provide the
Combat units would be able to incorporate enablers, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, with piloted combat aircraft engaged in aggressive combat maneuvers and indirect fires with non-explosive munitions. This proposed restricted area would also accommodate fixed wing aircraft in support of ground operations using simulations and laser engagements.
The restricted area would provide the protection required to contain these hazardous activities and the weapons' safety footprints for the different ordnances to be used within the proposed airspace.
The proposed restricted area is subdivided into segmented blocks to enable restricted area activation for only the needed block. Segments activation reduces the impact to non-participating aircraft. This proposal would provide the Army with the necessary expansion to meet both current and future training requirements.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 to establish restricted area R-2201A through H, and J; Fort Greely, AK. The FAA is proposing this action at the request of the United States Army in Alaska. The proposed restricted areas are described below.
R-2201A, D, and G would be established one mile southeast of Allen Army Airfield and extend south and east for 3 miles. The altitudes will be from the surface up to, but not including, 6,000 feet MSL for R-2201A; 6,000 feet MSL to but not including 15,000 feet MSL for R-2201D; 15,000 feet MSL to 22,000 feet MSL for R-2201G.
R-2201B, E, and H would be established south of R-2201A, D, and G and east of R-2202A and C. The northern boundary is the same as R-22015A, D, and G southern boundary with an extension 3 miles to the west and 2 miles to the furthest point of the eastern boundary. The altitudes will be from the surface up to but not including 6,000 feet MSL for R-2201B; 6,000 feet MSL to but not including 15,000 feet MSL for R-2201E; 15,000 feet MSL to 22,000 feet MSL for R-2201H.
R-2201C, F, and J would be established south of R-2201B, E, and H and east of R-2202 A and C. The northern boundary is the same as R-22015B, E, and H southern boundary. The altitudes will be from the surface up to but not including 6,000 feet MSL for R-2201C; 6,000 feet MSL to but not including 15,000 feet MSL for R-2201F; 15,000 feet MSL to 22,000 feet MSL for R-2201J.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of petition.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that we have filed a petition, submitted by DSM Biomedical, proposing that the color additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of high purity carbon black for coloring ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene sutures for use in general surgery.
The color additive petition was filed on January 27, 2017.
Joseph M. Thomas, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 301-796-9465.
Under section 721(d)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1)), we are giving notice that we have filed a color additive petition (CAP 7C0310), submitted by DSM Biomedical, 735 Pennsylvania Dr., Exton, PA 19341. The petition proposes to amend the color additive regulations in 21 CFR part 73,
We have determined under 21 CFR 25.32(l) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Department of the Army, Department of Defense; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of intent.
In accordance with a Presidential directive, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army (Army) announces its intention to review and rescind or revise the Clean Water Rule.
March 6, 2017.
Ms. Donna Downing, Office of Water (4502-T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number 202-566-2428; email
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, originally enacted in 1948, most comprehensively amended in 1972, and known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), seeks “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” 33 U.S.C. 1251
The EPA and the Department of the Army (collectively, the agencies) have promulgated a series of regulations defining “waters of the United States.” The scope of “waters of the United States” as defined by the prior regulations has been subject to litigation in several U.S. Supreme Court cases, most recently in
In response to that guidance, Members of Congress, developers, farmers, state and local governments, environmental organizations, energy companies and others asked the agencies to replace the guidance with a regulation. At the conclusion of that rulemaking process, the agencies issued the “Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United States.' ” 80 FR 37054 (“2015 Rule”) (found at 40 CFR 110, 112, 116, 117, 122, 230, 232, 300, 302 and 401, and 33 CFR 328).
Due to concerns about the potential for continued regulatory uncertainty, as well as the scope and legal authority of the 2015 Rule, 31 states and a number of other parties sought judicial review in multiple actions. Seven states plus the District of Columbia, and an additional number of parties, then intervened in those cases. On October 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed the 2015 Rule nationwide pending further action of the court.
On February 28, 2017, the President of the United States issued an Executive Order directing the EPA and the Army to review and rescind or revise the 2015 Rule. Today, the EPA and the Army announce their intention to review that rule, and provide advanced notice of a forthcoming proposed rulemaking consistent with the Executive Order. In doing so, the agencies will consider interpreting the term “navigable waters,” as defined in the CWA in a manner consistent with the opinion of Justice Scalia in
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.
Through new rulemaking, the EPA and the Army seek to provide greater clarity and regulatory certainty concerning the definition of “waters of the United States,” consistent with the principles outlined in the Executive Order and the agencies' legal authority.
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 April 5, 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.
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice informs the public of the annual adjustments to the reimbursement rates for meals served in the Summer Food Service Program for Children. These adjustments address changes in the Consumer Price Index, as required under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. The 2017 reimbursement rates are presented as a combined set of rates to highlight simplified cost accounting procedures. The 2017 rates are also presented individually, as separate operating and administrative rates of reimbursement, to show the effect of the Consumer Price Index adjustment on each rate.
Jessica Saracino, Program Monitoring and Operational Support Division, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Suite 628, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, 703-305-1620.
The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.559 and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR part 415 and final rule-related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983.)
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3518, no new recordkeeping or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the Office of Management and Budget.
This notice is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. Additionally, this notice has been determined to be exempt from formal review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
The terms used in this notice have the meaning ascribed to them under 7 CFR part 225 of the SFSP regulations.
This notice informs the public of the annual adjustments to the reimbursement rates for meals served in SFSP. In accordance with sections 12(f) and 13, 42 U.S.C. 1760(f) and 1761, of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) and SFSP regulations under 7 CFR part 225, the United States Department of Agriculture announces the adjustments in SFSP payments for meals served to participating children during calendar year 2017.
The 2017 reimbursement rates are presented as a combined set of rates to highlight simplified cost accounting procedures. Reimbursement is based solely on a “meals times rate” calculation, without comparison to actual or budgeted costs.
Sponsors receive reimbursement that is determined by the number of reimbursable meals served, multiplied by the combined rates for food service operations and administration. However, the combined rate is based on separate operating and administrative rates of reimbursement, each of which is adjusted differently for inflation.
The combined rates are constructed from individually authorized operating and administrative reimbursements. Simplified procedures provide flexibility, enabling sponsors to manage their reimbursements to pay for any allowable cost, regardless of the cost category. Sponsors remain responsible, however, for ensuring proper administration of the Program, while providing the best possible nutrition benefit to children.
The operating and administrative rates are calculated separately. However, the calculations of adjustments for both cost categories are based on the same set of changes in the
Presentation of the 2017 maximum per meal rates for meals served to children in SFSP combines the results from the calculations of operational and administrative payments, which are further explained in this notice. The total amount of payments to State agencies for disbursement to SFSP sponsors will be based upon these adjusted combined rates and the number of meals of each type served. These adjusted rates will be in effect from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.
The portion of the SFSP rates for operating costs is based on payment amounts set in section 13(b)(1) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1761(b)(1). They are rounded down to the nearest whole cent, as required by section 11(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(3)(B)(iii).
The administrative cost component of the reimbursement is authorized under section 13(b)(3) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1761(b)(3). Rates are higher for sponsors of sites located in rural areas and for “self-prep” sponsors that prepare their own meals at the SFSP site or at a central facility instead of purchasing them from vendors. The administrative portion of SFSP rates are adjusted, either up or down, to the nearest quarter-cent.
Sections 9, 13, and 14, Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, 42 U.S.C. 1758, 1761, and 1762a, respectively.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of monthly planning meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Maine Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 1:30 p.m. (EDT) on Tuesday, March 28, 2017. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss possible dates for a briefing on its project regarding the criminalization of the mentally ill and potential panelists for the briefing.
Thursday, March 28, 2017, from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EDT.
Conference call number: 1-888-684-1264 and conference call ID: 9702460.
Ivy L. Davis, at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call number: 1-888-684-1264 and conference call ID: 9702460. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number herein.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-888-364-3109 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call number: 1-888-684-1264 and conference call ID: 9702460.
Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice of correction.
On January 10, 2017,
There are no other changes or corrections to this document.
Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice of correction.
On July 19, 2016,
On December 1, 2016, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Mississippi Coast Foreign Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 92, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 92, on behalf of TopShip, LLC, in Gulfport, Mississippi.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary (15 CFR 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 92F is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 92's 2,000-acre activation limit.
On November 2, 2016, Brake Parts Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility within FTZ Subzone 176G, in McHenry, Illinois.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large residential washers from the Republic of Korea. The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016. The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, LG Electronics, Inc. (LGE). We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by LGE were not made at prices below normal value (NV). We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Effective March 6, 2017.
David Goldberger, 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) 482-4136.
The products covered by the order are all large residential washers and certain subassemblies thereof from Korea. The products are currently classifiable under subheadings 8450.20.0040 and 8450.20.0080 of the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS). Products subject to this order may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8450.11.0040, 8450.11.0080, 8450.90.2000, and 8450.90.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price and constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily determines that a weighted-average margin of 0.00 percent exists for LGE for the period February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016.
We will disclose the calculations performed to parties in this segment of the proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this proceeding.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number; the number of participants; and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined.
All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless the deadline is extended.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
We will calculate importer-specific
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the 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 rate for LGE will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing 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 and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Effective March 6, 2017.
Amanda Brings at (202) 482-3927 or Ryan Mullen at (202) 482-5260, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On December 8, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an antidumping duty investigation of certain hardwood plywood products from the People's Republic of China.
On February 21, 2017, the Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood and its individual members (Petitioners), made a timely request, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e), for postponement of the preliminary determination, in order to facilitate the Department's analysis of the data and questionnaire responses submitted by respondents.
For the reasons stated above, the Department, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination to no later than 190 days after the date on which the Department initiated this investigation. Therefore, the new deadline for the preliminary determination is June 16, 2017. In accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Act, the deadline for the final determination of this investigation will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless postponed at a later date.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large residential washers from Mexico. The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016. The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Electrolux Home Products Corp. N.V., and Electrolux Home Products de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (collectively, Electrolux). We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by Electrolux have been made at prices below normal value (NV). We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Effective March 6, 2017.
Ross Belliveau or Rebecca Janz, 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) 482-4952 or (202) 482-2972, respectively.
The products covered by the order are all large residential washers and certain subassemblies thereof from Mexico. The products are currently classifiable under subheadings 8450.20.0040 and 8450.20.0080 of the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS). Products subject to this order may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8450.11.0040, 8450.11.0080, 8450.90.2000, and 8450.90.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily determines that a weighted-average margin of 1.24 percent exists for Electrolux for the period February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016.
We will disclose the calculations performed to parties in this segment of the proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number; the number of participants; and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined.
All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless the deadline is extended.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
We will calculate importer-specific
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 41 days after the publication date of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the 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 rate for Electrolux will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from Thailand. The review covers 160 producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The Department selected two mandatory respondents for individual examination: A Foods 1991 Co., Limited and May Ao Foods Co., Ltd. (collectively, Mayao); and Thai Union/Pakfood, which consists of Thai Union Group Public Co., Ltd. (also known as Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd.), Thai Union Seafood Company Limited, Pakfood Public Company Limited, Asia Pacific (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Chaophraya Cold Storage Co. Ltd., Okeanos Co. Ltd., Okeanos Food Co. Ltd., and Takzin Samut Co. Ltd. The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016. We preliminarily determine that sales to the United States have been made below normal value and, therefore, are subject to antidumping duties. Additionally, we preliminarily determine that certain companies for which we initiated a review did not have any shipments during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Effective March 6, 2017.
Andrew Medley or Alice Maldonado, 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) 482-4987 and (202) 482-4682, respectively.
The merchandise subject to the order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price and constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
Among the companies under review, five companies properly filed statements reporting that they made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
One of the remaining companies, Grobest Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Grobest) failed to provide a complete certification relating to potential sales or entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins exist for the respondents for the period February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016, as follows:
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Non-Selected Companies:
The Department intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties within five days after the date of publication of this notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the publication date of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where Mayao and Thai Union/Pakfood reported the entered value for of their U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific
For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the average
We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the 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 rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from India. The review covers 231 producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise. The Department selected two mandatory respondents for individual examination: Falcon Marine
Effective March 6, 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.
The merchandise subject to the order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins exist for the respondents for the period February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016, as follows:
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:
The
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the publication date of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because Falcon and the Liberty Group reported the entered value for all of their U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific
For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the average
We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the 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 rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
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 magnesia carbon bricks from the People's Republic of China for the period of review (POR), September 1, 2015, through August 31, 2016.
Effective March 6, 2017.
Kenneth Hawkins, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202.482.6491.
On September 8, 2016, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain magnesia carbon bricks from the People's Republic of China for the POR.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Petitioner withdrew its request within the 90-day deadline. No other party requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order. As a result, we are rescinding the administrative review of certain magnesia carbon bricks from the People's Republic of China for the POR.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because the Department is rescinding this administrative review in its entirety, the entries to which this administrative review pertained shall be assessed antidumping duties at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice.
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 review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final 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, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.
All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.
In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of the initiation
In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, the Department finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after March 2017, the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
The Department is providing this notice on its Web site, as well as in its “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” notices, so that interested parties will be aware of the manner in which the Department intends to exercise its discretion in the future.
In
Note that, for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).
As explained in
The Department no longer considers the non-market economy (NME) entity as an exporter conditionally subject to an antidumping duty administrative reviews.
Following initiation of an antidumping administrative review when there is no review requested of the NME entity, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all exporters not named in the initiation notice, including those that were suspended at the NME entity rate. All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”) on Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS Web site at
The Department will publish in the
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on an affirmative amended final determination by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and an affirmative final determination by the International Trade Commission (the ITC), the Department is issuing an antidumping duty order on certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (off road tires) from India.
Effective March 6, 2017.
Lilit Astvatsatrian or Trisha Tran, 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) 482-6412 or (202) 482-4852, respectively.
In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on January 17, 2017, the Department published its final negative determination of sales at less-than-fair-value (LTFV) with respect to off-the-road tires from India.
The products covered by this order are off road tires, which are tires with an off road tire size designation. For a complete description of the scope of the order,
In accordance with sections 735(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination that the industry in the United States producing off road tires is materially injured by reason of the LTFV imports of off road tires from India.
As a result of the ITC's final determination, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of off-road tires from India. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of off road tires from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 2, 2017, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of off road tires from India. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determinations, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margins listed below.
The estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margin percentages are as follows:
This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to off road tires from India pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at
These orders are published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The scope of the order is certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (off-road tires). Off-road tires are tires with an off road tire size designation. The tires included in the scope may be either tube-type
Subject tires may have the following prefix or suffix designation, which appears on the sidewall of the tire:
Prefix designations:
DH—Identifies a tire intended for agricultural and logging service which must be mounted on a DH drop center rim.
VA—Identifies a tire intended for agricultural and logging service which must be mounted on a VA multipiece rim.
IF—Identifies an agricultural tire to operate at 20 percent higher rated load than standard metric tires at the same inflation pressure.
VF—Identifies an agricultural tire to operate at 40 percent higher rated load than standard metric tires at the same inflation pressure.
Suffix designations:
ML—Mining and logging tires used in intermittent highway service.
DT—Tires primarily designed for sand and paver service.
NHS—Not for Highway Service.
TG—Tractor Grader, off-the-road tire for use on rims having bead seats with nominal +0.188″ diameter (not for highway service).
K—Compactor tire for use on 5° drop center or semi-drop center rims having bead seats with nominal minus 0.032 diameter.
IND—Drive wheel tractor tire used in industrial service.
SL—Service limited to agricultural usage.
FI—Implement tire for agricultural towed highway service.
CFO—Cyclic Field Operation.
SS—Differentiates tires for off-highway vehicles such as mini and skid-steer loaders from other tires which use similar size designations such as 7.00-15TR and 7.00-15NHS, but may use different rim bead seat configurations.
All tires marked with any of the prefixes or suffixes listed above in their sidewall markings are covered by the scope regardless of their intended use.
In addition, all tires that lack any of the prefixes or suffixes listed above in their sidewall markings are included in the scope, regardless of their intended use, as long as the tire is of a size that is among the numerical size designations listed in the following sections of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, as updated annually, unless the tire falls within one of the specific exclusions set forth below. The sections of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book listing numerical size designations of covered certain off road tires include:
The table of mining and logging tires included in the section on Truck-Bus tires;
The entire section on Off-the-Road tires;
The entire section on Agricultural tires; and
The following tables in the section on Industrial/ATV/Special Trailer tires:
• Industrial, Mining, Counterbalanced Lift Truck (Smooth Floors Only);
• Industrial and Mining (Other than Smooth Floors);
• Construction Equipment;
• Off-the-Road and Counterbalanced Lift Truck (Smooth Floors Only);
• Aerial Lift and Mobile Crane; and
• Utility Vehicle and Lawn and Garden Tractor.
Certain off road tires, whether or not mounted on wheels or rims, are included in the scope. However, if a subject tire is imported mounted on a wheel or rim, only the tire is covered by the scope. Subject merchandise includes certain off road tires produced in the subject countries whether mounted on wheels or rims in a subject country or in a third country. Certain off road tires are covered whether or not they are accompanied by other parts,
Specifically excluded from the scope are passenger vehicle and light truck tires, racing tires, mobile home tires, motorcycle tires, all-terrain vehicle tires, bicycle tires, on-road or on-highway trailer tires, and truck and bus tires. Such tires generally have in common that the symbol “DOT” must appear on the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Such excluded tires may also have the following prefixes and suffixes included as part of the size designation on their sidewalls:
Prefix letter designations:
AT—Identifies a tire intended for service on All-Terrain Vehicles;
P—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on passenger cars;
LT—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on light trucks;
T—Identifies a tire intended for one-position “temporary use” as a spare only; and
ST—Identifies a special tire for trailers in highway service.
Suffix letter designations:
TR—Identifies a tire for service on trucks, buses, and other vehicles with rims having specified rim diameter of nominal plus 0.156″ or plus 0.250″;
MH—Identifies tires for Mobile Homes;
HC—Identifies a heavy duty tire designated for use on “HC” 15″ tapered rims used on trucks, buses, and other vehicles. This suffix is intended to differentiate among tires for light trucks, and other vehicles or other services, which use a similar designation.
Example: 8R17.5 LT, 8R17.5 HC;
LT—Identifies light truck tires for service on trucks, buses, trailers, and multipurpose passenger vehicles used in nominal highway service;
ST—Special tires for trailers in highway service; and
M/C—Identifies tires and rims for motorcycles.
The following types of tires are also excluded from the scope: Pneumatic tires that are not new, including recycled or retreaded tires and used tires; non-pneumatic tires, including solid rubber tires; aircraft tires; and turf, lawn and garden, and golf tires. Also excluded from the scope are mining and construction tires that have a rim diameter equal to or exceeding 39 inches. Such tires may be distinguished from other tires of similar size by the number of plies that the construction and mining tires contain (minimum of 16) and the weight of such tires (minimum 1500 pounds).
The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4011.20.1025, 4011.20.1035, 4011.20.5030, 4011.20.5050, 4011.70.0010, 4011.62.0000, 4011.80.1010, 4011.80.1020, 4011.90.1050, 4011.70.0050, 4011.80.2010, 4011.80.8010, 4011.80.2020, 4011.80.8020, 8431.49.9038, 8431.49.9090, 8709.90.0020, and 8716.90.1020.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on multilayered wood flooring (MLWF) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Effective March 6, 2017.
Robert James or John Anwesen, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0649 or (202) 482-0131, respectively.
On November 1, 2016, the Department initiated the first sunset review of the CVD order on MLWF from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.218(c).
The Department received an adequate substantive response from the domestic industry within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
The products covered by this order are certain multilayered wood flooring which are composed of an assembly of two or more layers or plies of wood veneer(s)
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and 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
All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum address the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy, the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the order were revoked, and the nature of the subsidy.
Pursuant to section 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the CVD order on MLWF from the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the rates listed below:
This notice 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. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
The Department is issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (ITC), the Department is issuing countervailing duty orders on certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (off road tires) from India and Sri Lanka. In addition, the Department is amending its final determination with respect to India, as a result of ministerial errors.
Effective March 6, 2017.
Gene Calvert (India); Whitley Herndon (Sri Lanka); AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3586 or (202) 482-6274, respectively.
In accordance with sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on January 10, 2017, the Department published its final determinations in the countervailing duty investigations of off road tires from India and Sri Lanka.
The products covered by these orders are off road tires, which are tires with an off road tire size designation. For a complete description of the scope of the orders,
On January 17, 2017, ATC Tires Private Limited (ATC) alleged that the Department made ministerial errors in the
The Department reviewed the record and agrees that the errors referenced in ATC's allegation constitute ministerial errors within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(f).
In accordance with sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determinations that the industry in the United States producing off road tires is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of off road tires from India and Sri Lanka and that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise from India and Sri Lanka that are subject to the Department's affirmative critical circumstances findings. Therefore, in accordance with section 705(c)(2) of the Act, we are publishing these countervailing duty orders.
As a result of the ITC's final determination, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of off road tires entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 20, 2016, the date on which the Department published its preliminary countervailing duty determinations in the
In accordance with section 706 of the Act, the Department will direct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of off road tires from India and Sri Lanka, effective the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination in the
With regard to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination on imports of off road tires from India and Sri Lanka, we will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund any cash deposits made to secure the payment of estimated countervailing duties with respect to entries of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 22, 2016 (
This notice constitutes the countervailing duty orders with respect to off road tires from India and Sri Lanka, pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at
These orders are issued and published in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The scope of these orders is certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (certain off road tires). Certain off road tires are tires with an off road tire size designation. The tires included in the scope may be either tube-type
Subject tires may have the following prefix or suffix designation, which appears on the sidewall of the tire:
Prefix designations:
DH—Identifies a tire intended for agricultural and logging service which must be mounted on a DH drop center rim.
VA—Identifies a tire intended for agricultural and logging service which must be mounted on a VA multipiece rim.
IF—Identifies an agricultural tire to operate at 20 percent higher rated load than standard metric tires at the same inflation pressure.
VF—Identifies an agricultural tire to operate at 40 percent higher rated load than standard metric tires at the same inflation pressure.
Suffix designations:
ML—Mining and logging tires used in intermittent highway service.
DT—Tires primarily designed for sand and paver service.
NHS—Not for Highway Service.
TG—Tractor Grader, off-the-road tire for use on rims having bead seats with nominal +0.188″ diameter (not for highway service).
K—Compactor tire for use on 5° drop center or semi-drop center rims having bead seats with nominal minus 0.032 diameter.
IND—Drive wheel tractor tire used in industrial service.
SL—Service limited to agricultural usage.
FI—Implement tire for agricultural towed highway service.
CFO—Cyclic Field Operation.
SS—Differentiates tires for off-highway vehicles such as mini and skid-steer loaders from other tires which use similar size designations such as 7.00-15TR and 7.00-15NHS, but may use different rim bead seat configurations.
All tires marked with any of the prefixes or suffixes listed above in their sidewall markings are covered by the scope regardless of their intended use.
In addition, all tires that lack any of the prefixes or suffixes listed above in their sidewall markings are included in the scope, regardless of their intended use, as long as the tire is of a size that is among the
The table of mining and logging tires included in the section on Truck-Bus tires;
The entire section on Off-the-Road tires;
The entire section on Agricultural tires; and
The following tables in the section on Industrial/ATV/Special Trailer tires:
• Industrial, Mining, Counterbalanced Lift Truck (Smooth Floors Only);
• Industrial and Mining (Other than Smooth Floors);
• Construction Equipment;
• Off-the-Road and Counterbalanced Lift Truck (Smooth Floors Only);
• Aerial Lift and Mobile Crane; and
• Utility Vehicle and Lawn and Garden Tractor.
Certain off road tires, whether or not mounted on wheels or rims, are included in the scope. However, if a subject tire is imported mounted on a wheel or rim, only the tire is covered by the scope. Subject merchandise includes certain off road tires produced in the subject countries whether mounted on wheels or rims in a subject country or in a third country. Certain off road tires are covered whether or not they are accompanied by other parts,
In addition, specifically excluded from the scope are passenger vehicle and light truck tires, racing tires, mobile home tires, motorcycle tires, all-terrain vehicle tires, bicycle tires, on-road or on-highway trailer tires, and truck and bus tires. Such tires generally have in common that the symbol “DOT” must appear on the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Such excluded tires may also have the following prefixes and suffixes included as part of the size designation on their sidewalls:
Prefix letter designations:
AT—Identifies a tire intended for service on All-Terrain Vehicles;
P—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on passenger cars;
LT—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on light trucks;
T—Identifies a tire intended for one-position “temporary use” as a spare only; and
ST—Identifies a special tire for trailers in highway service.
Suffix letter designations:
TR—Identifies a tire for service on trucks, buses, and other vehicles with rims having specified rim diameter of nominal plus 0.156″ or plus 0.250″;
MH—Identifies tires for Mobile Homes;
HC—Identifies a heavy duty tire designated for use on “HC” 15″ tapered rims used on trucks, buses, and other vehicles. This suffix is intended to differentiate among tires for light trucks, and other vehicles or other services, which use a similar designation.
Example: 8R17.5 LT, 8R17.5 HC;
LT—Identifies light truck tires for service on trucks, buses, trailers, and multipurpose passenger vehicles used in nominal highway service;
ST—Special tires for trailers in highway service; and
M/C—Identifies tires and rims for motorcycles.
The following types of tires are also excluded from the scope: Pneumatic tires that are not new, including recycled or retreaded tires and used tires; non-pneumatic tires, including solid rubber tires; aircraft tires; and turf, lawn and garden, and golf tires. Also excluded from the scope are mining and construction tires that have a rim diameter equal to or exceeding 39 inches. Such tires may be distinguished from other tires of similar size by the number of plies that the construction and mining tires contain (minimum of 16) and the weight of such tires (minimum 1500 pounds).
The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4011.20.1025, 4011.20.1035, 4011.20.5030, 4011.20.5050, 4011.70.0010, 4011.62.0000, 4011.80.1010, 4011.80.1020, 4011.90.1050, 4011.70.0050, 4011.80.2010, 4011.80.8010, 4011.80.2020, 4011.80.8020, 8431.49.9038, 8431.49.9090, 8709.90.0020, and 8716.90.1020.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) is simultaneously initiating and issuing the preliminary results of changed circumstances reviews (“CCRs”) of the antidumping duty (“AD”) orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, (“solar cells”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) and certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products (“solar products”) from the PRC. The Department initiated these CCRs to determine whether Hanwha Q CELLS (Qidong) Co. Ltd. (“Q CELLS Qidong”) is the successor-in-interest to Hanwha SolarOne (Qidong) Co., Ltd. (“SolarOne Qidong”) with respect to the AD orders on solar cells and solar products from the PRC and to determine whether Hanwha Q CELLS Hong Kong Limited (“Q CELLS Hong Kong”) is the successor-in-interest to SolarOne Hong Kong Limited (“SolarOne Hong Kong”) with respect to the AD order on solar products from the PRC. For the reasons noted below, we did not initiate the requested CCR to determine whether Q CELLS Hong Kong is the successor-in-interest to SolarOne Hong Kong with respect to the AD order on solar cells from the PRC. Based on the information on the record, we preliminarily determine that Q CELLS Qidong is the successor-in-interest to SolarOne Qidong for purposes of the AD orders on solar cells and solar products from the PRC and that Q CELLS Hong Kong is the successor-in-interest to SolarOne Hong Kong for purposes of the AD order on solar products from the PRC. As such, Q CELLS Hong Kong and Q CELLS Qidong are entitled to SolarOne Hong Kong and SolarOne Qidong's cash deposit rates, respectively, with respect to U.S. entries of merchandise subject to the orders noted above. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Effective March 6, 2017.
Eli Lovely, 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) 482-1593.
On December 7, 2012, the Department published the AD order on solar cells from the PRC in the
The merchandise covered by the Solar Cells Order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, and building integrated materials.
The merchandise covered by the Solar Products Order is modules, laminates and/or panels consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including building integrated materials. Subject merchandise includes modules, laminates and/or panels assembled in the PRC consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells produced in a customs territory other than the PRC.
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.216(d), the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. In the past, the Department has used changed circumstances reviews to consider the applicability of cash deposit rates after there have been changes in the name or structure of a respondent, such as a merger or spinoff (“successor-in-interest,” or “successorship,” determinations).
While Q CELLS Hong Kong requested a CCR with respect to the solar cells proceeding in order to receive SolarOne Hong Kong's AD cash deposit rate, SolarOne Hong Kong did not receive its own cash deposit rate in the solar cells proceeding but was treated as part of the PRC-wide entity. Therefore, entries of its subject merchandise into the United States receive the PRC-wide entity cash deposit rate.
However, consistent with Department practice, the information submitted by Q CELLS Hong Kong with respect to the solar products proceeding and the information submitted by Q CELLS Qidong with respect to the solar cells and solar products proceedings, which includes information regarding a name change, demonstrates changed circumstances sufficient to warrant CCRs with respect to these companies and orders.
Therefore, in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), the Department is initiating CCRs to determine whether Q CELLS Hong Kong is the successor-in-interest
When it concludes that expedited action is warranted, the Department may combine the notice of initiation of the CCR and the preliminary results of the CCR in a single notice.
In determining whether one company is the successor to another for purposes of AD cash deposits, the Department examines a number of factors including, but not limited to, changes in: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) suppliers; and (4) customer base.
In their September 8, 2016, CCR Requests, Q CELLS Hong Kong and Q CELLS Qidong provided evidence for the Department to determine preliminarily their status as successors-in-interest to SolarOne Hong Kong for purposes of the AD order on solar products from the PRC and SolarOne Qidong for purposes of the AD orders on solar products and solar cells from the PRC, respectively. Specifically, Q CELLS Hong Kong and Q CELLS Qidong demonstrated that their operations are essentially the same as when they operated under the names SolarOne Hong Kong and SolarOne Qidong, respectively.
In February 2015, Hanwha SolarOne Co., Ltd. acquired 100 percent of the outstanding shares of another company named Q CELLS. Hanwha SolarOne Co., Ltd. is the parent entity of SolarOne Hong Kong and SolarOne Qidong. In connection with the transaction, the name of Hanwha SolarOne Co., Ltd. was changed to Hanwha Q CELLS Co., Ltd., SolarOne Hong Kong assumed the name Q CELLS Hong Kong, and SolarOne Qidong assumed the name Q CELLS Qidong. Other than the name changes, there were no significant changes to ownership, management, or operations of the companies.
Should our final results of review remain the same as these preliminary results of review, effective the date of publication of the final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of entries of solar products exported by Q CELLS Hong Kong at the AD cash-deposit rate applicable to SolarOne Hong Kong, and to suspend liquidation of entries of solar products and solar cells exported by Q CELLS Qidong at the AD cash-deposit rates applicable to SolarOne Qidong.
Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of publication of
All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”).
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we intend to issue the final results of these CCRs no later than 270 days after the date on which these reviews were initiated or within 45 days if all parties agree to the outcome of the reviews.
We are issuing and publishing this initiation and preliminary results notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an expedited (120-day) fourth sunset review of the antidumping duty order on gray portland cement and cement clinker (cement and clinker) from Japan. As a result of this fourth sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Amanda Brings, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3927.
On November 1, 2016, the Department published a notice of initiation of the fourth sunset review of the antidumping duty order on cement and clinker from Japan.
We received a complete substantive response from Petitioners within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
The products covered by the order are cement and cement clinker from Japan. Cement is a hydraulic cement and the primary component of concrete. Cement clinker, an intermediate material produced when manufacturing cement, has no use other than grinding into finished cement. Microfine cement was specifically excluded from the antidumping duty order. Cement is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number 2523.29 and cement clinker is currently classifiable under HTS item number 2523.10. Cement has also been entered under HTS item number 2523.90 as “other hydraulic cements.” The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written product description remains dispositive as to the scope of the product covered by the order.
All issues raised in this review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the order were revoked, are addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on cement and clinker from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at weighted-average dumping margins up to 69.89 percent.
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. Timely notification of the return of destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This sunset review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of crystalline silicon photovoltaic products (solar products), from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is June 10, 2014, through December 31, 2015. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Effective March 6, 2017.
Joseph Traw, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6079.
On February 18, 2015, the Department issued a countervailing duty (CVD) order on solar products from the PRC.
The products covered by the order are certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the PRC. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
The Department is conducting this CVD review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we determine that there is a subsidy,
For an administrative review to be conducted, there must be a reviewable, suspended entry to be liquidated at the newly calculated assessment rate.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. Yingli Energy
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be:
The statute and the Department's regulations do not directly address the establishment of rates to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination where the Department limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act. However, the Department normally determines the rates for non-selected companies in reviews in a manner that is consistent with section 705(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation.
Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act instructs the Department as a general rule to calculate an all others rate using the weighted average of the subsidy rates established for the producers/exporters individually examined, excluding any zero,
The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of publication of this notice in the
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must do so within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results by submitting a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we preliminarily assigned subsidy rates in the amounts shown above for the producer/exporters shown above. Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, CVDs on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated CVDs, in the amounts shown
These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (the PRC). The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016. The Department preliminarily determines that, during the POR, one mandatory respondent, Dezhou Kaihang Agricultural Science Technology Co. Ltd. (Dezhou Kaihang) did not sell subject merchandise below normal value (NV). We also preliminarily determine that the other mandatory respondent, Linyi City Kangfa Foodstuff Drinkable Co., Ltd. (Kangfa) has not demonstrated its eligibility for a separate rate and is, therefore, part of the PRC-wide entity. We preliminarily determine that the following companies had no reviewable shipments during the POR: (1) Zhangzhou Hongda Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd. (Hongda); and (2) Zhangzhou Gangchang Canned Foods Co., Ltd., Fujian and Zhangzhou Gangchang Canned Foods Co., Ltd. (collectively, Gangchang). Finally, we preliminarily find that the remaining 98 companies under review did not demonstrate their eligibility for a separate rate and are part of the PRC-wide entity. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Effective March 6, 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 February 19, 1999, the Department published in the
The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms. The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153, and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Two companies that received a separate rate in previous segments of the proceeding and are subject to this review, Hongda and Gangchang,
The Department preliminarily determines that the information placed on the record by Dezhou Kaihang demonstrates that Dezhou Kaihang is entitled to separate rate status.
The Department's change in policy regarding conditional review of the PRC-wide entity applies to this administrative review.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. For Dezhou Kaihang, export price was calculated in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Because the PRC is a non-market economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value was calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. Because Kangfa did not demonstrate its elibility for a separate rate, we treated it as part of the PRC-wide entity.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:
The Department intends to disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Upon issuing the final results of review, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by exporters individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise exported by Dezhou Kaihang, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice serves as a preliminary 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 doubled antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Research Steering
This meeting will be held on Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 100 Boardman Street, Boston, MA 02128; telephone: (617) 567-6789.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Research Steering Committee will conduct a management review of several completed groundfish research projects as well as develop input on the Council's draft research priorities and data needs for 2017-202. The Committee will also address other business as necessary.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued government-wide guidance to enhance the practice of peer review of government science documents. OMB's Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (“Peer Review Bulletin” or PRB) (available at
The Peer Review Bulletin also directs Federal agencies to adopt or adapt the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) policy for evaluating conflicts of interest when selecting peer reviewers who are not Federal government employees (federal employees are subject to Federal ethics requirements). For peer review purposes, the term “conflicts of interest” means any financial or other interest which conflicts with the service of the individual because it could: (1) Significantly impair the individual's objectivity; or (2) create an unfair competitive advantage for any person or organization. NOAA has adapted the NAS policy and developed two confidential conflict disclosure forms which the agency will use to examine prospective reviewers' potential financial conflicts and other interests that could impair objectivity or create an unfair advantage. One form is for peer reviewers of studies related to government regulation and the other form is for all other influential scientific information subject to the Peer Review Bulletin. In addition, the latter form has been adapted by NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research for potential reviewers of scientific laboratories.
The forms include questions about employment as well as investment and property interests and research funding. Both forms also require the submission of curriculum vitae. NOAA is seeking to collect this information from potential peer reviewers who are not government employees when conducting a peer review pursuant to the PRB. The information collected in the conflict of interest disclosure is essential to NOAA's compliance with the OMB PRB, and helps to ensure that government studies are reviewed by independent, impartial peer reviewers.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Meeting notice; via webinar.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a public hearing via webinar to solicit public comments on Reef Fish Amendment 36A—Modifications to Commercial Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Programs.
The public hearing webinar will take place on Wednesday, March 22, 2017, starting at 6 p.m. EST and will conclude no later than 9 p.m. See
Ava Lasseter, Anthropologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.
The Council staff will brief the public on Reef Fish Amendment 36A—Modifications to Commercial Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Programs. The
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.
Copies of the public hearing documents can be obtained by calling (813) 348-1630 or visiting
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 50 Pre-Assessment webinar.
The SEDAR 50 assessment of the Atlantic stock of Blueline Tilefish will consist of a series of workshops and webinars: Stock ID Work Group Meeting; Data Workshop; Assessment Workshop and Webinars; and a Review Workshop. See
The SEDAR 50 Pre-Assessment webinar will be held on Friday, March 31, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.
Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing a workshop and/or webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion at the Pre-Assessment webinar are as follows:
Participants will finalize data recommendations from the Data Workshop and provide early modeling advice.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice 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 accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the Partnership for Interdisciplinary Study of Coastal Oceans (PISCO) at the University of California Santa Cruz
This Authorization is effective from February 21, 2017 through February 20, 2018.
Robert Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking, other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . .an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).”
On September 23, 2016 NMFS received an application from PISCO for the taking of marine mammals incidental to rocky intertidal monitoring surveys along the Oregon and California coasts. NMFS determined that the application was adequate and complete on October 9, 2016. NMFS has previously issued four IHAs for this ongoing project (77 FR 72327, December 5, 2012; 78 FR 79403, December 30, 2013; 79 FR 73048, December 9, 2014; 81 FR 7319, February 2, 2016).
The research group at UC Santa Cruz operates in collaboration with two large-scale marine research programs: PISCO and the Multi-agency Rocky Intertidal Network (MARINe). The research group at UC Santa Cruz (PISCO) is responsible for many of the ongoing rocky intertidal monitoring programs along the Pacific coast. Monitoring occurs at rocky intertidal sites, often large bedrock benches, from the high intertidal to the water's edge. Long-term monitoring projects include Community Structure Monitoring, Intertidal Biodiversity Surveys, Marine Protected Area Baseline Monitoring, Intertidal Recruitment Monitoring, and Ocean Acidification. Research is conducted throughout the year along the California and Oregon coasts and will continue indefinitely. Most sites are sampled one to two times per year over a 4-6 hour period during a negative low tide series. This IHA is effective for a 12-month period. The following specific aspects of the proposed activities are likely to result in the take of marine mammals: Presence of survey personnel near pinniped haulout sites and unintentional approach of survey personnel towards hauled out pinnipeds. Take, by Level B harassment only, of individuals of California sea lions (
PISCO requested an IHA to continue rocky intertidal monitoring work that has been ongoing for 20 years. PISCO focuses on understanding the nearshore ecosystems of the U.S. west coast through a number of interdisciplinary collaborations. The program integrates long-term monitoring of ecological and oceanographic processes at dozens of sites with experimental work in the lab and field. A short description of project components is found below. A detailed description of the planned intertidal monitoring project was provided in the
PISCO's research is conducted throughout the year, but will begin no sooner than February 21, 2017 and end on February 20, 2018. Most sites are sampled one to two times per year over a 1-day period (4-6 hours per site) during a negative low tide series. Due to the large number of research sites, scheduling constraints, the necessity for negative low tides and favorable weather/ocean conditions, exact survey dates are variable and difficult to predict. Some sampling may occur in all months.
Sampling sites occur along the California and Oregon coasts. Community Structure Monitoring sites range from Ecola State Park near Cannon Beach, Oregon to Government Point located northwest of Santa Barbara, California. Biodiversity Survey sites extend from Ecola State Park south to Cabrillo National Monument in San Diego County, California. Exact locations of sampling sites can be found in Tables 1 and 2 of PISCO's application which may be found on our Web site at
Community Structure Monitoring involves the use of permanent photoplot quadrats, which target specific algal and invertebrate assemblages (
Biodiversity Surveys are part of a long-term monitoring project and are conducted every 3-5 years across 140 established sites. Note that many, but not all, of the 47 Community Structure sites are also Biodiversity Survey sites. Thirty-eight of the Community Structure sites are utilized for Biodiversity
Sixteen Biodiversity Survey sites will be visited as part of this proposed IHA. Four of the Biodiversity Survey sites are also Community Structure sites, leaving 12 sites that are only Biodiversity Survey sites. As such, a total of 59 sites will be visited under the proposed IHA.
The intertidal zones where PISCO conducts intertidal monitoring are also areas where pinnipeds can be found hauled out on the shore at or adjacent to some research sites. Pinnipeds are likely to be observed at 17 out of the 59 survey sites. Accessing portions of the intertidal habitat at these locations may cause incidental Level B (behavioral) harassment of pinnipeds through some unavoidable approaches if pinnipeds are hauled out directly in the study plots or while biologists walk from one location to another. No motorized equipment is involved in conducting these surveys.
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA was published in the
Several pinniped species can be found along the California and Oregon coasts. The three that are most likely to occur at some of the research sites are California sea lion, harbor seal, and northern elephant seal. PISCO researchers have seen very small numbers (
A detailed description of the of the species likely to be affected by the monitoring project, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the
The effect of stressors associated with the specified activity (
NMFS described potential impacts to marine mammal habitat in detail in our
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must, where applicable, set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).
PISCO will implement several mitigation measures to reduce potential take by Level B (behavioral disturbance) harassment. Measures include the following:
• When possible, researchers will observe a site from a distance with binoculars to detect any marine mammals prior to approaching the site. Researchers will approach a site with
• If possible, researchers will avoid pinnipeds along access ways to sites by locating and taking a different access way. Researchers will keep a safe distance from and not approach any marine mammal while conducting research, unless it is absolutely necessary to flush a marine mammal in order to continue conducting research (
• Researchers will avoid making loud noises (
• Researches will monitor the offshore area for predators (such as killer whales and white sharks) and avoid flushing of pinnipeds when predators are observed in nearshore waters. Note that PISCO has never observed an offshore predator while researchers were present at any of the survey sites.
• Intentional flushing will be avoided if pups are present and nursing pups will not be disturbed.
• To avoid take of Steller sea lions, any site where they are present will not be approached and will be sampled at a later date. Note that observation of sea lions at survey sites is extremely rare.
• Researchers will promptly vacate sites at the conclusion of sampling.
The methodologies and actions noted in this section will be included as mitigation measures in the IHA to ensure that impacts to marine mammals are mitigated to the lowest level practicable. The primary method of mitigating the risk of disturbance to pinnipeds, which will be in use at all times, is the selection of judicious routes of approach to study sites, avoiding close contact with pinnipeds hauled out on shore, and the use of extreme caution upon approach. Each visit to a given study site will last for approximately 4-6 hours, after which the site is vacated and can be re-occupied by any marine mammals that may have been disturbed by the presence of researchers. By arriving before low tide, worker presence will tend to encourage pinnipeds to move to other areas for the day before they haul out and settle onto rocks at low tide.
NMFS has carefully reviewed mitigation measures to ensure these measures would have the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;
• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:
1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.
6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must, where applicable, set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. PISCO has described their long-standing monitoring actions in Section 13 of the Application.
Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:
1. An increase in our understanding of the likely occurrence of marine mammal species in the vicinity of the action,
2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to levels of disturbance that we associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment;
3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:
Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);
Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);
Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;
4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.
PISCO will contribute to the knowledge of pinnipeds in California and Oregon by noting observations of: (1) Unusual behaviors, numbers, or distributions of pinnipeds, such that any potential follow-up research can be conducted by the appropriate personnel; (2) tag-bearing carcasses of pinnipeds, allowing transmittal of the information to appropriate agencies and personnel; and (3) rare or unusual species of marine mammals for agency follow-up.
Monitoring requirements in relation to PISCO's rocky intertidal monitoring will include observations made by the applicant. Information recorded will include species counts (with numbers of pups/juveniles when possible) of animals present before approaching, numbers of observed disturbances, and descriptions of the disturbance behaviors during the monitoring surveys, including location, date, and time of the event. For consistency, any reactions by pinnipeds to researchers will be recorded according to a three-point scale shown in Table 2. Note that only observations of disturbance Levels 2 and 3 should be recorded as takes.
In addition, observations regarding the number and species of any marine mammals observed, either in the water or hauled-out, at or adjacent to a site, are recorded as part of field observations during research activities. Information regarding physical and biological conditions pertaining to a site, as well as the date and time that research was conducted are also noted. This information will be incorporated into a monitoring report for NMFS. PISCO will also report observations of unusual behaviors, numbers, or distributions of pinnipeds, or of tag-bearing carcasses, to NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC).
If at any time the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, PISCO shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Southwest Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the following information:
(1) Time and date of the incident;
(2) Description of the incident;
(3) Environmental conditions (
(4) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(5) Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
(6) Fate of the animal(s); and
(7) Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with PISCO to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. PISCO may not resume the activities until notified by NMFS.
In the event that an injured or dead marine mammal is discovered and it is determined that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that an injured or dead marine mammal is discovered and it is determined that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
A draft final report must be submitted to NMFS Office of Protected Resources within 60 days after the conclusion of the 2016-2017 field season or 60 days prior to the start of the next field season if a new IHA will be requested. The report will include a summary of the information gathered pursuant to the monitoring requirements set forth in the IHA. A final report must be submitted to the Director of the NMFS Office of Protected Resources and to the NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft final report. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft final report will be considered to be the final report.
PISCO complied with the mitigation and monitoring that were required under the IHA issued in December 2014. In compliance with the IHA, PISCO submitted a report detailing the activities and marine mammal monitoring they conducted. The IHA required PISCO to conduct counts of pinnipeds present at study sites prior to approaching the sites and to record species counts and any observed reactions to the presence of the researchers.
From December 17, 2014, through December 16, 2015, PISCO researchers conducted rocky intertidal sampling at numerous sites in California and Oregon (see Table 1 and 2 in PISCO's 2014-2015 monitoring report). During this time no injured, stranded, or dead pinnipeds were observed. Tables 7, 8, and 9 in PISCO's monitoring report outline marine mammal observations and reactions. During this period there were 44 takes of harbor seals, 19 takes of California sea lions, and 4 takes of northern elephant seals. NMFS had
Based on the results from the monitoring report, we conclude that these results support our original findings that the mitigation measures set forth in the 2014-2015 IHA effected the least practicable impact on the species or stocks. There were no stampede events this year and most disturbances were Level 1 and 2 from the disturbance scale (Table 2)—meaning the animal did not fully flush but observed or moved slightly in response to researchers. Those that did fully flush to the water did so slowly. Most of these animals tended to observe researchers from the water and then re-haulout farther upcoast or downcoast of the site within approximately 30 minutes of the disturbance.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment, involving temporary changes in behavior. The mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the possibility of injurious or lethal takes such that take by injury, serious injury, or mortality is considered remote. Animals hauled out close to the actual survey sites may be disturbed by the presence of researchers and may alter their behavior or attempt to move away from the researchers.
As discussed earlier, NMFS considers an animal to have been harassed if it moved greater than two times its body length in response to the researcher's presence or if the animal was already moving and changed direction and/or speed, or if the animal flushed into the water. Animals that became alert without such movements were not considered harassed.
For the purpose of the issued IHA, only the Oregon and California sites that are frequently sampled and have a marine mammal presence during sampling were included in calculating take estimates. Sites where only Biodiversity Surveys are conducted did not provide enough data to confidently estimate takes since they are sampled infrequently (once every 3-5 years). A small number of harbor seal, northern elephant seal and California sea lion pup takes are anticipated as pups may be present at several sites during spring and summer sampling.
Take estimates are based on marine mammal observations from each site. Marine mammals are observed as part of PISCO site observations, which include taking notes on physical and biological conditions at the site. The maximum number of marine mammals, by species, seen at any given time throughout the sampling day is recorded at the conclusion of sampling. A marine mammal is counted if it is seen on access ways to the site, at the site, or immediately up-coast or down-coast of the site. Marine mammals in the water immediately offshore are also recorded. Any other relevant information, including the location of a marine mammal relevant to the site, any unusual behavior, and the presence of pups is also noted.
These observations formed the basis from which researchers with extensive knowledge and experience at each site estimated the actual number of marine mammals that may be subject to take. Take estimates for each species for which take would be authorized were based on the following equation:
Individual species' totals for each survey site were summed to arrive at a total estimated take. In most cases the number of takes is based on the maximum number of marine mammals that have been observed at a site throughout the history of the site (1-3 observation per year for 5-10 years or more) with additional input provided by the researchers with site-specific knowledge and experience. Section 6 in PISCO's application outlines the number of visits per year for each sampling site and the potential number of pinnipeds anticipated to be encountered at each site. Tables 3, 4, 5 in PISCO's application outlines the number of potential takes per site (see
Harbor seals are expected to occur at 16 locations in numbers ranging from 5 to 30 per visit (Table 3 in PISCO's application). It is anticipated that there will be 220 takes of adult harbor seals and 13 takes of weaned pups. Therefore, NMFS authorizes the take of up to 233 harbor seals.
California sea lions are expected to be present at five sites. Eighty-five adult and five pups are expected to be taken. Therefore, NMFS authorizes the take of 90 California sea lions.
Northern elephant seals are only expected to occur at one site this year, Piedras Blancs, which will experience two separate visits. Up to 20 adult and 40 pup takes are anticipated. Therefore, NMFS authorizes the take of up to 60 northern elephant seals.
PISCO researchers report that they have very rarely observed Steller sea lions at any research sites and none have been observed over the last several years. Therefore, PISCO has not requested, and NMFS did not authorize take of any Steller sea lions.
NMFS has authorized the take, by Level B harassment only, of 233 harbor seals, 90 California sea lions, and 60 northern elephant seals. These numbers are considered to be maximum take estimates. Therefore, actual take may be less if animals decide to haul out at a different location for the day or animals are out foraging at the time of the survey activities.
Negligible impact is “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies generally to the three species for which take is authorized, given that the anticipated effects of these surveys on marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are species-specific factors that have been considered, they are identified below.
No injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of
Very few pups are anticipated to be encountered during the proposed monitoring surveys. However, a small number of harbor seal, northern elephant seal, and California sea lion pups have been observed at several of the proposed monitoring sites during past years. Harbor seals are very precocious with only a short period of time in which separation of a mother from a pup could occur. Although elephant seal pups are occasionally present when researchers visit survey sites, risk of pup mortalities is very low because elephant seals are far less reactive to researcher presence compared to the other two species. Further, elephant seal pups are typically found on sand beaches, while study sites are located in the rocky intertidal zone, meaning that there is typically a buffer between researchers and pups. Finally, the caution used by researchers in approaching sites generally precludes the possibility of behavior, such as stampeding, that could result in extended separation of mothers and dependent pups or trampling of pups. No research would occur where separation of mother and her nursing pup or crushing of pups can become a concern.
Typically, even those reactions constituting Level B harassment would result at most in temporary, short-term disturbance. In any given study season, researchers will visit sites one to two times per year for a total of 4-6 hours per visit. Therefore, disturbance of pinnipeds resulting from the presence of researchers lasts only for short periods of time and is separated by significant amounts of time in which no disturbance occurs.
Some of the pinniped species may use some of the sites during certain times of year to conduct pupping and/or breeding. However, some of these species prefer to use offshore islands for these activities. At the sites where pups may be present, PISCO has proposed to implement certain mitigation measures, such as no intentional flushing if dependent pups are present, which will avoid mother/pup separation and trampling of pups.
Of the marine mammal species anticipated to occur in the proposed activity areas, none are listed under the ESA. Taking into account the planned mitigation measures, effects to marine mammals are generally expected to be restricted to short-term changes in behavior or temporary abandonment of haulout sites, pinnipeds are not expected to permanently abandon any area that is surveyed by researchers, as is evidenced by continued presence of pinnipeds at the sites during annual monitoring counts. Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from PISCO's rocky intertidal monitoring program will not adversely affect annual rates of recruitment or survival and, therefore, will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.
Table 3 presents the abundance of each species or stock, the proposed take estimates, and the percentage of the affected populations or stocks that may be taken by Level B harassment. The numbers of animals authorized to be taken would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations (0.75-0.94 percent for harbor seals, and <0.01 percent for California sea lions and northern elephant seals). Because these are maximum estimates, actual take numbers are likely to be lower, as some animals may not be present on survey days.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, we find that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
No species listed under the ESA are expected to be affected by these activities. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.
In 2012, NMFS prepared an EA analyzing the potential effects to the human environment from conducting rocky intertidal surveys along the California and Oregon coasts and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on November 26, 2012 on the issuance of an IHA for PISCO's rocky intertidal surveys in accordance with section 6.01 of the NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 (Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, May 20, 1999). We have reviewed the application for a renewed IHA for ongoing monitoring activities for 2017-18 as well as results from the 2014-15 monitoring report. Based on that review, we have determined that the action is very similar to that considered in the previous IHA. We conducted an environmental review and found no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns have been identified. Thus, we have determined that the preparation of a new or supplemental NEPA document is not necessary. The 2012 NEPA documents are available for review at
As a result of these determinations, we have issued an IHA to PISCO for conducting the described activities related to rocky intertidal monitoring surveys along the Oregon and Washington coasts from February 21, 2017 through February 20, 2018 provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Department of Defense.
Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the charter for the National Security Education Board (“the Board”).
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.
The Board's charter is being renewed under the provisions of 50 U.S.C. 1903 and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(a). The Board's charter and contact information for the Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be found at
The Board shall consult on the National Security Scholarship, Fellowships, and Grants Program as described in more detail in 50 U.S.C. Ch. 37. The Secretary of Defense, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1906, shall submit to the President and to the Congressional Intelligence committees an annual report of the conduct of the Program required by 50 U.S.C. Ch. 37. In preparation of this annual report, the Secretary of Defense shall consult with the members of the Board, who shall each submit to the Secretary an assessment of their hiring needs in the areas of language and area studies and a projection of the deficiencies in such areas. The Secretary shall include all assessments in the annual report.
The Board consists of 14 members. All members of the Board are appointed to provide advice on behalf of the Government on the basis of their best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. All members are entitled to reimbursement for official Board-related travel and per diem.
The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Board membership about the Board's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Board. All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the Board, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 5, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Office of Business Intelligence, Xperience Directorate, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, ATTN: Jennifer Wright, Ph.D., Program Manager, 3200 S. 2nd Street, St. Louis, MO 63118, or call Jennifer Wright at (314) 676-1312.
Below we provide projected
Respondents are contracted employees of the Federal government and DoD Components and Services who use products and services from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency in support of other governmental activities. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of services offered. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are assigned to the United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and are available for domestic and foreign licensing by the Department of the Navy.
The following patents are available for licensing: Patent No. 9,551,554 (Navy Case No. 200117): Cryogenically Generated Compressed Gas Core Projectiles and Related Methods Thereof//Patent No. 9,555,899 (Navy Case No. 102499): Mobile Arresting System//and Patent No. 9,546,984 (Navy Case No. 101269): System and Method for Cleaning a Couplant During Ultrasonic Testing.
Requests for copies of the patents cited should be directed to Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001.
Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001, Email
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.
Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 5, 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 Carlos Martinez, 202-260-1440.
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
Office of Nonproliferation and Arms Control, Department of Energy.
Proposed subsequent arrangement.
This document is being issued under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The Department is providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement under the Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Ukraine and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the United States of America and the European Atomic Energy Community.
This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than March 21, 2017.
Mr. Richard S. Goorevich, Office of Nonproliferation and Arms Control, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy. Telephone: 202-586-0589 or email:
This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of fuel elements containing 2,644,700 grams of U.S.-origin uranium (106,545 grams U-235), from the Euratom Supply Agency to Ukraine. The material, which is currently located at Westinghouse Electric Sweden in Vasteras, Sweden, will be used for the production of electricity by the National Nuclear Energy Generating Company's (Energoatom) Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant 1 in Zaporizhzhya Oblast, Ukraine.
In accordance with section 131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement concerning the retransfer of nuclear material of United States origin will not be inimical to the common defense and security of the United States of America.
For the Department of Energy.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff will attend the following meeting related to the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO)—PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) Joint and Common Market Initiative (Docket No. AD14-3-000):
The above-referenced meeting will be held at: PJM Valley Forge Campus, Conference and Training Center, 2750 Monroe Blvd., Audubon, PA 19403.
The above-referenced meeting is open to the public.
Further information may be found at
The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact Bahaa Seireg, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8739 or
Take notice that on February 14, 2017, Steppe Petroleum USA Inc. and Bakken Hunter, LLC, filed a joint application in Docket No. CP17-61-000 under section
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Shaun Robinson, P. Eng, Senior Project Engineer, Polaris Engineering, Ltd. 200, 1120—29th Avenue NE., Calgary, AB, Canada, T2E 7P1 or by calling (403) 736-8024 (telephone) or (403) 263-1387 (fax)
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.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 5 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
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 commentors 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 commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors 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 in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate 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 the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator 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:
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on February 28, 2017, Zac Perkins filed a application for authorization to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b) (2012) and section 45.8 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 45.8 (2016).
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the 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:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Mountaineer XPress Project (MXP), proposed by Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gas), and the Gulf XPress Project (GXP), proposed by Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gulf), in the above-referenced dockets. Columbia Gas requests authorization to construct and operate a total of 170.7 miles of natural gas transmission pipeline and ancillary facilities in West Virginia, and to modify one existing compressor station and two pending compressor stations. The MXP would provide about 2,700,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of available capacity for transport to Columbia Gas' TCO Pool for delivery to markets across Columbia Pipeline Group's system, including the Columbia Gulf Leach interconnect with Columbia Gulf. Columbia Gulf requests authorization to construct and operate seven new natural gas-fired compressor stations and to upgrade a pending compressor station and one existing meter station in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi. The GXP would provide about 860,000 Dth/d of natural gas delivery to markets in the Gulf Coast region.
The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the MXP and GXP in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed projects would result in some adverse and significant environmental impacts. However, if the projects are constructed and operated in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, the mitigation measures discussed in this EIS, and our recommendations, these impacts would be reduced to acceptable levels.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR), and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. The USACE will adopt and use the EIS to comply with the requirements of NEPA before issuing permits for the projects under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which governs the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (including wetlands). Although the cooperating agencies provided input to the conclusions and recommendations presented in the draft EIS, the agencies will present their own conclusions and recommendations in their respective records of decision (where applicable) for the projects.
The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation in West Virginia of the following MXP facilities:
• About 164.3 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline from Marshall County to Cabell County;
• about 5.9 miles of new 24-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Doddridge County;
• three new compressor stations in Doddridge, Calhoun, and Jackson Counties;
• two new regulating stations in Ripley and Cabell Counties;
• about 296 feet of new, 10-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline at the Ripley Regulator Station to tie Columbia Gas' existing X59M1 pipeline into the MXP-100 pipeline in Jackson County;
• an approximately 0.4-mile-long replacement segment of 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Cabell County; and
• upgrades to one existing compressor station (Wayne County) and two compressor stations (Marshall and Kanawha Counties) either approved or pending under separate FERC proceedings.
The draft EIS also addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following GXP facilities:
• Seven new compressor stations in Kentucky (Rowan, Garrard, and Metcalfe Counties), Tennessee (Davidson and Wayne Counties), and Mississippi (Union and Granada Counties);
• upgrades to one pending compressor station in Carter County, Kentucky; and
• upgrades at one existing meter station in Boyd County, Kentucky.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the draft EIS to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project areas. Paper copy versions of this EIS were mailed to those specifically requesting them; all others received a CD version. In addition, the draft EIS is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is important that the Commission receive your comments on or before April 24, 2017.
For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
(4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend one of the public comment sessions its staff will conduct in the project areas to receive comments on the draft EIS. The sessions are scheduled as shown below.
The primary goal of these comment sessions is to provide the public with another method for identifying specific environmental issues and concerns with the draft EIS. Individual verbal comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court reporter. This format is designed to receive the maximum amount of verbal comments in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted.
Each comment session is scheduled from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. (local time). There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff when the session opens. If you wish to speak, the Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival; distribution of numbers will be discontinued at 8:00 p.m. in order to ensure all comments are received by the session closing time. However, if no additional numbers have been handed out
Your verbal comments will be recorded by the court reporter (with FERC staff or representative present) and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system (see below for instructions on using eLibrary). If a significant number of people are interested in providing verbal comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit of 3 to 5 minutes may be implemented for each commentor.
It is important to note that verbal comments hold the same weight as written or electronically submitted comments. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the comment session to answer your questions about the FERC environmental review process.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
Additional information about the projects is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Innovative Solar 37, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 20, 2017.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that on February 15, 2017, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2)(2016), MPLX Ozark Pipe Line LLC filed a petition requesting a declaratory order approving the overall rate structure and terms of service, including priority service, for an expansion of the Ozark Pipeline, a crude oil pipeline that runs from Cushing, Oklahoma to Wood River, Illinois (Ozark Expansion Project), all as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on March 15, 2017.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO):
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or
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 date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of MS Solar 2, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 16, 2017.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that on February 13, 2017, Guthrie Natural Gas (Guthrie), 110 Kendall St., Guthrie, Kentucky 42234, filed an application pursuant to section 7(f) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting a service area determination within which it may enlarge or expand its natural gas distribution facilities without further Commission authorization. Guthrie also requests a determination that it qualifies as a local distribution company for purposes of section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA) and a waiver of all accounting and reporting requirements and other regulatory requirements ordinarily applicable to natural gas companies under the NGA and the NGPA, all as more fully described 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 Dwight Luton, Kentucky Energy Systems, LLC, P.O. Box 632, Guthrie, Kentucky 42234, or call (931) 624-3677, or by email
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.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing
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 commentors 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 commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors 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 in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice, extension of comment period.
On January 9, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a draft notice of the rationale for granting petitions to add n-propyl bromide (nPB), also known as 1-bromopropane (1-BP) (Chemical Abstract Service No. 106-94-5), to the list of hazardous air pollutants contained in section 112(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act. The EPA is extending the comment period on the draft notice that was scheduled to close on March 10, 2017, by 90 days until June 8, 2017. The EPA is making this interim extension as an initial response to allow adequate consideration of a request to extend the comment period by more than 6 months.
The public comment period for the proposed rule published in the
For questions about this proposed action, contact Ms. Elineth Torres, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D205-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-4347; email address:
To allow for adequate consideration of the request for extension of time, the EPA has decided to extend the public comment period until June 8, 2017.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; Reopening of comment period.
EPA issued a notice in the
Comments, identified by the chemical-specific dockets referenced in section IV.C. of the January 19, 2017 meeting notice, must be received by March 15, 2017.
Follow the detailed instructions provided under
This document reopens the public comment period established in the
To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under
15 U.S.C. 2605.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has submitted the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): “Notification of Substantial Risk of Injury to Health and the Environment under TSCA Sec. 8(e)” and identified by EPA ICR No. 0794.16, OMB Control No. 2070-0046. This is a request to renew the approval of an existing ICR, which is currently approved through February 28, 2017. EPA has addressed the comments received in response to the previously provided public review opportunity issued in the
Comments must be received on or before April 5, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0744, to both EPA and OMB as follows:
• To EPA online using
• To OMB via email to
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Colby Lintner, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address:
Under PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of extension of public comment period.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is extending the comment period to “Review Materials to Inform the Derivation of a Water Concentration Value for Lead in Drinking Water.” In response to a stakeholder request, EPA is extending the comment period for an additional 30 days, from March 6, 2017, to April 5, 2017.
The comment period announced in the notice that was published on January 19, 2017 (82 FR 6546), is extended. Comments must be received on or before April 5, 2017.
Submit your comments on the draft lead modeling report and draft peer review panel charge questions, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0686, to the
Erik Helm at the EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (Mail Code 4607M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; by phone: 202-566-1049; or by email:
On January 19, 2017, EPA released materials for public comment that relate to the expert external peer review of documents intended to support the EPA's Safe Drinking Water Act assessment of lead in drinking water. The notice specified that the public comment period would end on March 6, 2017, 45 days after publication in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has submitted the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): “Safer Choice Logo Redesign Consultations” and identified by EPA ICR No. 2487.02 and OMB Control No. 2070-0189. The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized in this document. EPA did not receive any comments in response to the previously provided public review opportunity issued in the
Comments must be received on or before April 5, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0111, to both EPA and OMB as follows:
• To EPA online using
• To OMB via email to
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Colby Lintner, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Under PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Safer Choice program adopted a new logo in March 2015 in response to stakeholder feedback. Following the launch of the new logo, EPA will conduct consumer surveys to gauge consumer recognition of the new logo and understand how the new logo and educational activities are diffusing over time and changing purchasing decisions. This ICR will enable Safer Choice to collect feedback from consumers through focus groups and online surveys and integrate it into the program, which will help to strengthen the visibility of the logo and program, improve product recognition among formulators and partners, and further promote chemical safety.
44 U.S.C. 3501
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before April 5, 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, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
• Modified its foreign ownership filing and review process for broadcast licensees by extending to such licensees the streamlined rules and procedures developed for foreign ownership reviews of common carrier and certain aeronautical licensees (collectively, “common carrier” licensees) under Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) with certain modifications to tailor them to the broadcast context; and
• Reformed the methodology used by both common carrier and broadcast licensees that are, or are controlled by, U.S. publicly traded companies to assess their compliance with the foreign ownership limits in Sections 310(b)(3) and 310(b)(4) of the Act, respectively.
The Commission therefore requests approval of substantial changes to the above-referenced information collection in order to apply to broadcast licensees substantially the same foreign ownership rules and procedures that apply to common carrier licensees and spectrum lessees and certain aeronautical licensees (collectively, “common carrier” licensees) under this information collection and the rules adopted in Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Common Carrier and Aeronautical Radio Licensees under Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, IB Docket No. 11-133, Second Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 5741(2013).
The 2016 Foreign Ownership Report and Order incorporated broadcasters into the common carrier foreign ownership rules (previously codified in Part 1, Subpart F, Sections 1.990 through 1.994 of the Commission's rules) through various changes. Notably, the Commission added new text to certain paragraphs of the rules (see
The rules adopted in the 2016 Foreign Ownership Report and Order include the following broadcast-specific provisions in lieu of provisions applicable to common carrier licensees:
• Broadcast licensees filing a petition for declaratory ruling (petition) to request Commission approval of foreign ownership in excess of the 25 percent benchmark in Section 310(b)(4) will use the broadcast “attribution” criteria to determine those U.S. and foreign ownership interests that must be disclosed in the petition. The disclosure will ensure the Commission has sufficient information to understand the licensee's ownership structure and to verify the identity and ultimate control of the foreign investor for which the petitioner seeks specific approval.
• Broadcast licensees will use the broadcast “insulation criteria” set forth in the broadcast attribution rules in determining whether the broadcaster must include in its petition a request for “specific approval” of a particular foreign investor because the investor holds, or would hold, directly and/or indirectly, more than 5 percent (or, in the case of certain passive investors, more than 10 percent) of the total outstanding capital stock (equity) and/or voting stock (or a controlling share) of the licensee's controlling U.S.-organized parent company. The current insulation criteria for common carrier licensees will continue to apply.
The Commission does not anticipate that these broadcast-specific provisions will impact the time per response for broadcast companies filing a Section 310(b)(4) petition. Thus, we estimate the same time per response for broadcast as for common carrier petitions. The Commission also finds that adopting a standardized filing and review process for broadcast licensees' requests to exceed the 25 percent foreign ownership benchmark in Section 310(b)(4), as the
In addition to these tailored changes to incorporate broadcast licensees into the existing foreign ownership rules applicable to common carrier licensees under Section 310(b)(4), the 2016 Foreign Ownership Report and Order clarifies the Commission's foreign ownership compliance procedures (to be codified in Section 1.5004(f)(3)-(4)) specifically to allow a broadcast or common carrier licensee to file a petition for declaratory ruling to remedy the licensee's inadvertent non-compliance with the statutory foreign ownership limits or the terms and conditions of the licensee's existing foreign ownership ruling with reasonable assurance that the Commission will not take enforcement action.
The Commission is also making non-substantial changes to this information collection to renumber the foreign ownership rules, which currently are codified in Part 1, Subpart F, Sections 1.990 through 1.994 of the Commission's rules. The new rules, as adopted in the 2016 Foreign Ownership Report and Order, will be codified in Part 1, Subpart T, Section 1.5000 through 1.5004 of the Commission's rules. There is for the most part a one-to-one correlation between the existing rules (1.990-1.994) and the new rules (1.5000-1.5004).
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) addresses the transition of full power and Class A television stations to post-auction channel assignments in the reorganized television bands following the conclusion of the broadcast television spectrum incentive auction (Auction 1000), summarizes and clarifies the process established in the Incentive Auction Report and Order and further developed in subsequent decisions.
March 6, 2017.
Shaun Maher, Video Division, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
This is a summary of the Commission's document, DA 17-106; MB Docket No. 16-306; GN Docket No. 12-268, released January 27, 2017. The complete text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or online at
The document DA 17-106 provides detailed information, instructions, and projected deadlines for filing applications related to the post-incentive auction broadcast transition. It includes details about the requirement that all stations assigned a new channel as a result of the incentive auction submit an application for construction permit for their post-auction channel, as well as the procedures by which winning reverse auction bidders must relinquish their spectrum usage rights. It also sets forth the process by which eligible television stations can seek reimbursement of certain costs incurred in relocating to new channels and Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs) for certain costs incurred in order to continue to carry the signals of relocating television stations. Additionally, this Public Notice includes an Appendix with instructions for filing in the Commission's Licensing and Management System (LMS) the applications required to effectuate this transition.
The document DA 17-106 provides broadcasters and other entities involved in the transition with information, instructions, and projected deadlines for filing applications related to the transition based on the following categories to which the broadcaster or entity belongs:
• Reassigned Station: A full power or Class A station that was protected during the repacking process and involuntarily assigned to a new channel in one of the reorganized broadcast television bands. This category includes every station involuntarily assigned to a new channel including those that did not apply to bid in Auction 1001, those that applied and did not bid, and those that bid, but exited.
• Band Changing Station: A station with a winning bid to move to the low or high very-high frequency (VHF) band.
• Non-Reassigned Station With Population Loss In Excess of One Percent: A station that was not reassigned to a new channel but was entitled to protection in the repacking process and is predicted to experience a loss in population served in excess of one percent because of new station-to-station interference.
• Displaced Class A Station: A Class A station that was not protected during the repacking process and is consequently displaced as a result of the repacking.
• License Relinquishment Station: A station with a winning bid to go off air that will relinquish its spectrum usage rights and cease broadcasting.
• Channel Sharing Station: Includes both a station with a winning bid to go off air that intends to relinquish spectrum usage rights on its current channel in order to share a channel (the sharee), as well as the station with which it will share following the incentive auction (the sharer).
• MVPDs: Multichannel Video Programming Distributors that reasonably incur costs in order to continue to carry the signals of stations relocating to new channels as a result of the incentive auction and that are eligible for reimbursement.
LPTV, TV translator, and digital replacement translator stations were not eligible to participate in the incentive auction, are not protected in the repacking process, are not eligible for reimbursement, and are not included in the phased transition schedule. Some of these facilities will be displaced as a result of the repacking process. Such a displaced station will have the opportunity to file an application for a construction permit to move to another channel or seek to channel share with another LPTV or TV translator station. The Media Bureau will issue a public notice listing potential channels in all areas in which LPTV or TV translator stations are displaced not less than 60 days in advance of the filing window for displacement applications. A separate public notice will outline the requirements and approximate timeline for the filing of applications for such displaced stations.
Some of the post auction transition-related deadlines set forth in the Commission's rules, such as the deadline for filing an application for a construction permit for post-auction
Reassigned Stations. A reassigned station may propose transmission facilities in its initial construction permit application that will extend its coverage contour if such facilities: (1) Are necessary to achieve the coverage contour specified in the Closing and Reassignment Public Notice or to address loss of coverage area resulting from its post-auction channel assignment; (2) will not extend a full power station's noise limited contour or a Class A station's protected contour by more than one percent in any direction; and (3) will not cause new interference beyond 0.5 percent to the technical parameters of any other station based on the parameters specified in the Closing and Reassignment Public Notice.
Band Changing Stations. Band changing stations may specify transmission facilities that would result in a larger coverage contour than that resulting from the technical parameters specified in the Closing and Reassignment Public Notice, so long as the proposed facility will not cause new interference beyond a rounding tolerance of 0.5 percent to any other station. Such stations are not limited to the one percent contour increase restriction applicable to reassigned stations.
The Media Bureau will look most favorably on requests demonstrating that, due to extraordinary technical or legal issues beyond the station's control, it is impossible to construct the facility specified in the Closing and Reassignment Public Notice. This could occur, for example, if a station is unable to construct a compliant facility on its current tower and a replacement tower cannot be constructed from which the station would be able to meet the specified technical parameters. A station granted a waiver under this “unable to construct” standard will be allowed to file an application for a construction permit for an alternate channel or expanded facilities during the first priority filing window described below.
We emphasize that any station that is granted a waiver of the construction permit application deadline nonetheless will be required to meet its construction deadline.
Alternate Channels. An application for an alternate channel will be considered a major change application and thus will be subject to the local public notice requirements of section 73.3580 of the Commission's rules and a 30-day period for the filing of petitions to deny prior to grant. Band changing stations may not apply for alternate channels outside of their post-auction bands. Reassigned stations are not similarly limited and may apply for any channel in the reorganized television band.
An application for extension of time to construct must include an exhibit demonstrating that, despite all reasonable efforts, the station is unable to complete construction of its new facility on time due to circumstances that were either unforeseeable or beyond its control. To illustrate, the following circumstances might justify an extension of a station's construction deadline: (1) Weather-related delays; (2) delays in construction due to the unavailability of equipment or a tower crew; (3) tower lease disputes; (4) unusual technical challenges; or (5) delays caused by the need to obtain government approvals, such as land use or zoning approvals, or to observe competitive bidding requirements prior to purchasing equipment or services.
Additionally, in limited circumstances, stations may rely on “financial hardship” as a criterion for seeking an extension of time. Such circumstances may include a situation in which a station is subject to an active bankruptcy or receivership proceeding. In such a case, the station must show that it has filed requests to proceed with construction of the post-auction facility in the relevant court proceeding. A station requesting an extension of time based on financial hardship that is not in a bankruptcy or receivership proceeding must demonstrate that additional time is warranted due to rare and exceptional financial circumstances that were unforeseeable or beyond its control, and that it made all reasonable efforts to resolve those issues.
The Media Bureau reminds stations that additional time to construct beyond the 180-day extended deadline may only be sought pursuant to the Commission's strict “tolling” rule. The tolling rule provides that a construction permit deadline may be tolled only for specific circumstances not under the licensee's control, such as acts of God or delays due to administrative or judicial review. Stations must electronically file tolling requests via LMS, in accordance with the instructions in Appendix A. Stations may also seek a waiver of the tolling rule to receive additional time to construct in the case where “rare or exceptional circumstances” prevent construction, following the instructions for requesting tolling in Appendix A. Stations should send an electronic copy of all tolling requests and tolling waivers via email to:
The Media Bureau reminds stations that it has also announced that, prior to grant, it will evaluate all extension applications to determine whether grant will delay or disrupt the post-auction transition schedule.
Absent the grant of an STA, a reassigned station or a band changing station must cease operating on its pre-auction channel by its construction permit deadline even if construction of the station's post-auction channel facility is not complete. Grant of an extension of time to construct a station's post-auction channel facility will not extend the time during which the licensee may operate on its pre-auction channel.
To illustrate, examples of potential temporary facilities could include: A station operating on its assigned post-auction channel with parameters at variance from its post-auction construction permit; operating from a temporary antenna; operating on a temporary channel, including for a short period of time on a channel relinquished by a reverse auction winner; and the temporary joint use of a channel. Stations also may request an STA to continue to operate on their pre-auction channels beyond their phase completion deadlines. The Media Bureau will examine all such requests to determine whether they would serve the public interest, and will require that all temporary authorizations not cause impermissible interference to other broadcast or wireless licensees. In addition, the Media Bureau reminds stations that it has announced that it will evaluate all STA requests to determine whether grant would delay or disrupt the post-auction transition schedule. It will not grant an STA that would authorize a station to operate on its pre-auction channel beyond the end of the 39-month transition period.
The Media Bureau also reminds stations that the license of any station that remains silent for any consecutive 12-month period expires automatically at the end of that period, by operation of law, except that the Commission can extend or reinstate such a license “to promote equity and fairness.” A station that remains silent for any consecutive 12-month period may request an extension or reinstatement of its license and a waiver of the pertinent Commission rules by filing a written request with the Commission. In considering such requests, we will examine whether the station has demonstrated that its silence is the result of compelling reasons beyond the station's control, including facts that relate to the post-auction transition process.
As a step prior to beginning this process, a representative from an entity that expects to receive a payment from the FCC for a winning reverse auction bid must have logged in to the updated Commission Registration System (CORES) (
A station should file such a request as soon as it becomes apparent that it requires additional time to terminate operations on its pre-auction channel. A waiver request must be filed electronically via LMS as a request for a legal STA, include the requisite fee, provide the above-described waiver showing, and include a proposed discontinuation date. A copy of the request should also be emailed to
Noncommercial educational (NCE) full power television license relinquishment stations may choose to comply with notification requirements either through the framework set forth in the preceding paragraph or by airing 60 seconds of on-air consumer education PSAs each day for 30 days prior to termination of operations on their pre-auction channel. NCE stations choosing the alternate plan will have the discretion to choose the timeslots for these PSAs. The NCE transition PSAs must include the same information as noted above for commercial stations and must be closed-captioned.
A license relinquishment station must include a certification of compliance with the notice requirements in its Suspension of Operations Notification.
Application for Construction Permit. Where a sharer station remains on its pre-auction channel, the sharee must file an application for construction permit via LMS using FCC Form 2100 Schedule A (full power) or Schedule E (Class A) no later than 60 days prior to its deadline for discontinuing operations on its pre-auction channel, which, absent any extension, is no later than 120 days after the sharee receives its share of auction proceeds. The applicant must pay the requisite filing fee. The application must specify the same technical facilities as the sharer station and include an executed copy of the Channel Sharing Agreement (CSA). Instructions for completing this form can be found in Appendix A. The timing of this filing requirement is the same regardless of whether the parties
In the event that the sharer station is a reassigned station or band changing station, then it must follow the procedures outlined for Reassigned Stations and Band Changing Stations to implement the move to its new channel, including submitting an application for construction permit specifying its post-auction channel facilities no later than the initial 90-day filing deadline for initial construction permit applications. If the sharer has, or is expected to, transition to its new channel by the deadline on which the sharee must submit its application for construction permit (
If a sharee needs additional time to submit its application for a construction permit, then it may request a waiver of the construction permit filing deadline. Waivers must be filed as a request for legal STA via LMS following the instructions provided in Appendix A and include payment of the requisite filing fee. Such waivers must provide a “good cause” showing pursuant to section 1.3 of the Commission's rules and, specify the date by which the sharee anticipates filing its construction permit application. Stations should also email a copy of their waiver request to:
Suspension of Operations Notice to Commission. Sharees must notify the Commission at least two days prior to discontinuation of operations on their pre-auction channels by filing a Suspension of Operations Notification via LMS as outlined Appendix A. There is no fee for this filing. This notification also should be emailed to
Commencement of Operation on Shared Channel. When implementation is complete and within 10 days of commencement of operation of the shared facilities on program test authority, both sharer and sharee must submit applications for license on FCC Form 2100—Schedule B (full power stations) and Schedule F (Class A stations) via LMS following the instructions in Appendix A. This process may need to be completed twice if the sharer becomes a reassigned station and the sharee decides to share the sharer's pre-auction channel while it is waiting for the sharer to complete its transition to its post-auction channel,
Waiver of Deadline to Commence Shared Operations. A channel sharee may request an additional 90 days to discontinue operations on its pre-auction channel and commence shared operations by requesting a waiver pursuant to section 1.3 of the Commission's rules. Further, channel sharees may request an additional 90 days (for a total of 180 additional days) using the same procedure. Prior to grant, the Media Bureau will evaluate all requests for waiver of the deadline to commence shared operations to determine whether grant will delay or disrupt the post-auction transition schedule. In any event, no channel sharee will be granted a waiver that would extend its deadline to discontinue operations on its pre-auction channel beyond the end of the 39-month transition period.
A station should file such a request for additional time as soon as it becomes apparent that it requires additional time prior to discontinuing operations, and in no event later than 60 days prior to its deadline for discontinuing operations. Such requests must be filed electronically via LMS as a request for a legal STA, include the requisite fee, provide the “good cause” waiver showing, and include a proposed discontinuation date not to exceed 90 days beyond the current date to discontinue operations. Instructions for filing via LMS are contained in Appendix A. A copy of the request should also be emailed to:
Notice to Viewers. Channel sharees must air notifications alerting their viewers prior to transitioning to their shared channels. These stations must air, at a minimum, either 60 seconds of on-air consumer education PSAs or 60 seconds of crawls per day for 30 days prior to termination of operations on their pre-auction channels. Stations will have the discretion to choose the timeslots for these PSAs or crawls. Transition PSAs and crawls must conform to the requirements set forth in the rules. Stations must include a certification that they have complied with the viewer notification requirements in their online public file within 30 days after beginning operations on their shared channel. Sharer stations are only required to air viewer notifications if they become a reassigned station as a result of the repacking.
Notice to MVPDs. Channel sharing stations must also provide notice to MVPDs that no longer will be required to carry one of the stations because of the sharee's relocation; currently carry and will continue to be obligated to carry the sharee; or will become obligated to carry the sharee. The required notice must be provided in the form of a letter and must include: (i) Date and time of any channel changes; (ii) pre-auction and shared channels; (iii) modification (if any) to antenna position, location or power levels; (iv) stream identification information for channel sharing stations; and (v) engineering staff contact information. If any of this information changes during the time that the sharee station is transitioning from its pre-auction to its shared channel, an amended notification must be sent to MVPDs in the same form as the original notice. For cable systems, the letter must be addressed to the cable system's official address of record provided in the cable system's most recent filing in the COALS Form 322. For all other MVPDs, the letter must be addressed to the official corporate address registered with the MVPD's state of incorporation. For sharee stations, the notification must be sent not less than 30 days prior to terminating operations on the sharee's pre-auction channel; and for all channel sharing stations (
In the Transition Scheduling Adoption Public Notice, the Media Bureau adopted standards it will use to evaluate the impact on the transition of applications filed during the first and second priority windows, applications for extension of time, requests for STAs, and requests for waivers of deadlines to discontinuation operations on pre-auction channels (“applications/requests”). Under these standards, the Bureau will examine the impact that grant of an application/request would have on the overall transition schedule by, for example, evaluating whether the application/request may create new, or affect existing, dependencies. The Media Bureau will view favorably applications/requests that are otherwise compliant with our rules and have little or no impact on other stations' transition schedule. In contrast, the Media Bureau will view unfavorably any application/request that the staff determines would be likely to delay or disrupt the transition, such as by causing temporary pairwise interference to another station above the two percent authorized in the Transition Scheduling Adoption Public Notice, creating additional linked-station sets, necessitating changes to the construction permit deadlines for other station(s), or likely causing a strain on limited transition resources required by other stations. The Media Bureau will also view applications/requests that would have such adverse effects more favorably if the requesting station demonstrates that it has the approval of all the stations that would be affected, or it agrees to take steps during the transition period to mitigate the impact of the proposed request—such as accepting additional levels of temporarily increased interference, or operating with reduced facilities at variance from its pre-auction licensed parameters.
The Media Bureau will evaluate each request on a case-by-case basis. After evaluating applications/requests, the Media Bureau may modify construction deadlines to enable the grant of a request. To the extent that the Media Bureau denies a request for a station to continue operating on its pre-auction channel past its phase completion date, the Media Bureau noted that stations can explore a variety of options to assist with their post-auction transitions, including the use of temporary channels and interim or auxiliary facilities.
In this section, the Media Bureau outlines the post-auction reimbursement process for reassigned stations as well as the process by which stations may seek a service rule waiver in lieu of reimbursement. Involuntarily reassigned stations as well as MVPDs that incur costs by continuing to carry such reassigned stations are eligible for reimbursement of their “reasonably incurred” costs. Entities eligible for reimbursement will use FCC Form 2100, Schedule 399 (Reimbursement Form), to submit both their estimated costs and, after incurring the costs, actual reimbursement requests with documentation substantiating all such expenses incurred. In lieu of receiving reimbursement, reassigned stations may request a waiver of the Commission's service rules permitting the station to make flexible use of the post-auction channel spectrum to provide services other than broadcast television services.
Relocation cost estimates and any required supporting documentation must be filed via LMS using the Reimbursement Form. Instructions for filing the Reimbursement Form via LMS are contained in Appendix A. There is no fee for this filing. When filing estimated costs, reassigned stations and MVPDs must identify their current operational equipment as well as the equipment and services they expect to purchase to complete the post-auction channel transition. Cost estimates for such equipment and services can be based either on the predetermined cost estimates identified in the catalog of eligible expenses (Catalog), which is embedded in the Reimbursement Form, or by obtaining price quotes from vendors. Filers must submit supporting cost estimate documentation (such as a price quote from a vendor) for any equipment or service for which there is no predetermined cost estimate in the Catalog, and must provide a detailed explanation if an estimate exceeds the amount listed for the particular equipment or service in the Catalog. The Reimbursement Form is dynamic; and guides users with prompts that indicate how and when filers must provide explanations and supporting documentation.
Relocation cost estimates must be filed no earlier than the day of release of, and no later than 90 days after release of, the Closing and Reassignment Public Notice.
The Media Bureau will release a separate public notice informing eligible entities of the process for receiving reimbursements at a later date. That public notice will advise eligible entities about the process for providing the Commission with banking information and necessary certifications. In particular, the public notice will detail forms that eligible entities will use to submit information regarding estimates of relocation costs and relocation costs actually incurred, as well as relevant banking information, and the processes for validating such information prior to any reimbursements.
As a step prior to beginning this process, as with all entities doing business with the FCC, a representative from an entity that expects to receive a payment from the FCC—including reassigned stations and MVPDs that incur expenses as a result of the post-auction station repack—must log in to the updated Commission Registration System (CORES) (
The Media Bureau will accept service rule waiver requests from reassigned stations otherwise eligible for reimbursement for relocation costs during a 30-day window commencing upon release of the Closing and Reassignment Public Notice. Waiver requests must be filed via LMS in accordance with the instructions in Appendix A, and must include the requisite fee. Waiver requests should also be emailed to:
Until the Media Bureau grants a waiver request and the station accepts the terms of the waiver grant, a station must meet all requirements to obtain reimbursement (
Federal Election Commission.
Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 10:00 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 language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”).
Notice.
The FTC intends to ask the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to extend for an additional three years the current Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) clearance for information collection requirements contained in its Funeral Industry Practice Rule (“Funeral Rule” or “Rule”). That clearance expires on September 30, 2017.
Comments must be filed by May 5, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements for the Funeral Rule should be addressed by mail to Craig Tregillus, Staff Attorney, Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Room CC-8528, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20580, by email to
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3), 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing paperwork clearance for the Funeral Rule, 16 CFR part 453 (OMB Control Number 3084-0025).
The Funeral Rule ensures that consumers who are purchasing funeral goods and services have access to accurate itemized price information so they can purchase only the funeral goods and services they want or need. In particular, the Rule requires a funeral provider to: (1) Give consumers a copy they can keep of the funeral provider's General Price List (“GPL”) that itemizes the goods and services it offers; (2) show consumers a Casket Price List (“CPL”) and an Outer Burial Container Price List (“OBCPL”) at the outset of any discussion of those items or their prices, and in any event before showing consumers caskets or vaults; (3) provide price information from its price lists over the telephone; and (4) give consumers a Statement of Funeral Goods and Services Selected (“SFGSS”) after determining the funeral arrangements with the consumer during an “arrangements conference”. The Rule requires that funeral providers disclose this information to consumers and maintain records to facilitate enforcement of the Rule.
The estimated burden associated with the collection of information required by the Rule is 19,322 hours for recordkeeping, 103,345 hours for disclosure, and 38,644 hours for compliance training for a cumulative total of 161,311 hours. This estimate is based on the number of funeral providers (approximately 19,322),
1. Maintaining accurate price lists may require that funeral providers revise their price lists occasionally (most do so once a year, some less frequently) to reflect price changes. Staff conservatively estimates that this task may require a maximum average burden of two and one-half hours per provider per year. Thus, the total burden for 19,322 providers is 48,305 hours.
2. Staff retains its prior estimate that 13% of funeral providers prepare written documentation of funeral goods and services selected by consumers specifically due to the Rule's mandate. The original rulemaking record indicated that 87% of funeral providers provided written documentation of funeral arrangements, even absent the Rule's requirements.
According to the rulemaking record, the 13% of funeral providers who did not provide written documentation prior to enactment of the Rule are typically the smallest funeral homes. The written documentation requirement can be satisfied through the use of a standard form, an example of which the FTC has provided to all funeral providers in its compliance guide.
3. The Funeral Rule also requires funeral providers to answer telephone inquiries about the provider's offerings or prices. Information received in 2002 from the NFDA indicates that only about 12% of funeral purchasers make telephone inquiries, with each call lasting an estimated ten minutes.
In sum, the burden due to the Rule's disclosure requirements totals 103,345 hours (48,305 + 2,512 + 52,528).
Clerical personnel, at an hourly rate of $11.69,
The two and one-half hours required of each provider, on average, to update price lists should consist of approximately one and one-half hours of managerial or professional time, at $40.65 per hour,
The incremental cost to the 13% of small funeral providers who would not otherwise supply written documentation of the goods and services selected by the consumer, as previously noted, is 2,512 hours. Assuming managerial or professional time for these tasks at approximately $40.65 per hour, the associated labor cost would be $102,113.
As previously noted, staff estimates that 52,528 hours of managerial or professional time is required annually to respond to telephone inquiries about prices.
Based on past consultations with funeral directors, FTC staff estimates that funeral homes will require no more than two hours of training per year of licensed and non-licensed funeral home staff to comply with the Funeral Rule,
The total labor cost of the three disclosure requirements imposed by the Funeral Rule is $3,641,506 ($1,404,130 + $102,113 + $2,135,263). The total labor cost for recordkeeping is $225,874. The total labor cost for disclosure, recordkeeping, and training is $4,810,873 ($3,641,506 for disclosure + $225,874 for recordkeeping + $943,493 for training).
Compliance with the Rule, however, does entail some expense to funeral providers for printing and duplication of required disclosures. Assuming, as required by the Rule, that one copy of the general price list is provided to consumers for each funeral or cremation conducted, at a cost of 25¢ per copy,
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before May 5, 2017. Write “Funeral Rule PRA Comment: FTC File No. P084401” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Funeral Rule PRA Comment: FTC File No. P084401” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before May 5, 2017. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Request for Supplemental Evidence and Data Submissions.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is seeking scientific information submissions from the public. Scientific information is being solicited to inform our review of
Ryan McKenna, Telephone: 503-220-8262 ext. 51723 or Email:
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has commissioned the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Program to complete a review of the evidence for
The EPC Program is dedicated to identifying as many studies as possible that are relevant to the questions for each of its reviews. In order to do so, we are supplementing the usual manual and electronic database searches of the literature by requesting information from the public (
This is to notify the public that the EPC Program would find the following information on
A list of completed studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please
Description of whether the above studies constitute ALL Phase II and above clinical trials sponsored by your organization for this indication and an index outlining the relevant information in each submitted file.
Your contribution will be very beneficial to the EPC Program. The contents of all submissions will be made available to the public upon request. Materials submitted must be publicly available or able to be made public. Materials that are considered confidential; marketing materials; study types not included in the review; or information on indications not included in the review cannot be used by the EPC Program. This is a voluntary request for information, and all costs for complying with this request must be borne by the submitter.
The draft of this review will be posted on AHRQ's EPC Program Web site and available for public comment for a period of 4 weeks. If you would like to be notified when the draft is posted, please sign up for the email list at:
1. Among adults and children of all age groups (including both sexes and pregnant and lactating women), what is the effect (benefits and harms) of interventions to reduce dietary sodium intake on blood pressure at the time of the study and in later life?
I. Do other minerals (
II. Among subpopulations defined by sex, race/ethnicity, age (children, adolescents, young adults, older adults, elderly), and for women (pregnancy and lactation).
III. Among subpopulations defined by hypertension, diabetes, and obesity health status.
2. Among adults and children, what is the association between dietary sodium intake and blood pressure?
I. Among subpopulations defined by sex, race/ethnicity and age (children, adolescents, young adults, older adults, elderly).
II. Among subpopulations defined by hypertension, diabetes, and obesity health status.
3. Among adults, what is the effect (benefits and harms) of interventions to reduce dietary sodium intake on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and kidney disease morbidity and mortality and on total mortality?
I. Do other minerals (
II. Among subpopulations defined by sex, race/ethnicity, age (adults, older adults, elderly), and for women (pregnancy and lactation).
III. Among subpopulations defined by hypertension, diabetes, obesity and renal health status.
4. Among adults, what is the association between dietary sodium intake and CVD, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke and kidney disease morbidity and mortality and between dietary sodium intake and total mortality?
I. Do other minerals (
II. Among subpopulations defined by sex, race/ethnicity, age (adults, older adults, elderly), and for women (pregnancy and lactation).
III. Among subpopulations defined by hypertension, diabetes, obesity and renal health status.
5. Among children and adults, what is the effect of interventions to increase potassium intake on blood pressure and kidney stone formation?
I. Do other minerals (
II. Among subpopulations defined by sex, race/ethnicity, age (children, adolescents, young adults, older adults, elderly), and for women (pregnancy and lactation).
III. Among subpopulations defined by hypertension, diabetes, obesity and renal health status.
6. Among children and adults, what is the association between potassium intake and blood pressure and kidney stone formation?
I. Among subpopulations defined by sex, race/ethnicity, and age (children, adolescents, young adults, older adults, elderly).
II. Among subpopulations defined by hypertension, diabetes, and obesity health status.
7. Among adults, what is the effect of interventions aimed at increasing potassium intake on CVD, and kidney disease morbidity and mortality, and total mortality?
I. Do other minerals modify the effect of potassium (
II. Among subpopulations defined by sex, race/ethnicity, age (young adults, older adults, elderly), and for women (pregnancy and lactation).
III. Among subpopulations defined by hypertension, diabetes, obesity and renal health status.
8. Among adults, what is the association between dietary potassium intake and CVD, CHD, stroke and kidney disease morbidity and mortality and between dietary potassium and total mortality?
I. Do other minerals (
II. Among subpopulations defined by sex, race/ethnicity, age (young adults, older adults, elderly), and for women (pregnancy and lactation).
III. Among subpopulations defined by hypertension, diabetes, and obesity health status.
A. Studies in human participants will be eligible for inclusion in the review, with the exception of studies exclusively reporting on patients with end stage renal disease, heart failure, HIV, or cancer.
A. Studies evaluating interventions to reduce dietary sodium intake that specify the oral consumption from food or supplements of quantified amounts of sodium and sodium chloride (salt) or sodium-to-potassium ratio will be eligible, with the exception of trial arms in which participants demonstrate a weight change of +/− 3% or more. Interventions simultaneously addressing sodium and potassium intake that document sodium/potassium ratio are eligible; all other multicomponent interventions in which the effect of sodium reduction cannot be disaggregated from other intervention components will be excluded.
A. Studies comparing interventions to placebo or control diets will be eligible. Studies comparing an experimental diet to usual diet, studies comparing levels of sodium intake, or studies that alter sodium/potassium ratio in other ways
A. Studies reporting on blood pressure outcomes (
A. Studies reporting on an intervention period of at least four weeks will be eligible.
A. Studies in outpatient settings will be eligible.
A. Parallel RCTs and cross-over RCTs with a washout period of two weeks or more will be eligible.
A. Studies in community-dwelling (non-institutionalized) human participants will be eligible for inclusion in the review with the exception of studies exclusively reporting on patients with pre-existing conditions specific to the clinical outcome of interest, as well as studies exclusively reporting on patients with end stage renal disease, heart failure, HIV, or cancer.
A. Studies that measure the intake (oral consumption from food or supplements of quantified amounts of sodium and sodium chloride [salt] or sodium-to-potassium ratio) with validated measures or that use biomarker values to assess sodium level (at least one 24-hour urinary analysis with or without reported quality control measure, chemical analysis of diet with intervention/exposure adherence measure, composition of salt substitute with intervention/exposure adherence measure, and food diaries with reported validation [adherence check, electronic prompts]) will be eligible. Observational studies that report a weight change of+/− 3% or more (in any exposure group) among adults; multicomponent studies that do not properly control for confounders; and studies relying only on serum sodium levels, composition of salt substitute without intervention/exposure adherence measure, food diaries without reported validation, use of a published food frequency questionnaire, or partial or spot urine without reported prediction equation will be excluded.
A. Studies comparing groups with different documented sodium intake or biomarker values for sodium will be eligible. Studies where differences in sodium intake or values are confounded with alteration of other nutrient levels will be excluded.
A. Studies reporting on blood pressure outcomes (
A. Studies reporting on an intervention period of at least four weeks will be eligible.
A. Studies in community-dwelling participants will be eligible.
A. Prospective cohort studies and nested case-control studies, where at least two groups are compared based on measured sodium intake or biomarker values will be eligible. Retrospective studies, case series, cross-sectional studies or surveys, and case reports will be excluded.
A. Studies in human adults will be eligible for inclusion in the review. Studies exclusively reporting on patients with end stage renal disease, heart failure, HIV, or cancer will be excluded.
A. Studies evaluating interventions to reduce dietary sodium intake that specify the oral consumption from food or supplements of quantified amounts of sodium and sodium chloride (salt) or sodium-to-potassium ratio will be eligible. Studies with trial arms in which participants demonstrate a weight change of +/− 3% or more will be excluded. Interventions simultaneously addressing sodium and potassium intake with documents sodium/potassium ratio are eligible. All other multicomponent interventions in which the effect of sodium reduction cannot be disaggregated from other intervention components will be excluded.
A. Studies comparing interventions to placebo or control diets will be eligible. Studies comparing an experimental diet to usual diet, studies comparing levels of sodium intake, or studies that alter sodium/potassium ratio in other ways will be included if they control for other nutrient levels.
A. Studies reporting on mortality (all-cause, CVD, CHD, or renal); cardiovascular disease morbidity, including acute coronary syndrome (unstable angina and myocardial infarction), stroke, myocardial infarction (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI] and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction [NSTEMI]), requiring coronary revascularization procedures (angioplasty, coronary stent placement, coronary artery bypass), other atherosclerotic revascularization procedures (carotid endarterectomy), left ventricular hypertrophy, hospitalization for heart failure, hospitalization for any cause of coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease, or combined CVD morbidity and mortality; or reporting on renal function intermediary and clinical outcomes including creatinine clearance (CrCl), serum creatinine (SCr), glomerular filtration rate (GFR), end stage renal disease, chronic kidney disease (CKD), albuminuria or proteinuria (including urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, urine albumin dipstick level, urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, albumin excretion rate), kidney stone incidence, or acute kidney injury will be eligible.
A. Only interventions of two years or longer will be included for kidney disease outcomes; only interventions of three months or longer will be included for cardiovascular disease outcomes; all other studies need to report on an intervention period of at least four weeks to be eligible.
A. Studies in outpatient settings will be eligible.
A. Parallel RCTs and cross-over RCTs with a washout period of two weeks or more will be eligible.
A. Studies in community-dwelling (non-institutionalized) adults will be eligible for inclusion in the review with the exception of studies exclusively reporting on patients with pre-existing conditions specific to the clinical outcomes of interest, as well as studies exclusively reporting on patients with end stage renal disease, heart failure, HIV, or cancer.
A. Studies that measure the intake (oral consumption from food or supplements of quantified amounts of sodium and sodium chloride [salt] or sodium-to-potassium ratio) with validated measures or use biomarker values to assess sodium level (at least one 24-hour urinary analysis with or without reported quality control measure, chemical analysis of diet with intervention/exposure adherence measure, composition of salt substitute with intervention/exposure adherence measure, and food diaries with reported validation [adherence check, electronic prompts]) will be eligible. Observational studies that report a weight change of+/− 3% or more (in any exposure group) among adults; multicomponent studies that do not properly control for confounders; and studies relying only on serum sodium levels, composition of salt substitute without intervention/exposure adherence measure, food diaries without reported validation, use of a published food frequency questionnaire, or partial or spot urine without reported prediction equation will be excluded.
A. Studies comparing groups with different documented sodium intake or biomarker values for sodium will be eligible. Studies where differences in sodium intake or values are confounded with alteration of other nutrient levels will be excluded.
A. Studies reporting on mortality (all-cause, CVD, CHD, or renal); cardiovascular mortality; cardiovascular disease morbidity, including coronary heart disease (CHD), acute coronary syndrome (unstable angina and myocardial infarction), stroke, myocardial infarction (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI] and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction [NSTEMI]), requiring coronary revascularization procedures (angioplasty, coronary stent placement, coronary artery bypass), other atherosclerotic revascularization procedures (carotid endarterectomy), left ventricular hypertrophy, hospitalization for heart failure, or hospitalization for any cause of coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease, or combined CVD morbidity and mortality; or reporting on renal function intermediary and clinical outcomes including creatinine clearance (CrCl), serum creatinine (SCr), glomerular filtration rate (GFR), end stage renal disease, chronic kidney disease (CKD), albuminuria/proteinuria (including, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, urine albumin dipstick level, urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, albumin excretion rate), acute kidney injury will be eligible. Studies that do not report baseline data for the outcomes of interest will be excluded.
A. Studies reporting exclusively on kidney disease outcomes need to report follow up periods of at least two years, studies reporting exclusively on cardiovascular disease outcomes or stroke need to report on follow up periods of at least 12 months duration; studies reporting on other outcomes need to evaluate exposure lasting at least four weeks to be eligible.
A. Studies in community-dwelling participants will be eligible.
A. Prospective cohort studies and nested case-control studies, where at least two groups are compared based on measured sodium intake or biomarker values will be eligible. Retrospective studies, case series, cross-sectional studies or surveys, and case reports will be excluded.
A. Studies in human participants will be eligible for inclusion in the review; studies exclusively reporting on patients with end stage renal disease, heart failure, HIV, or cancer will be excluded.
A. Studies evaluating interventions to increase dietary potassium intake that specify the oral consumption from food or supplements of quantified amounts of potassium, potassium supplements, salt substitutes such as potassium chloride, or sodium-to-potassium ratio will be eligible, with the exception of trial arms in which participants demonstrate a weight change of +/− 3% or more among adults. Interventions simultaneously addressing sodium and potassium intake with documents sodium/potassium ratio are eligible; all other multicomponent interventions in which the effect of sodium reduction cannot be disaggregated from other intervention components will be excluded.
A. Studies comparing interventions to placebo or control diets will be eligible. Studies comparing an experimental diet to usual diet, studies comparing levels of potassium intake, or studies that alter sodium/potassium ratio in other ways will be included if they control for other nutrient levels.
A. Studies reporting on blood pressure outcomes (
A. Studies reporting exclusively on kidney stone formation need to report on an intervention period of two years; all other studies need to report on an intervention period of at least four weeks to be eligible.
A. Studies in outpatient settings will be eligible.
A. Parallel RCTs and cross-over RCTs with a washout period of two weeks or more will be eligible.
A. Studies in community-dwelling (non-institutionalized) human participants will be eligible for inclusion in the review; studies reporting exclusively on patients with pre-existing conditions specific to the clinical outcomes of interest, as well as studies exclusively reporting on patients with end stage renal disease, heart failure, HIV, or cancer will be excluded.
A. Studies that measure intake (oral consumption from food or supplements of quantified amounts of potassium, potassium supplements, salt substitutes such as potassium chloride, or sodium-to-potassium ratio) with validated measures or use biomarkers values to assess potassium level (at least one 24-hour urinary analysis with or without
A. Studies comparing groups with different documented potassium intake, serum potassium levels, or urinary potassium excretion will be eligible. Studies where differences in potassium intake or values are confounded with alteration of other nutrient levels will be excluded.
A. Studies reporting on blood pressure outcomes (
A. Studies exclusively reporting on kidney stone formation need to follow participants for at least five years; all other studies need to report on exposure of at least four weeks to be eligible.
A. Studies in community-dwelling participants will be eligible.
A. Prospective cohort studies and nested case-control studies, where at least two groups are compared based on measured potassium intake or biomarker values will be eligible. Retrospective studies, case series, cross-sectional studies or surveys, and case reports will be excluded.
A. Studies in adults will be eligible for inclusion in the review; studies reporting exclusively on patients with heart failure, end stage renal disease, HIV, or cancer will be excluded.
A. Studies evaluating interventions to increase dietary potassium intake that specify the oral consumption from food or supplements of quantified amounts of potassium, potassium supplements, salt substitutes such as potassium chloride, or sodium-to-potassium ratio will be eligible, with the exception of trial arms in which participants demonstrate a weight change of +/− 3% or more. Interventions simultaneously addressing sodium and potassium intake with documents sodium/potassium ratio are eligible; all other multicomponent interventions in which the effect of sodium reduction cannot be disaggregated from other intervention components will be excluded.
A. Studies comparing interventions to placebo or control diets will be eligible. Studies comparing an experimental diet to usual diet, studies comparing levels of potassium intake, or studies that alter sodium/potassium ratio in other ways will be included if they control for other nutrient levels.
A. Studies reporting on mortality (all-cause, CVD, CHD, or renal); cardiovascular disease morbidity, including acute coronary syndrome (unstable angina and myocardial infarction), stroke, myocardial infarction (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI] and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction [NSTEMI]), requiring coronary revascularization procedures (angioplasty, coronary stent placement, coronary artery bypass), other atherosclerotic revascularization procedures (carotid endarterectomy), left ventricular hypertrophy, hospitalization for heart failure, or hospitalization for any cause of coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease, or combined CVD morbidity and mortality; or reporting on renal function intermediary and clinical outcomes including creatinine clearance (CrCl), serum creatinine (SCr), glomerular filtration rate (GFR), end stage renal disease, chronic kidney disease (CKD), albuminuria or proteinuria (including urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, urine albumin dipstick level, urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, albumin excretion rate), kidney stone incidence, or acute kidney injury will be eligible.
A. Studies reporting exclusively on kidney disease outcomes need to report on an intervention period of two years, studies reporting on cardiovascular disease or stroke need to report on an intervention period of three months; all other studies need to report on an intervention period of at least four weeks to be eligible.
A. Studies in outpatient settings will be eligible.
A. Parallel RCTs and cross-over RCTs with a washout period of two weeks or more will be eligible.
A. Studies in community-dwelling (non-institutionalized) adults will be eligible for inclusion in the review with the exception of studies exclusively reporting on patients with pre-existing conditions specific to the clinical outcomes of interest, as well as studies exclusively reporting on patients with end stage renal disease, heart failure, HIV, or cancer.
A. Studies that measure intake (oral consumption from food or supplements of quantified amounts of potassium, potassium supplements, salt substitutes such as potassium chloride, or sodium-to-potassium ratio) with validated measures or use biomarkers values to assess potassium level (at least one 24-hour urinary analysis with or without reported quality control measure, chemical analysis of diet with intervention/exposure adherence measure, composition of potassium supplement with intervention/exposure adherence measure, use of a published food frequency questionnaire, and food diaries) will be eligible. Observational studies that report a weight change of+/− 3% or more (in any exposure group) among adults; multicomponent studies that do not properly control for confounders; and studies measuring potassium intake by reporting chemical analysis of diet without intervention/exposure adherence measures, composition of potassium supplement without intervention/exposure measure, or serum potassium will be excluded.
A. Studies comparing groups with different documented potassium intake, serum potassium levels, or urinary potassium excretion will be eligible.
A. Studies reporting on mortality (all-cause, CVD, CHD, or renal); cardiovascular disease morbidity, including coronary heart disease (CHD), acute coronary syndrome (unstable angina and myocardial infarction), stroke, myocardial infarction (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI] and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction [NSTEMI]), requiring coronary revascularization procedures (angioplasty, coronary stent placement, coronary artery bypass), other atherosclerotic revascularization procedures (carotid endarterectomy), left ventricular hypertrophy, hospitalization for heart failure, or hospitalization for any cause of coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease, or combined CVD morbidity and mortality; or reporting on renal function intermediary and clinical outcomes including creatinine clearance (CrCl), serum creatinine (SCr), glomerular filtration rate (GFR), end stage renal disease, chronic kidney disease (CKD), albuminuria/proteinuria (including urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, urine albumin dipstick level, urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, albumin excretion rate), kidney stone incidence, or acute kidney injury will be eligible. Studies that do not report baseline data on the outcomes of interest will be excluded.
A. Studies reporting exclusively on kidney stone formation need to follow participants for at least five years, studies reporting exclusively on kidney disease need to follow participants for at least two years, studies reporting exclusively on cardiovascular disease or stroke need to follow patients for at least 12 months; all other studies need to report on an exposure period of at least four weeks to be eligible.
A. Studies in community-dwelling participants will be eligible.
A. Prospective cohort studies and nested case-control studies, where at least two groups are compared based on measured potassium intake or biomarker values will be eligible. Retrospective studies, case series, cross-sectional studies or surveys, and case reports will be excluded.
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
Thursday, March 23, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and Friday, March 24, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
These meetings will be open to the general public.
These meetings will be held in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services/Hubert H. Humphrey Building located at 200 Independence Avenue SW., Conference Room 705A, Washington, DC 20201. Individuals who would like to participate via conference call may do so by dialing toll-free #: 1-800-779-4694, when prompted enter pass code: 4511687. Individuals whose full participation in the meeting will require special accommodations (
The Committee Members will discuss preparation of the PCPID 2017 Report to the President, including its content and format, and related data collection and analysis required to complete the writing of the Report.
For further information, please contact Ms. Allison Cruz, Director, Office of Innovation, 330 C Street SW., Switzer Building, Room 1114, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: 202-795-7334. Fax: 202-795-7334. Email:
The PCPID acts in an advisory capacity to the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services on a broad range of topics relating to programs, services and support for individuals with intellectual disabilities. The PCPID executive order stipulates that the Committee shall: (1) Provide such advice concerning intellectual disabilities as the President or the Secretary of Health and Human Services may request; and (2) provide advice to the President concerning the following for people with intellectual disabilities: (A) Expansion of educational opportunities; (B) promotion of homeownership; (C) assurance of workplace integration; (D) improvement of transportation options; (E) expansion of full access to community living; and (F) increasing access to assistive and universally designed technologies.
Independent Living Administration, Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice of correction.
The Administration for Community Living published a proposed collection of information document in the
Corinna Styles, 202-795-7446.
Corrections:
Under the
Under the
Under the heading “New Requirements”, the first paragraph, page 11472, column one, replace the first paragraph with the following paragraph below:
“The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), enacted on July 22, 2014, added a new core service to the list of “independent living core services” that ACL funded Centers for Independent Living (CILs) are required to provide. Prior to WIOA, CILs were required to provide the following core services: (1) Information and referral services; (2) independent living skills training; (3) peer counseling, including cross-disability peer counseling; (4) and individual and systems advocacy. WIOA added additional “transition and diversion” core services comprised of three components. It requires CILs to:”.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing a public meeting and an opportunity for public comment on Patient-Focused Drug Development for autism. Patient-Focused Drug Development is part of FDA's performance commitments made as part of the fifth authorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA V). The public meeting is intended to allow FDA to obtain patient perspectives on the impact of autism on daily life as well as patient views on treatment approaches for autism.
The public meeting will be held on May 4, 2017, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Registration to attend the meeting must be received by April 24, 2017 (see
The public meeting will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For more information on parking and security procedures, please refer to
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
FDA will post the agenda approximately 5 days before the meeting at:
Shanon Woodward, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1141, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-6167, FAX: 301-847-8443,
FDA has selected autism as the focus of a public meeting under Patient-Focused Drug Development, an initiative that involves obtaining a better understanding of patient perspectives on the severity of a disease and the available therapies for that condition. Patient-Focused Drug Development is being conducted to fulfill FDA performance commitments that are part of the reauthorization of the PDUFA under Title I of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144). The full set of performance commitments is available at
FDA committed to obtain the patient perspective on at least 20 disease areas during the course of PDUFA V. For each disease area, the Agency is conducting a public meeting to discuss the disease and its impact on patients' daily lives, the types of treatment benefit that matter most to patients, and patients' perspectives on the adequacy of the available therapies. These meetings will include participation of FDA review divisions, the relevant patient communities, and other interested stakeholders.
On April 11, 2013, FDA published a notice in the
As part of Patient-Focused Drug Development, FDA will obtain input of patients and patient representatives on the symptoms of autism that matter most to patients and on current approaches to treating autism. Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized in varying degrees by difficulties with social interaction, verbal and non-verbal communication challenges, and repetitive behavior patterns. FDA has approved products for irritability related to autism including risperidone and aripiprazole. In addition to pharmacological treatments, behavioral and educational interventions are also common treatment options. FDA is interested in the perspectives of patients with autism and caregivers on (1) symptoms and the daily impacts of their condition, (2) current approaches to treatment, and (3) decision factors taken into account when selecting a treatment.
The questions that will be asked of patients and patient representatives at the meeting are listed in this section, organized by topic. For each topic, a brief initial patient/caregiver panel discussion will begin the dialogue. This will be followed by a facilitated discussion inviting comments from other patient and patient representative participants. In addition to input generated through this public meeting, FDA is interested in receiving patient input addressing these questions through written comments, which can be submitted to the public docket (see
(1) Of all the symptoms that you/your child experiences because of the condition, which 1-3 symptoms have the most significant impact on your/your child's life? (Examples may include behavioral symptoms, difficulty with motor coordination, difficulty sleeping, difficulty concentrating, seizures, etc.)
(2) Are there specific activities that are important to you/your child but that you/your child cannot do at all or as fully as you would like because of these symptoms? (Examples of activities may include sleeping through the night, daily hygiene, eating, dressing, participation in sports or social activities, etc.)
(a) How do these symptoms and their negative impacts affect daily life on the best days? On the worst days?
(3) How has your/your child's condition and its symptoms changed over time?
(4) What worries you/your child most about your/your child's condition?
(1) What are you/your child currently doing to help treat the condition or its symptoms? (Examples may include prescription medicines, over-the-counter products, and other therapies including non-drug therapies such as behavioral interventions)
(a) How has your/your child's treatment regimen changed over time, and why?
(2) How well does your/your child's current treatment regimen treat the most significant symptoms of the condition?
(a) How well do your/your child's treatments address specific activities that are important to you/your child's daily life?
(b) How well have these treatments worked for you/your child as the condition has changed over time? Which symptoms are not addressed as well?
(3) What are the most significant downsides to your/your child's current treatments, and how do they affect your daily life? (Examples of downsides may include bothersome side effects, interacts with other medications, time devoted to treatment, etc.)
(4) What specific things would you look for in an ideal treatment for your/your child's condition?
(a) What would you consider to be a meaningful improvement (for example symptom improvements or functional improvements) in your/your child's condition that a treatment could provide?
(5) What factors do you/your child take into account when making decisions about selecting a course of treatment?
(a) What information on potential benefits of these treatments factors most into your/your child's decision?
(b) How do you/your child weigh the potential benefits of these treatments versus the common side effects of the treatments? (Common side effects could include headache, nausea, fatigue, weight gain)
(c) How do you/your child weigh potential benefits of these treatments versus the less common but serious risks associated with the treatments? (Examples of less common but serious risks are infections, organ damage or failure, suicidal thoughts)
If you wish to attend this meeting, visit
Patients and patient representatives who are interested in presenting comments as part of the initial panel discussions will be asked to indicate in their registration which topic(s) they wish to address. These patients and patient representatives also must send to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that prescription FLONASE (fluticasone propionate) Nasal Spray, 0.05 milligram (mg), was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination means that FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) that refer to this drug product, and this determination will allow FDA to continue to approve ANDAs for fluticasone propionate nasal spray, 0.05 mg, if all other legal and regulatory requirements are met.
David Faranda, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6208, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8767.
In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness, or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
Prescription FLONASE (fluticasone propionate) Nasal Spray, 0.05 mg, is the subject of NDA 020121, held by GlaxoSmithKline, and initially approved on October 19, 1994. FLONASE is indicated for the management of the nasal symptoms of perennial nonallergic rhinitis in adult and pediatric patients aged 4 years and older.
In a letter dated May 25, 2016, GlaxoSmithKline notified FDA that prescription FLONASE (fluticasone propionate) Nasal Spray, 0.05 mg, was being discontinued, and FDA moved the drug product to the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.
Lachman Consultant Services, Inc., submitted a citizen petition dated June 20, 2016 (Docket No. FDA-2016-P-1725), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether prescription FLONASE (fluticasone propionate) Nasal Spray, 0.05 mg, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that prescription FLONASE (fluticasone propionate) Nasal Spray, 0.05 mg, was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that this drug product was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of prescription FLONASE (fluticasone propionate) Nasal Spray, 0.05 mg, from
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list prescription FLONASE (fluticasone propionate) Nasal Spray, 0.05 mg, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to prescription FLONASE (fluticasone propionate) Nasal Spray, 0.05 mg, may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), authorizes FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined that SPINRAZA (nusinersen), manufactured by Biogen Inc., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher.
Larry Bauer, Rare Diseases Program, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4842, FAX: 301-796-9858, email:
FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare pediatric disease product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff), which was added by FDASIA, FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined that SPINRAZA (nusinersen), manufactured by Biogen Inc., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher. SPINRAZA (nusinersen) is indicated for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy in pediatric and adult patients.
For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529 of the FD&C Act, go to
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hereby giving notice that the third meeting of the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee (2018 PAGAC or Committee) will be held. This meeting will be open to the public via videocast.
The meeting will be held on March 23, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. E.T. to 5:30 p.m. E.T.
The meeting will be accessible by videocast on the Internet.
Designated Federal Officer, 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, Richard D. Olson, M.D., M.P.H. and/or Alternate Designated Federal Officer, Katrina L. Piercy, Ph.D., R.D., Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), HHS; 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite LL-100; Rockville, MD 20852; Telephone: (240) 453-8280. Additional information is available at
The inaugural
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR is for extending the use of the approved information collection assigned OMB control number 0990-0278, which expires on August 31, 2017. Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before May 5, 2017.
Submit your comments to
The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.
OS specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
The meeting date has changed from February 20, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. to March 23, 2017 at 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs,
Karla Bailey, Office of Management Policy and Compliance, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892-9760 or call non-toll-free number (240) 276-5582 or Email your request, including your address to:
The National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
OMB approval is requested for 3 year. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 8,917.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs,
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact: Louis M. Staudt, MD, Ph.D., Director, Center for Cancer Genomics, National Cancer Institute, Building 10, Room 5A02, 10 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20814 or call non-toll-free number 301-402-1892 or Email your request, including your address to:
The National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 50 hours.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant appications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs,
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact: Michael Montello, Pharm.D., Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850 or call non-toll-free number (240-276-6080) or Email your request, including your address to:
To meet the responsibilities of each program, information is collected from the sites for purposes of membership, enrollment, opening of IRB approved studies, documenting IRB review, regulatory approval (for sites not using the CIRB), patient enrollment, and routing of case report forms.
Several surveys are collected to assess satisfaction and provide feedback to guide improvements with processes and technology. Other Surveys have been developed to assess health professional's interests in clinical trials.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 15,525.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications/contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications/contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Inspectorate America Corporation has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of July 21, 2016.
The accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on July 21, 2016. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for July 2019.
Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Inspectorate America Corporation, 22934 Lockness Ave, Torrance, CA 90501 has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Inspectorate America Corporation is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Inspectorate America Corporation is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Inspectorate America Corporation has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of August 8, 2016.
Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Inspectorate America Corporation, 2119 SE Columbia Way, Suite 280, Vancouver, WA 98661 has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Inspectorate America Corporation is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Inspectorate America Corporation is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Inspectorate America Corporation has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of July 21, 2016.
Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Inspectorate America Corporation, 37 Panagrossi Circle, East Haven, CT 06512 has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Inspectorate America Corporation is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Inspectorate America Corporation has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of August 10, 2016.
Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Inspectorate America Corporation, 1350 Slater Rd., Suite 7, Ferndale, WA 98248 has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Inspectorate America Corporation is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Inspectorate America Corporation is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
Federal Emergency Management Agency; DHS.
Notice; correction.
On November 28, 2016, FEMA published in the
Comments are to be submitted on or before June 5, 2017.
The Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), and where applicable, the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1657, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed in the table below, in accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP may only be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the table below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard determinations shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations will also be considered before the FIRM and FIS report are made final.
In the proposed flood hazard determination notice published at 81 FR 85622 in the November 28, 2016, issue of the
In this document, FEMA is publishing a table containing the accurate information. The information provided below should be used in lieu of that previously published.
I. Non-watershed-studies:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) will meet in person on March 22-23, 2017 in Arlington, Virginia. The meeting will be open to the public.
The TMAC will meet on Wednesday, March 22, 2017 from 8:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), and Thursday, March 23, 2017 from 8:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m. EDT. Please note that the meeting will close early if the TMAC has completed its business.
The meeting will be held at 3101 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia, 22201. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must register in advance by sending an email to
To facilitate public participation, members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered by the TMAC, as listed in the
•
•
•
A public comment period will be held on Wednesday, March 22, 2017, from 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. EDT and again on Thursday, March 23, 2017, from 11:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EDT. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to no more than three minutes. The public comment period will not exceed 30 minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker by close of business on Friday, March 17, 2017.
Mark Crowell, Designated Federal Officer for the TMAC, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, telephone (202) 646-3432, and email
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.
As required by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain
The effective date of June 21, 2017 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice; extension of Employment Authorization Documents validity date.
On July 8, 2016, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) extended the designation of El Salvador for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for a period of 18 months by notice in the
The automatic extension of the validity of EADs issued under TPS for El Salvador that was set to expire on March 9, 2017, is now extended through September 9, 2017.
• For further information on TPS, including guidance on the application process and additional information on eligibility, please visit the USCIS TPS Web page at
• You can also contact Guillermo Roman-Riefkohl, TPS Operations Program Manager, Service Center Operations Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2060; or by phone at 202-272-1533 (this is not a toll-free number).
• Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
• Further information will also be available at local USCIS offices upon publication of this Notice.
On July 8, 2016, the Secretary extended the TPS designation for El Salvador for a period of 18 months by notice in the
No. This Notice does not extend El Salvador's TPS designation past the existing March 9, 2018 expiration date of the current extension announced on July 8, 2016. This Notice also does not extend the re-registration period for existing TPS El Salvador beneficiaries under the extension announced on July 8, 2016, which ran from July 8, 2016 through September 6, 2016.
DHS previously extended for 6 months all EADs issued under TPS for El Salvador that currently display an expiration date of September 9, 2016; they currently expire on March 9, 2017. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) does not expect to be able to process all timely-received TPS re-registration applications and issue new EADs before these extended EADs expire. Accordingly, through this Notice, USCIS automatically extends the validity of EADs issued under the TPS designation of El Salvador for an additional 6 months, through September 9, 2017.
If you currently have TPS under the designation of El Salvador, this Notice automatically extends your EAD an additional 6 months through September 9, 2017, if you:
• Received an EAD under the last extension of TPS for El Salvador; and
• Have an EAD with a marked expiration date of September 9, 2016, bearing the notation “A-12” or “C-19”on the front of the card under “Category.”
You can find a list of acceptable document choices on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents” for Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9). You can find additional detailed information on the USCIS I-9 Central Web page at
You may present any document from List A (reflecting both your identity and employment authorization) or one document from List B (reflecting identity) together with one document from List C (reflecting employment authorization). Or you may present an acceptable receipt for List A, List B, or List C documents as described in the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) Instructions. An EAD is an acceptable document under “List A.” Employers may not reject a document based on a future expiration date.
If your EAD has an expiration date of September 9, 2016, and states “A-12” or “C-19” under “Category,” it has been extended automatically beyond the previous automatic extension for an additional 6 months. It is now valid through September 9, 2017, by virtue of this
Even though EADs with an expiration date of September 9, 2016, that state “A-12” or “C-19” under “Category” have been automatically extended through September 9, 2017, your employer may need to ask you about your continued employment authorization after March 9, 2017, in order to meet his or her responsibilities for Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9). Your employer may need to re-inspect your automatically extended EAD to check the expiration date and code to record the updated expiration date on your Form I-9 if he or she did not keep a copy of this EAD when you initially presented it. However, your employer does not need a new document to reverify your employment authorization until September 9, 2017, the expiration date of the additional automatic extension. Instead, you and your employer must make corrections to the employment authorization expiration dates in Section 1 and Section 2 of Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) (see the subsection titled “
By September 9, 2017, the expiration date of the additional automatic extension, your employer must reverify your employment authorization. At that time, you must present any document from List A or any document from List C on Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) to reverify employment authorization, or an acceptable List A or List C receipt described in the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) Instructions. Your employer should:
• Complete Section 3 of the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) originally completed for you; or
• If Section 3 has already been completed or if the version of Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) has expired (check the date in the upper right-hand corner of the form), complete Section 3 of a new Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) using the most current version.
Note that employers may not specify which List A or List C document employees must present, and cannot reject an acceptable receipt.
No. When completing Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9), including reverifying employment authorization, employers must accept any documentation that appears on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents” for Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) that reasonably appears to be genuine and that relates to you, or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt. Employers may not request documentation that does not appear on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents.” Therefore, employers may not request proof of Salvadoran citizenship or proof of re-registration for TPS when completing Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) for new hires or correcting expiration dates for automatically extended EADs or reverifying the employment authorization of current employees. If presented with EADs that have been automatically extended, employers should accept such EADs as valid List A documents so long as the EADs reasonably appear to be genuine and to relate to the employee. Refer to the
After September 9, 2017, employers may no longer accept the EADs that this
When using an automatically extended EAD to complete Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) for a new job prior to September 9, 2017, you and your employer should do the following:
1. For Section 1, you should:
a. Check “An alien authorized to work”;
b. Write your alien number (USCIS number or A-Number) in the first space (your EAD or other document from DHS will have your USCIS number or A-Number printed on it; the USCIS number is the same as your A-Number without the A prefix); and
c. Write the automatically extended EAD expiration date (September 9, 2017) in the second space.
2. For Section 2, employers should record the:
a. Document title;
b. Document number; and
c. Automatically extended EAD expiration date (September 9, 2017).
By September 9, 2017, employers must reverify the employee's employment authorization in Section 3 of the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9).
If you are an existing employee who presented a TPS-related EAD that was valid when you first started your job, but that EAD has now been automatically extended, your employer may need to re-inspect your automatically extended EAD if your employer does not have a copy of the EAD on file. You and your employer should correct your previously completed Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) as follows:
1. For Section 1, you should:
a. Draw a line through the expiration date;
b. Write “September 9, 2017” above the previous date;
c. Write “TPS Ext.” in the margin of Section 1; and
d. Initial and date the correction in the margin of Section 1.
2. For Section 2, employers should:
a. Draw a line through the expiration date written in Section 2;
b. Write “September 9, 2017” above the previous date;
c. Write “TPS Ext.” in the Additional Information field of Section 2; and
d. Initial and date the correction in the margin of Section 2.
By September 9, 2017, when the automatic extension of EADs expires, employers relying on an automatically extended EAD for proof of employment eligibility must reverify the employee's employment authorization in Section 3.
If you have an employee who is a TPS beneficiary who provided a TPS-related EAD when he or she first started working for you, you will receive a “Work Authorization Documents Expiring” case alert when the auto-extension period for this EAD is about to expire. If relying on an automatically extended EAD for proof of employment eligibility, by September 9, 2017, you must reverify employment authorization in Section 3. Employers should not use E-Verify for reverification.
Employers are reminded that the laws requiring proper employment eligibility verification and prohibiting unfair immigration-related employment practices remain in full force. This Notice does not supersede or in any way limit applicable employment verification rules and policy guidance, including those rules setting forth reverification requirements. For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, employers may call USCIS at 888-464-4218 (TTY 877-875-6028) or email USCIS at
For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, employees may call USCIS at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028) or email at
To comply with the law, employers must accept any document or combination of documents from the Lists of Acceptable Documents if the documentation reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee, or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt described in the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) Instructions. Employers may not require extra or additional documentation beyond what is required for Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) completion. Further, employers participating in E-Verify who receive an E-Verify case result of “Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC)” must promptly inform employees of the TNC and give such employees an opportunity to contest the TNC. A TNC case result means that the information entered into E-Verify from Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) differs from Federal or state government records.
Employers may not terminate, suspend, delay training, withhold pay, lower pay, or take any adverse action against an employee based on the employee's decision to contest a TNC or because the case is still pending with E-Verify. A Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) case result is received when E-Verify cannot verify an employee's employment eligibility. An employer may terminate employment based on a case result of FNC. Work-authorized employees who receive an FNC may call USCIS for assistance at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028). An employee that believes he or she was discriminated against by an employer in the E-Verify process based on citizenship, immigration status, or national origin should contact IER's Worker Information Hotline at 800-255-7688 (TTY 800-237-2515) for information about their rights and how to file a complaint against the employer. Additional information about proper nondiscriminatory Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) and E-Verify procedures is available on the IER Web site at
Benefit-granting agencies are bound by different laws, requirements, and determinations about what documents their applicants must provide to prove eligibility for certain benefits. Whether you are applying for a Federal, state, or local government benefit, you may need to provide the government agency with documents that show you are a TPS beneficiary and/or show you are authorized to work based on TPS. Examples are:
1. Your unexpired EAD that has been automatically extended or your EAD that has not expired;
2. A copy of this
3. A copy of your Application for Temporary Protected Status Notice of Action (Form I-797) for this re-registration;
4. A copy of your past or current Application for Temporary Protected Status Notice of Action (Form I-797), if you received one from USCIS; and/or
5. If there is an automatic extension of work authorization, a copy of the fact sheet from the USCIS TPS Web site that provides information on the automatic extension.
Check with the government agency regarding which document(s) the agency will accept. You may also provide the agency with a copy of this
Some benefit-granting agencies use the USCIS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program (SAVE) to verify the current immigration status of applicants for public benefits. If an agency has denied your application based solely or in part on a SAVE response, the agency must offer you the opportunity to appeal the decision in accordance with the agency's procedures. If the agency has received and acted upon or will act upon a SAVE verification and you do not believe the response is correct, you may make an InfoPass appointment for an in-person interview at a local USCIS office.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability and request for public comment.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the technical/agency draft recovery plan for the endangered yellowcheek darter, a fish. The draft recovery plan includes specific recovery objectives and criteria that must be met in order for us to reclassify this species to threatened status and ultimately delist it under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We request review and comment on this draft recovery plan from local, State, and Federal agencies, and the public.
In order to be considered, comments on the draft recovery plan must be received on or before May 5, 2017.
1. You may submit written comments and materials to us, at the above address.
2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our Arkansas Field Office, at the above address, or fax them to 501-513-4480.
3. You may send comments by email to
For additional information about submitting comments, see Request for Public Comments below.
Melvin Tobin (see
The Act requires the development of recovery plans for listed species, unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for conservation of the species, establish criteria for reclassification to threatened or delisting, and estimate time and cost for implementing recovery measures. Section 4(f) of the Act requires us to provide public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment during recovery plan development. We will consider all information presented during a public comment period prior to approval of each new or revised recovery plan. We and other Federal agencies will take these comments into account in the course of implementing approved recovery plans.
We listed the yellowcheek darter (
The yellowcheek darter grows to 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) total length and is endemic to the Devils, Middle, South, and Archey forks of the Little Red River and the mainstem Little Red River in Arkansas. The species inhabits high-gradient headwater tributaries with clear water, permanent flow, moderate to strong riffles, and gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates (Robison and Buchanan 1988). Prey items consumed by the yellowcheek darter include blackfly larvae, stoneflies, mayflies, and other aquatic insects.
The yellowcheek darter is threatened primarily by factors associated with the present destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range. Threats include impoundment, sedimentation, poor livestock grazing practices, improper timber harvest practices, nutrient enrichment, gravel mining, channelization/channel instability, and natural gas development. Climate change is also likely to have adverse effects on the species due to alteration of hydrologic cycles of headwater streams that support the yellowcheek darter, but the extent or magnitude of this threat has not been quantified at this time.
We have assigned the yellowcheek darter a recovery priority number of 2C (48 FR 43098), which reflects a high degree of threat, and a high recovery potential.
The ultimate goal of this recovery plan is to ensure the long-term viability of the yellowcheek darter in the wild to the point that it can be delisted from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11). Initially, the goal is to reclassify the yellowcheek darter from endangered to threatened status based upon its improved status due to the implementation of recovery actions in this plan.
We request written comments on the draft recovery plan. We will consider all comments we receive by the date specified in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533 (f).
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before December 31, 2016, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by March 21, 2017.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before December 31, 2016. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
An owner objection received for the following resource(s):
An additional documentation has been received for the following resource(s):
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before December 24, 2016, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by March 21, 2017.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before December 24, 2016. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
Nominations submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the nomination and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination and supports listing the property in the National Register of Historic Places.
A request for removal has been made for the following resource(s):
An additional documentation has been received for the following resource(s):
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before December 17, 2016, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by March 21, 2017.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before December 17, 2016. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
Nominations submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the nomination and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination and supports listing the property in the National Register of Historic Places.
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the nomination and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination and supports listing the property in the National Register of Historic Places.
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the nomination and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination and supports listing the property in the National Register of Historic Places.
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource(s):
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before January 7, 2017, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by March 21, 2017.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before January 7, 2017. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
A request for removal has been made for the following resource(s):
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is giving notice of its intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Cape Wind Energy Project on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts. This supplement to the 2009 Final EIS will provide new analysis in response to a 2016 remand order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
Michelle Morin, BOEM Office of Renewable Energy Programs, 45600 Woodland Road, VAM-OREP, Sterling, Virginia 20166, (703) 787-1722, or
On July 5, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the 2009 Cape Wind Energy Project Final EIS and ordered that BOEM “supplement [the EIS] with adequate geological surveys before Cape Wind may begin construction.”
The Supplemental EIS will consider and analyze any new information that is within the scope of the Court's order. BOEM will examine the available geological survey data, including the geotechnical data and reports submitted to BOEM since the 2009 Final EIS, and any other relevant data that relates to the adequacy of the seafloor to support wind turbines in the lease area.
In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4), BOEM will not conduct additional scoping for this Supplemental EIS. The remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia established the scope for this Supplemental EIS. The Draft Supplemental EIS will be announced for public review and comment: (1) In the
BOEM invites other Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments to consider becoming cooperating agencies in the preparation of this supplemental EIS. We invite qualified government entities to inquire about cooperating agency status. You may contact the Office of Renewable Energy Programs at the address shown in the
This Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental EIS is in compliance with NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4231
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) amending the complaint and notice of investigation.
Ron Traud, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3427. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
On October 12, 2016, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by R2 Semiconductor, Inc. of Sunnyvale, CA (“R2”). 81 FR 71764 (Oct. 18, 2016). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain integrated circuits with voltage regulators and products containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-4, 7-17, 20-26, 28, 29, and 31 of U.S. patent No. 8,233,250 (“the '250 patent”).
On February 9, 2017, the administrative law judge issued Order No. 14, the subject ID, which granted an unopposed motion filed by R2 to amend the complaint and the Commission's Notice of Investigation to include allegations of a section 337 violation as to claims 5, 6, 18, 19, 27, and 30 of the `250 patent. No petitions for review of the subject ID were filed. The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on February 3, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Agile Communications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA; Monterey-Nouveau & Associates, LLC, Dayton, OH; InCadence Strategic Solutions, Manassas, VA; Unmanned Experts, Inc., Denver, CO; Trident Technologies, LLC, Huntsville, AL; SI2 Technologies, Inc., N. Billerica, MA; DataSoft Corporation, Tempe, AZ; Quasonix, Inc., West Chester, OH; and Trabus Technologies, Inc., San Diego, CA, have withdrawn as parties 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 NSC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On September 24, 2014, NSC 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 November 16, 2016. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on February 3, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, OEM Technology Solutions, Artarmon, NSW, Australia; Thermo Ramsey, Inc. (a part of Thermo Fisher Scientific), Minneapolis, MN; Halstrup-Walcher GmbH, Kirchzarten, Germany; Jacktek Systems, Inc., Acheson, AB, Canada; Chi Mei Electronics Co., Ltd., Cheung Sha Wan, Hong Kong-China; Broadcom Corporation, Irvine, CA; Doosan Heavy Industrial & Construction Co., Ltd., Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea; OBS Korea, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea; and Canrig Drilling Technologies, Ltd., Houston, TX, have withdrawn as parties 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 ODVA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 21, 1995, ODVA 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 August 5, 2016. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on February 3, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Central Screw Products dba Detroit Gun Works, Troy, MI; CompGeom, Inc., Tallahassee, FL; Applied Minds, LLC, Glendale, CA; General Electric Company, Niskayuna, NY; Unified Business Technologies, Inc., Troy, MI; Advanced Material Designs & Reliability, Austin, TX; Colorado Photopolymer Solutions, LLC, Boulder, CO; CGI Federal (Stanley Associates, Inc.), Huntsville, AL; MAST Technology, Inc., Independence, MO; Systems and Materials Research Corporation, Austin, TX; Rel, Inc., Calumet, MI; and Atlantic Fluid Power, Inc. dba Atlantic Industrial
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 NAC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 2, 2000, NAC 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 October 25, 2016. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on February 8, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Australian Government Department of Education, Canberra City, AUSTRALIA; Learning.com, Portland, OR; and Trustees of the California State University, Long Beach, CA, have withdrawn as parties 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 IMS Global intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 7, 2000, IMS Global 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 November 21, 2016. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 26, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Anritsu Ltd., Bedfordshire, United Kingdom; China Telecommunications Corporation, Xicheng District, Beijing, People's Republic of China; China Unicom, Xicheng District, Beijing, People's Republic of China; Fujitsu Limited, Yokohama, Japan; General Mobile Corporation, Taipei, Taiwan; KDDI Corporation, Tokyo, Japan; Micosa, Inc., Redwood City, CA; TA Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Torino, Italy; and Telecom Italia S.p.A., Tornio, Italy, have withdrawn as parties 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 OMA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 18, 1998, OMA 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 June 13, 2016. A notice was published in the
Notice
The National Endowment for the Arts, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the National Endowment for the Arts, on behalf of the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, is soliciting comments concerning renewal of the Application for International Indemnification. A copy of this collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the address section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
Patricia Loiko, National Endowment for the Arts, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20506-0001, telephone (202) 682-5541 (this is not a toll-free number), fax (202) 682-5721.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Update of import license application and extension of comment period; correction.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting a notice that was published in the
The correction is effective March 6, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0055 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Andrea Jones, Office of International Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-287-9072, email:
In the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Update of import license application and extension of comment period; correction.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting a notice that was published in the
The correction is effective March 6, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0168 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Andrea Jones, Office of International Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-287-9072, email:
In the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Update of export license application and extension of comment period; correction.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting a notice that was published in the
The correction is effective March 6, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0054 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to
•
Andrea Jones, Office of International Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-287-9072, email:
In the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice of availability of IFRS Taxonomy.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is providing notice that the IFRS Taxonomy has been published on the Commission's Web site as provided for by the EDGAR Filer Manual. Accordingly, the IFRS Taxonomy is available for foreign private issuers to submit their financial statements in XBRL.
The IFRS Taxonomy was published on the Commission's Web site pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T on March 1, 2017.
The IFRS Taxonomy is available on the Commission's Web site at
Mark W. Green, Senior Special Counsel (Regulatory Policy), Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 551-3430; Robert Sledge or Kevin Vaughn, Office of the Chief Accountant, at (202) 551-5300; or Mike Willis, Assistant Director, Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, at (202) 551-6600, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-7010.
On January 30, 2009, the Commission adopted rules to require domestic public companies and foreign private issuers
The Commission required foreign private issuers that prepare their financial statements in accordance with IFRS as issued by the IASB to begin their submissions in year three of a phase-in period.
On March 1, 2017, the IFRS Taxonomy was specified on the Commission's Web site, as provided by the EDGAR Filer Manual.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 103B, which governs the allocation of securities to Designated Market Makers. 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 Rule 103B, which governs the allocation of securities to DMMs, to streamline the allocation process and facilitate the selection of DMM units by issuers. Specifically, as described in more detail below, the Exchange proposes to:
• Amend Rule 103B(III)(A), which provides for issuer selection of DMM units, to require issuers select all DMM units to interview, permit senior officials at issuers to designate a representative to attend DMM interviews, and eliminate the cap on the number of DMM representatives that can participate in issuer interviews;
• amend Rule 103B(III)(B), which provides for selection of DMM units by the Exchange, to remove the requirement that the Exchange Selection Panel (“ESP”) base its review only on information available to an issuer and reduce the size of the ESP to three Exchange employees designated by the Chief Executive Officer;
• renumber Rule 103B(III)(B)(2), which describes the DMM one year obligation, as new Rule 103B(III)(C) and make certain non-substantive changes to the existing rule text;
• renumber Rule 103B(III)(B)(3), which describes foreign listing considerations, as new Rule 103B(III)(D);
• amend Rule 103B(VI)(D) (1) and (3), governing listed company mergers, to make certain non-substantive changes;
• amend Rule 103B(VI)(F), governing allocation of closed-end management investment companies, to specify that the group of eligible DMM units an issuer listing additional funds can select from also includes DMM units the issuer “reviewed” during the initial allocation;
• amend Rule 103B(VI)(G), governing the allocation freeze policy, to replace references to “specialty stock” with “DMM interest”; and
• amend Rule 103B(VI)(H), setting forth the allocation sunset policy, to provide that allocation decisions remain effective for initial public offerings (“IPO”) that list on the Exchange within eighteen months of such decision rather than the current twelve months and to specify that, in situations where the proposed individual DMM is no longer with the selected DMM unit, the company may choose to stay with the selected DMM or be referred to allocation and may interview a replacement individual DMM prior to making that decision.
Rule 103B currently provides two options for the allocation of securities to DMMs: (1) The issuer selects the DMM unit; or (2) the issuer delegates selection of the DMM unit to the Exchange.
If the issuer proceeds under the first option, the listing company selects a minimum of four DMM units to interview.
Within five business days after the issuer selects the DMM units to be interviewed, the issuer meets with representatives of each of the DMM units. At least one representative of the listing company must be a senior official of the rank of Corporate Secretary or above of that company. Additionally, no more than three representatives of each DMM unit may participate in the meeting, each of whom must be an employee of the DMM unit, and one of whom must be the individual DMM
Following the interview, a DMM unit may not have any contact with an issuer. If an issuer has a follow-up question regarding any DMM unit(s) it interviewed, it must be conveyed to the Exchange. The Exchange then contacts the unit(s) to which the question pertains and provides any available information received from the unit(s) to the listing company. Within two business days of the issuer's interviews with the DMM units, the issuer selects its DMM unit in writing. The Exchange then confirms the allocation of the security to that DMM unit, at which time the security is deemed to have been so allocated.
If the issuer proceeds under the second option and delegates selection of the DMM unit to the Exchange, the Exchange convenes an ESP to select the DMM unit based on a review of all information available to the issuer. The current ESP must consists of (1) at least one member of the Exchange's Senior Management, as designated by the CEO or his or her designee, (2) any combination of two Exchange Senior Management or Exchange Floor Operations Staff, to be designated by the Executive Vice-President of Exchange Floor Operations or his/her designee; and (3) three non-DMM Floor Governors for a total of six members.
The Exchange proposes the following changes to Rule 103B to streamline the allocation process and facilitate the selection of DMM units by issuers, as follows.
Rule 103B(III)(A) is currently titled “DMM Unit Selected by the Issuer” and describes the first allocation option, which is selection of a DMM unit by the issuer following interviews.
The Exchange proposes to delete the current title and replace it with “Issuer Selection of DMM Unit by Interview” to more specifically delineate the first option.
The Exchange proposes amending subsection (1) of Rule 103B(III)(A), which provides that the issuer shall select a minimum of four DMM units to interview, to require that issuers select all DMM units to interview. To effectuate this change, the Exchange would delete “a minimum of four” and add “all” after “select” and before “DMM units to interview.” Requiring issuers to select all DMM units to interview would provide all eligible DMM units with an opportunity to participate in the allocation process, which will lead to an increase in competition without being overly burdensome on the issuer. The Exchange believes that the increase in competition would provide DMM units with a greater incentive to perform optimally. The proposed change would also provide the issuer with more choice in the selection of its assigned DMM unit.
The Exchange also proposes a non-substantive change to Rule 103B(III)(A) to replace “shall” with “must” before “select.”
Further, the Exchange proposes amending the first sentence of Rule 103B(III)(A)(2)(b), which provides that issuers meet with DMM units within five business days after the issuer select the DMM units, to add the word “eligible” before “DMM units.”
The Exchange also proposes amending the second sentence of Rule 103B(III)(A)(2)(b), which provides that at least one representative of the listing company must be a senior official of the rank of Corporate Secretary or higher. The Exchange proposes to provide senior officials at the issuer with the option to designate an individual to participate in the meeting on their behalf by adding the clause “or a designee of such senior official” at the end of the second sentence of the Rule. The Exchange believes that the proposed change would enable issuers to more efficiently manage the interview process and prevent scheduling conflicts among its most senior executives from unduly delaying the interviews.
Current Rule 103B(A)(2)(b) further provides that no more than three representatives of each DMM unit may participate in the meeting, each of whom must be employees of the DMM unit. The Exchange proposes to eliminate the cap on the number of DMM representatives that can participate in issuer interviews by deleting the phrase “No more than three” before “representatives of each DMM unit” and capitalize the “r”. The Exchange believes that the current cap on number of representatives from the DMM unit limits the ability of a DMM unit to assess who may be best suited to attend an interview with an issuer. The Exchange further believes that providing DMM units with greater flexibility in determining how many people to bring to an interview would enable the DMMs to make that determination as necessary.
The Exchange also proposes to make participation by representatives of the DMM units mandatory by deleting “may” before “participate in the meeting” and replacing it with “must.”
In addition, the Exchange proposes to specify that employees of a member organization operating a DMM unit are permitted to attend allocation interviews by adding “member organization operating a” before “DMM unit.” Under Exchange Rules, a “DMM unit” can be operated as either a stand-alone member organization or as a trading unit within a member organization.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to delete the heading of Rule 103B(III)(A)(3), which is currently “Issuer's Selection of DMM Unit,” and subpart (a). The text of current Rule 103B(III)(A)(3)(a) would become the text of new Rule 103(III)(A)(3) and would be amended to replace references to “shall” with “will” in two places and “shall then” with “will” in another.
Rule 103B(III)(B) is currently titled “DMM Unit Selected by the Exchange” and sets forth the second allocation option, which is selection of a DMM unit by the Exchange by delegation from the issuer.
The Exchange proposes to delete the current title and replace it with “Exchange Selection of DMM Unit by Delegation” to more accurately delineate the second option. As discussed below, the Exchange proposes various changes to Rule 103B(III)(B) to further delineate selection of a DMM unit based on delegated authority from the issuer and distinguish it from direct issuer selections under Rule 103B(III)(A).
The Exchange proposes to amend subsection (B)(1) to remove the clause providing that ESP selection of a DMM unit be “based on a review of all information available to the issuer.” The proposed change would enable the ESP to consider confidential statistical or market quality data for each eligible DMM unit that is only available to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that enabling the ESP, which as discussed below would be composed of Exchange staff only, to consider such information in its selection of a DMM unit on behalf of an issuer would facilitate more informed and objective decisions and
Relatedly, the Exchange proposes to reduce the size of the ESP to three Exchange employees designated by the Chief Executive Officer in order to streamline the ESP selection process and the operations of the ESP itself. The Exchange believes that limiting the ESP to Exchange employees would be appropriate given that the ESP would have access to highly confidential statistical or market quality data about DMM firms that would be inappropriate to share with non-Exchange employees.
Further, the second paragraph of current Rule 103B(III)(B)(1) would become Rule 103B(III)(B)(2). The Exchange proposes to specify in this provision that the ESP would select the DMM unit and remove the clause providing that the ESP select the DMM unit “pursuant to the provisions of 103B(III)(A) above” as unnecessary.
The second paragraph of current Rule 103B(III)(B)(1) would become Rule 103B(III)(B)(3). The Exchange proposes to remove the clause providing that tie votes are decided by the CEO of the Exchange or his or her designee as unnecessary given that the proposed three-person ESP could not deadlock. The Exchange also proposes non-substantive changes to the remainder of this paragraph to clarify that selection of the ESP selects the DMM unit and to replace “shall” with “will” in three places.
Current Rule 103B(III)(B)(2), governing the DMM one-year obligation, would become Rule 103B(III)(C). The first sentence would be deleted as unnecessary in order to streamline the Rule. The text of the Rule would also be amended to replace “shall be” with “with” before “required.”
Finally, current Rule 103B(III)(B)(3), governing foreign listing considerations, would become Rule 103B(III)(D).
The Exchange proposes the following changes to Rule 103B(VI).
First, the last sentence of subsections (1) and (3) of Rule 103B(VI)(D) (Listed Company Mergers) would be amended to delete an extra period in each.
Second, Rule 103B(VI)(F) (Allocation of Group of Closed-End Management Investment Companies) would be amended to specify that an issuer listing additional funds within nine months from the initial listing may select a different DMM unit from the group of eligible DMM units that the issuer interviewed or reviewed in the allocation process. The current Rule only references DMM units that the issuer has “interviewed.” Including “or reviewed” in the proposed Rule would explicitly cover allocations made by delegation to the Exchange under option two where an issuer reviewed but may not have formally interviewed a DMM unit.
Second, Rule 103B(VI)(G) (Allocation Freeze Policy) would be amended to remove outdated references to Exchange Rules 475 or 476, which have been replaced by the Rule 8000 and 9000 Series references in the Rule. Further, the Exchange proposes to replace the two outdated references to “specialty stock” with “DMM security.”
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 103B(VI)(H) (Allocation Sunset Policy) to extend the period an allocation decision remains binding on an IPO listing from twelve to eighteen months of such decision. The proposed change would provide listing issuers with greater flexibility when an IPO is postponed before being referred for allocation through the allocation process pursuant to NYSE Rule 103B(III).
The Exchange also proposes to amend the Rule to cover the contingency where the individual DMM selected by an issuer to trade its securities is no longer with the selected DMM unit during the period that allocation decisions remain effective. The Exchange proposes to permit a company in that circumstance to choose whether to stay with the selected DMM unit or be referred to allocation. Further, the Exchange proposes to provide the company with the choice of interviewing a replacement DMM from that DMM unit prior to deciding whether to stay with the selected DMM unit or be referred to allocation. Finally, the Exchange proposes to replace one reference to “shall” in the last sentence of the Rule with “will.”
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 103B(III)(A)(1) to provide that issuers interview all DMMs would promote just and equitable principles of trade because no eligible DMM unit would be excluded from the issuer interview. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposal is designed to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, because it would lead to increased competition without being overly burdensome on issuers and would provide issuers with greater choice in the selection of a DMM unit. The Exchange believes that the increase in competition would also provide DMM units with a greater incentive to perform optimally.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 103B(III)(A)(2)(b) to permit senior officials at issuers to designate a representative to attend DMM interviews would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market, by allowing issuers to more efficiently manage the interview process and prevent scheduling conflicts from unduly delaying interviews and the assignment of securities to DMM units, which ultimately facilitates the fair and orderly trading in the subject security.
The Exchange believes that the additional proposed amendments to Rule 103B(III)(A)(2)(b) to eliminate the cap on the number of DMM representatives that can participate in issuer interviews, making participation by representatives of the DMM units in such interviews mandatory, and permitting employees of a member organization operating a DMM to attend allocation interviews, is designed to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market, because it would give issuers greater exposure to management and other staff at the proposed DMM units and provide them with more information about the firms during the interview, thus enhancing the value of the interviews for issuers and facilitating their choice of DMM.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 103B(III)(B)(1) to remove the requirement that the ESP base its review on information available to the issuer would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market, by enabling the ESP consider confidential statistical or market quality data for each eligible DMM unit that is only available to the
The Exchange believes that the amendments to Rule 103B(VI)(H) extending the sunset period from twelve to eighteen months will foster cooperation and coordination with person engaged in facilitating securities transactions and will remove impediments to a free and open market because it recognizes that all IPOs may not be brought to market in a twelve month period and avoids repeating administrative steps in the listing process, thereby promoting efficient use of the Exchange's resources. The proposed rule change also remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market, by providing issuers with a greater opportunity for input in the allocation process.
Finally, the Exchange's proposal to make various technical, non-substantive changes to the text of Rules 103B(III) and (VI)—renaming headings and section renumbering, replacing “shall” with “will,” deleting extraneous punctuation, deleting redundant and unnecessary clauses, adding clarifying text and updated references, and replacing outdated references—adds clarity and transparency to the Exchange's Rules and reduces potential investor confusion, which would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
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 changes would increase competition among DMM units by allowing more DMM units to participate in the interview process and provide DMM units with a greater incentive to perform optimally potentially and enhance the quality of the services DMMs provide to issuers. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would not be burdensome to issuers. Further, even assuming an increase in the burden on issuers during the allocation process resulting from the proposed changes, the Exchange believes that any such increased burden will be small relative to the benefits that additional competition between DMM units may provide. Issuers could, moreover, permit the Exchange to select the DMM unit pursuant to the process found in NYSE Rule 103B(III)(B).
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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 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 change the co-location services offered by the Exchange to include a means for co-located Users to receive the Toronto Stock Market market data feed through a wireless connection. In addition, the proposed rule change reflects changes to the NYSE MKT Equities Price List (“Price List”) and the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) related to the proposed service. 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 change the co-location
The Exchange provides Users with wireless connections to seven market data feeds or combinations of feeds from third party markets (the “Existing Third Party Data”).
Through a new affiliate, the Exchange would provide the proposed wireless connection to TSX through wireless connections into the colocation center in the Data Center. The proposed rule change would become operative when the Exchange acquires such new affiliate (the “Acquisition”), expected to be no later than June 30, 2017. The Exchange will announce the date that the wireless connection to the TSX will be available through a customer notice.
To receive TSX, the User would enter into a contract with the Toronto Stock Exchange, which would charge the User the applicable market data fees for TSX. The Exchange would charge the User fees for the wireless connection for TSX.
For each wireless connection to TSX, a User would be charged a $5,000 non-recurring initial charge and a monthly recurring charge (“MRC”) of $8,500. The Exchange proposes to revise its Price List and Fee Schedule to reflect fees related to the connection to TSX.
As with the Existing Third Party Data, if a User purchased two wireless connections, it would pay two non-recurring initial charges. The wireless connection would include the use of one port for connectivity to TSX. A User would not pay a fee for the use of such port. However, a User would not be able to use the same port that it uses for connectivity to TSX to connect to Existing Third Party Data. Accordingly, a User that connects to both TSX and Existing Third Party Data would have at least two ports.
As with the previously approved wireless connections to Third Party Data, the Exchange proposes to waive the first month's MRC, to allow Users to test the receipt of TSX for a month before incurring any MRCs.
The company which the Exchange expects to acquire in the Acquisition currently provides wireless connections to TSX to customers who are also Users (the “Existing Customers”). The Exchange would not charge such Existing Customers the non-recurring initial charge or waive the first month's
The Exchange proposes to offer the wireless connection to provide Users with an alternative means of connectivity for TSX. For example, Users may receive connections to TSX from another User, through a telecommunications provider, or over the internet protocol (“IP”) network.
As is the case with all Exchange co-location arrangements, (i) neither a User nor any of the User's customers would be permitted to submit orders directly to the Exchange unless such User or customer is a member organization, a Sponsored Participant or an agent thereof (
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users 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 service is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because the wireless connection to TSX would provide Users with an alternative means of connectivity to TSX. Users that do not opt to utilize the Exchange's proposed wireless connections would still be able to obtain TSX through other methods. For example, Users may receive connections to TSX from another User, through a telecommunications provider, or over the IP network. Users that opt to use wireless connections to TSX would receive the TSX that is available to all Users, as all market participants that contract with Toronto Stock Exchange for TSX may receive it.
The Exchange believes that this removes impediments to, and perfects the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protects investors and the public interest because it would provide Users with choices with respect to the form and optimal latency of the connectivity they use to receive TSX, allowing a User that opts to receive TSX to select the connectivity and number of ports that better suit its needs, helping it tailor its Data Center operations to the requirements of its business operations.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act for multiple reasons. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations. Accordingly, fees charged for co-location services are constrained by the active competition for the order flow of, and other business from, such market participants. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for co-location services, affected market participants will opt to terminate their co-location arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of alternative strategies, including placing their servers in a physically proximate location outside the exchange's data center (which could be a competing exchange), or pursuing strategies less dependent upon the lower exchange-to-participant latency associated with co-location. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only co-location revenues but also the liquidity of the formerly co-located trading firms, which could have additional follow-on effects on the market share and revenue of the affected exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will result in fees being charged only to Users that voluntarily select to receive the corresponding services and because those services will be available to all Users. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the services and fees proposed herein are not unfairly discriminatory and are equitably allocated because, in addition to the services being completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on an equal basis (
The Exchange believes that the proposed charges are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange proposes to offer the wireless connection to TSX described herein as a convenience to Users, but in order to do so must provide, maintain and operate the Data Center facility hardware and technology infrastructure. The Exchange must handle the installation, administration, monitoring, support and maintenance of such services, including by responding to any production issues. Since the inception of co-location, the Exchange has made numerous improvements to the network hardware and technology infrastructure and has established additional administrative controls. The Exchange has expanded the network infrastructure to keep pace with the increased number
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory that a User that has already purchased wireless connections to other Third Party Data would be charged a non-recurring charge when it purchases a wireless connection to TSX, because it would allow the Exchange to defray or cover certain costs it incurs in installing the wireless connection to TSX, which costs it incurs irrespective of whether the User has existing wireless connections to Third Party Data, while providing the User the benefit of the installation, which would allow it to receive TSX within co-location and with a lower latency over the fiber optics option. To do the initial installation, the Exchange must provide the personnel required for initial installation and testing. The costs associated with installing wireless connections are incrementally higher than those associated with installing fiber optics-based solutions.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory that an Existing Customer would not be subject to the non-recurring initial charge, because such User's wireless connection to TSX would be in place at the time of the Acquisition, and the Exchange would not have to install the wireless connection.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory that a User that connects to both TSX and Existing Third Party Data may not use the same port for connectivity to both, and so would have at least two ports, because the proposed wireless connection would include the use of one port for connectivity to TSX and the Existing Third Party Data includes the use of one port for connectivity to Existing Third Party Data. A User would not pay a separate fee for using such ports.
The Exchange believes the proposed pricing for the wireless connection to TSX is reasonable because it would allow the Exchange to defray or cover the costs associated with offering Users a wireless connection to TSX while providing Users the benefit of receiving TSX within co-location and with a lower latency over the fiber optics option. The wireless connection for TSX allows Users to select the TSX connectivity option that better suits their needs.
The Exchange believes that the proposed waiver of the first month's MRC is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory as it would allow Users to test the receipt of TSX for a month before incurring any monthly recurring fees and may act as an incentive to Users to connect to TSX. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory that an Existing Customer would not have its first month's MRC for the wireless connection waived, as such User's wireless connection to TSX would be in place prior to the Acquisition, and therefore would not need to be tested. From the perspective of the Existing Customer, the wireless connection to TSX would continue without interruption, before and after the Acquisition.
Moreover, the fees are equitably allocated, reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because the wireless connection for TSX would provide Users with an alternative means of connectivity for TSX. Users that do not opt to utilize the Exchange's proposed wireless connections would still be able to obtain TSX through other methods. For example, Users may receive connections to TSX from another User, through a telecommunications provider, or over the IP network. Users that opt to use wireless connections for TSX would receive the TSX that is available to all Users, as all market participants that contract with the Toronto Stock Exchange for TSX may receive it.
For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements, terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
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 proposed fees are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that allowing Users to receive TSX through a wireless connection will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because such access will satisfy User demand for additional options for connectivity to TSX. The proposed wireless connection to TSX would compete with fiber optic network connections to TSX, which may be more attractive to some Users as they are more reliable and less susceptible to weather conditions. Users that do not opt to utilize the proposed wireless connection would be able to obtain TSX through other methods, including, for example, from another User, through a telecommunications provider, or over the IP network.
Through an affiliate, the Exchange would provide the proposed wireless connection to TSX through wireless connections into the co-location center in the Data Center. The proposed connection to TSX will not traverse through the pole on the grounds of the Data Center utilized for the Existing Third Party Data, as the wireless network utilized for the Existing Third Party Data has exclusive rights to operate wireless equipment on the Data Center pole.
Finally, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-
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
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange notes that waiver of the operative delay will ensure that Existing Customers are able to continue their existing wireless connectivity to TSX after the Acquisition, without any cessation of service. The Commission believes that it is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to waive the 30-day operative delay and hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.
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) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 7017 to enhance the level of information provided to a member acting as the stabilizing agent for a follow-on offering of additional shares of a security that is listed on Nasdaq.
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.
Nasdaq is proposing to adopt Rule 7017 to enhance the level of information provided to a member acting as a Stabilizing Agent for a Follow-On Offering. A Follow-On Offering occurs when an issuer of a security listed on Nasdaq conducts an underwritten public offering of additional shares of the same security.
As is the case with an IPO, however, the Stabilizing Agent—usually the lead underwriter—engages in permissible “stabilizing”, as defined in Rule 100 under Regulation M,
In the case of a Follow-On Offering, the Stabilizing Agent may enter a stabilizing bid into the market for the purpose of supporting the price of the security on the day of the offering. Thus, the Stabilizing Agent stands ready during the course of the day to commit its capital in support of the Follow-On Offering Security, buying from investors that wish to sell the security to realize short-term gains (or to minimize short-term losses). The Stabilizing Agent thereby serves to dampen volatility in the security and promote the maintenance of a fair and orderly market. In particular, the Stabilizing Agent may enter a stabilizing order in the Cross to dampen volatility at the open, and may enter orders on behalf of customers seeking to buy or sell in the Cross. Because the function performed by the Stabilizing Agent is unique on the day of the offering, Nasdaq has concluded that providing additional information about pre-opening interest in the Follow-On Offering Security to the Stabilizing Agent will help it to optimize the opening of the stock and manage its own risk, thereby assisting in promoting a fair and orderly market. Accordingly, Nasdaq is proposing to introduce the Follow-On Offering Indicator Service (the “Service”), a specialized data product that will be made available solely to the Stabilizing Agent.
In advance of the Cross for all securities, including securities that are the subject of a Follow-On Offering, Nasdaq disseminates the Order Imbalance Indicator, an electronic message containing information about the possible price and volume of the Cross. (The Order Imbalance Indicator is described in Rule 4752, and is often referred to as the “Net Order Imbalance Indicator,” or “NOII”.) The NOII is disseminated to market participants every five seconds, beginning at 9:28 a.m. and concluding with the Cross at approximately 9:30 a.m. The Service would, in addition, make the same information contained in the NOII available to the Stabilizing Agent, every five seconds beginning at 9:20 a.m. until the time of the Cross. Specifically, as provided in Rule 4752, the information provided by the NOII includes the Current Reference Price,
In addition, beginning at 9:20 a.m., the Service will provide the Stabilizing Agent with additional information about the shares that it has entered for potential execution in the Cross, similar to the information currently provided through Nasdaq's IPO Indicator Service with respect to the Nasdaq Halt Cross for an IPO. Specifically, the Service will provide the total number of shares
Nasdaq believes that providing this information to the Stabilizing Agent will assist it in performing its obligations with respect to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market by giving it more time in which to understand the forces of supply and demand for the Follow-On Offering Security in advance of its opening. This information will, in turn, allow the Stabilizing Agent to respond in a more informed manner to questions from customers and other market participants regarding expectations that an order to buy or sell with a stated price and size may be executable in the Cross. The information will also assist the Stabilizing Agent in making decisions about the appropriate level of capital to commit to support the security once trading commences. Once the Cross executes, the Service will cease to be available, since the information provided is relevant only to the Cross; similar information will not be provided to the Stabilizing Agent with respect to the Nasdaq Closing Cross on that day. Thus, the Stabilizing Agent will not be provided with any information not available to other market participants once the Cross occurs. In proposing to make the information provided through the Service available solely to the Stabilizing Agent, Nasdaq seeks to recognize and support the special obligations and risks undertaken by the Stabilizing Agent, but also to recognize that the market conditions of a Follow-On Offering are not the same as those of an IPO, because the Follow-On Offering Security has an established trading market that is not halted while the Follow-On Offering is occurring. As a result, Nasdaq is seeking to strike a balance between supporting the Stabilizing Agent and the orderly trading of the Follow-On Offering Security without unduly altering the usual process for the daily opening of trading. While Nasdaq believes that the Service as proposed will adequately support the Stabilizing Agent, Nasdaq reserves the right to propose enhancements to the Service in the future based on experience.
Nasdaq believes that the information to be provided through the Service is similar in purpose to the information available to the stabilizing agent for a follow-on offering of a security listed on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”). Currently, as provided in NYSE Rule 104(j), the Designated Market Maker (“DMM”) for a security has access to aggregated and certain order-specific information about securities for which it is the DMM at all times, including at the time of a follow-on offering. Moreover, the DMM is permitted to share this information with floor brokers to “respond to an inquiry . . . in the normal course of business.”
Since the information provided through the Service will be directly available only to the Stabilizing Agent, Nasdaq believes that it is appropriate to adopt safeguards in order to ensure that the information is not misused. The safeguards will be identical to those adopted with respect to the IPO Book Viewer. Specifically, the proposed rule will require the Stabilizing Agent receiving the Service to maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve the following purposes:
• Restrict electronic access
• Except as may be required for purposes of maintaining books and records for regulatory purposes,
• Prevent persons with access to information from the Service from engaging in transactions in the Follow-On Offering Security other than transactions in the Cross; transactions on behalf of a customer; or stabilizing. Thus, for example, the Stabilizing Agent or its affiliates would not be permitted to use the information to engage in proprietary trading other than in support of
However, for the avoidance of doubt regarding appropriate uses of the information, the proposed rule will also provide that nothing contained in the rule shall be construed to prohibit the member acting as the Stabilizing Agent from (i) engaging in stabilizing consistent with that role, or (ii) using the information provided from the Service to respond to inquiries from any person, including, without limitation, other members, customers, or associated persons of the Stabilizing Agent, regarding the expectations of the member acting as the Stabilizing Agent with regard to the possibility of executing stated quantities of an offering security at stated prices in the Cross. Because the Service will provide the
The information provided through the Service will be available solely for display on the screen of a computer for which an entitlement has been provided by Nasdaq. Under no circumstances may a member redirect such information to another computer or reconfigure it for use in a non-displayed format, including, without limitation, in any trading algorithm. If a member becomes aware of any violation of the restrictions contained in the proposed rule, it must report the violation promptly to Nasdaq.
The Service will be provided free of charge through the IPO Workstation, and at no additional charge to users of the Nasdaq Workstation. Although Nasdaq may, in the future, institute a charge for the Service, it is not proposing a fee at this time. The proposed rule change also moves provisions of Rule 7015 pertaining to the IPO Workstation, the IPO Indicator Service, and the IPO Book Viewer from that rule into proposed Rule 7017. In making this change, Nasdaq is adopting a more detailed description of the information currently provided through the IPO Indicator Service,
• The IPO Indicator Service provides Order Imbalance Indicator information for an IPO Security, as described in Rule 4753(a)(3), and
• The IPO Indicator Service provides the total number of a member firm's IPO Shares,
• A member may organize order information by order or order block.
• The IPO Indicator Service is available as an element of the Nasdaq Workstation Trader, subject to the fees provided for under Rule 7015. Alternatively, the IPO Indicator Service is available through a standalone Nasdaq IPO Workstation, at no cost.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change will promote the goals of the Act by assisting the Stabilizing Agent for a Follow-On Offering Security in promoting a fair and orderly market. Specifically, by providing additional information regarding possible pricing and order execution outcomes for the Cross, the Service will give the Stabilizing Agent information that will assist it in achieving a range of goals. By being able to share such information with other members and customers, the Stabilizing Agent will enable greater participation in the Cross because it will be able to provide more certain information about the ability of investors to execute Orders at particular sizes and prices. Moreover, having greater knowledge about possible outcomes of the Cross prior to its execution will enable the Stabilizing Agent to make more informed decisions about the extent of capital it may need to commit in the Cross and after the commencement of trading in order to stabilize the price of the Follow-On Offering Security and thereby dampen volatility that might undermine investor confidence.
Nasdaq further believes that the restrictions it proposes to impose on the use of the Service will protect against possible misuse of the provided information. Notably, the information will be provided only prior to the completion of the Cross and may not be retained thereafter, except to the extent necessary for record-retention purposes. The information will be disseminated in a display format only and may not be redirected or reconfigured for non-display usage (such as usage by a trading algorithm). Moreover, electronic access to the information will be available only to certain designated individuals with a role in conducting stabilizing activities, and persons with access may not engage in transactions other than stabilizing or transactions in the Cross or on behalf of a customer. As discussed above, the Service is intended to allow the Stabilizing Agent to draw conclusions about the state of the Nasdaq order book prior to the Cross, and is therefore intended to achieve an effect similar to the availability of aggregated order book information under NYSE Rule 104(j). Although the Commission has not expressed any concerns about the availability of aggregated information to DMMs and floor brokers (including stabilizing agents) with whom they share such information on NYSE, Nasdaq believes that the safeguards it proposes around the use of the Service's information by a Stabilizing Agent will provide added assurance to members and the investing public that the Service will not be misused.
Finally, Nasdaq notes that although the Service will be available only to Stabilizing Agents, this limitation is consistent with the protection of investors because the Stabilizing Agent plays a unique role on the day of a Follow-On Offering because it must commit capital in support of the Follow-On Offering Security once trading
Nasdaq believes that the proposal to move provisions of Rule 7015 into Rule 7017 is consistent with the Act because the change is intended to promote a clear understanding of the rule text by including in a single rule all Nasdaq data services that are specifically designed to support the initial trading of securities that are the subject of an IPO or a Follow-On Offering. Nasdaq further believes that the proposal to make the Service available to eligible recipients at no additional charge is reasonable because it will not result in any increase in the costs incurred by a Stabilizing Agent to receive the additional information. Nasdaq further believes that the proposal is consistent with an equitable allocation of fees and not unfairly discriminatory because additional information is being provided to a limited group of potential users in order to assist in the promotion of fair and orderly markets during a Follow-On Offering. Accordingly, the absence of an additional fee is designed to encourage eligible members to accept the information in order to ensure that the goals of the proposal are advanced to the greatest extent possible.
Nasdaq further believes that the non-substantive changes it is making to move information about the IPO Indicator Service from Rule 7015 to new Rule 7017, and to provide additional detail in Rule 7017 about the information available through the IPO Indicator Service, are consistent with the Act because they will promote a clearer understanding of the IPO Indicator Service by members and other interested persons.
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In fact, because the Service is intended to provide the Stabilizing Agent with information about the condition of the Nasdaq order book in advance of the Cross, Nasdaq believes that the proposal will help it compete more effectively with NYSE by allowing it to provide to Stabilizing Agents with information that is similar in effect to the information available to stabilizing agents through the NYSE DMM. Accordingly, Nasdaq does not believe that there can be any reasonable objection to the proposal on competitive grounds.
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 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 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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 these statement [sic] 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 Rule 11.330(a)(3) to describe a new market data product to be known as DEEP. Currently, the Exchange offers TOPS, an uncompressed data feed that provides aggregated top of book quotations for all displayed orders resting on the Order Book and execution information (
Consistent with IEX's existing approach whereby data disseminated on TOPS is also available via TOPS Viewer through the Exchange's public Web site, IEX is proposing to continue this paradigm by also providing aggregated depth of book quotations for all displayed orders resting on the Order Book for up to ten (10) price levels that are disseminated through DEEP via the Exchange's public Web site. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.330(a)(2) to modify the name of its data product currently known as TOPS Viewer, and instead title it the IEX Data Platform, to reflect that such platform will provide a suite of data that includes data disseminated by TOPS and a subset of data disseminated by DEEP.
As is the case currently with respect to TOPS and TOPS Viewer, the aggregated best bid and offer (“BBO”) and last sale information disseminated through DEEP and the IEX Data Platform will also be reported under the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) Plan or the Nasdaq/UTP Plan. The Exchange will release such information to DEEP and the IEX Data Platform in compliance with Rule 603(a) of Regulation NMS, which requires that exchanges distribute market data on terms that are “fair and reasonable” and “not unreasonably discriminatory,” and prohibits an exchange from releasing data relating to quotes and trades to its customers through proprietary feeds before it sends its quotes and trade reports for inclusion in the consolidated feeds.
The Exchange plans to implement the proposed changes during the second quarter of 2017 pending completion of necessary technology changes and subject to effectiveness of this proposed rule change. The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed changes by Trader Alert at least 10 business days in advance of such implementation date and within 90 days of effectiveness of this proposed rule change.
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing quotation and transaction information to market participants. The Exchange also believes this proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it is designed to protect investors and the public interest and promote just and equitable principles of trade by providing transparency regarding displayed orders in the IEX System, and also provides market participants with the option to receive IEX BBO and last sale information otherwise than under the CTA and Nasdaq/UTP Plans. Further, the proposal would not permit unfair discrimination because the information will be available to all market
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act
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 Exchange is not proposing to charge a fee for DEEP or the IEX Data Platform, and will make both available to market participants on a fair and impartial basis, and on terms that are not unreasonably discriminatory. In addition, the Exchange believes that providing aggregated depth of book quotations as described above is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing investors with alternative market data, as well as to compete with other exchanges that offer similar market data products, such as those currently offered by the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE”), the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), and BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Bats”).
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 519, MIAX Order Monitor.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 519, MIAX Order Monitor, to clarify the behavior of the Order Size Protection functionality (defined below) described in paragraph (b) and to make minor, non-substantive changes to the rule as described below. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 519 by removing the option for a Member
The MIAX Order Monitor is a risk management feature of the Exchange's System.
Pursuant to paragraph (c) of Rule 519, the MIAX Order Monitor rejects any orders that exceed the maximum number of open orders held in the System on behalf of a particular Member (the “Open Order Protection”).
Pursuant to paragraph (d) of Rule 519, the MIAX Order Monitor rejects any orders that cause the number of open contracts represented by orders held in the System on behalf of a particular Member (the “Open Contract Protection”)
The Exchange also proposes to make minor, non-substantive changes to paragraph (b) to make the language clear and consistent with the remainder of the rule. The Exchange proposes to amend the heading of paragraph (b) from “Order Size Protections” to “Order Size Protection” to more accurately reflect the scope of the functionality. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to change the rule text to more accurately describe that the functionality operates on a per order basis. The Exchange proposes to make clarifying changes to the second sentence by changing the first occurrence of “orders” to “an order” and changing the second occurrence of “orders” to “order” and placing it after the word “maximum” so the proposed revised sentence would read, “[i]f the maximum size of an order is not designated by the Member, the Exchange will set a maximum order size on behalf of the Member by default.” The Order Size Protection operates on an order by order basis, and the Exchange believes the revised language more accurately describes the functionality.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (b) to eliminate the option for Members to disable the Order Size Protection. The proposed sentence will read, “[m]embers may designate the order size protection on a firm wide basis.” Should a Member fail to designate an Order Size Protection value, the Exchange will apply a default setting, which it will determine and announce to Members through a Regulatory Circular.
The Exchange also proposes to amend paragraph (c) to remove the option for Members to disable the Open Order Protection. If a Member does not designate an appropriate value, the Exchange will apply a default value, which it will determine and announce to Members through a Regulatory Circular.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (d) to remove the option for Members to disable the Open Contract Protection. If a Member does not designate an appropriate value, the Exchange will apply a default value, which it will determine and announce to Members through a Regulatory Circular.
The proposed rule change is designed to protect market participants by eliminating the option for Members to disable the Order Size Protection, Open Order Protection, and Open Contract Protection features of the MIAX Order Monitor. The proposed rule change ensures that settings are in place, either provided by the Member or the Exchange, that can be used to (i) avoid the potential submission of erroneously sized orders to the Exchange (Order Size Protection), (ii) prevent market participants from exceeding the number of open orders in the System (Open Order Protection), or (iii) the number of open contracts represented by orders in the System (Open Contract Protection).
In addition, the Exchange believes that clarifying the operation of the Order Size Protection functionality will enable market participants to better understand the risk protections available on the Exchange.
The Exchange notes that some of its rules are incorporated by reference by MIAX PEARL,
The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change by Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 60 days following the operative date of the proposed rule. The implementation date will be no later than 60 days following the issuance of the Regulatory Circular.
MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The proposed rule change is designed to protect investors and the public interest by eliminating the option for market participants to disable Order Size Protection, Open Order Protection, and Open Contract Protection, which ensures either a value provided by the firm or a default Exchange setting is used, to help market participants avoid the potential submission of orders to the Exchange that would cause them to be at unintended risk levels. The proposed rule change ensures that all orders being submitted to the Exchange have risk protection settings in place. Eliminating a market participant's ability to disable Order Size Protection will help reduce the negative impacts of receiving an erroneously sized order. Eliminating a market participant's ability to disable Open Order and Open Contract Protections will ensure that risk protections are in place to account for sudden, unanticipated volatility in individual options, and will serve to preserve an orderly market in a transparent and uniform manner, increase overall market confidence, and promote fair and orderly markets and further the protection of investors.
The Exchange believes that all market participants will benefit from the proposed change to the Rule. Market participants are vulnerable to risks stemming from market events which may cause them to send a large number of orders or receive multiple, automatic executions before they can adjust their order exposure in the market. Without adequate risk management tools, such as the MIAX Order Monitor, market participants could reduce the amount of order flow and liquidity that they provide to the market. Such actions may undermine the quality of the markets available to customers and other market participants. Accordingly, the proposed amendments to the MIAX Order Monitor should instill additional confidence in market participants that submit orders to the Exchange that there are adequate risk protections in place, and thus should encourage market participants to submit additional order flow to the Exchange, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general, protecting investors and the public interest.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protects investors and the public interest by helping to eliminate potential confusion on behalf of market participants by clearly describing the Order Size Protection functionality. Further, the Exchange believes that clarifying the operation of the risk protections available on the Exchange promotes the protection of investors and the public interest by helping market participants avoid the potential submission and subsequent execution of erroneously sized orders.
Finally, the Exchange notes that some of its rules are incorporated by reference by MIAX PEARL,
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. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed changes will not impose any burden on intra-market competition because it applies to all MIAX Options participants equally. In addition, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on inter-market competition as the proposal is intended to protect investors by providing further transparency regarding the MIAX Order Monitor feature.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 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 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 change the co-location services offered by the Exchange to include a means for co-located Users to receive the Toronto Stock Market market data feed through a wireless connection. In addition, the proposed rule change reflects changes to the Exchange's Price List related to the proposed service. 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 change the co-location
The Exchange provides Users with wireless connections to seven market data feeds or combinations of feeds from third party markets (the “Existing Third Party Data”).
Through a new affiliate, the Exchange would provide the proposed wireless connection to TSX through wireless connections into the colocation center in the Data Center. The proposed rule change would become operative when the Exchange acquires such new affiliate (the “Acquisition”), expected to be no later than June 30, 2017. The Exchange will announce the date that the wireless connection to the TSX will be available through a customer notice.
To receive TSX, the User would enter into a contract with the Toronto Stock Exchange, which would charge the User the applicable market data fees for TSX. The Exchange would charge the User fees for the wireless connection for TSX.
For each wireless connection to TSX, a User would be charged a $5,000 non-recurring initial charge and a monthly recurring charge (“MRC”) of $8,500. The Exchange proposes to revise its Price List to reflect fees related to the connection to TSX.
As with the Existing Third Party Data, if a User purchased two wireless connections, it would pay two non-recurring initial charges. The wireless connection would include the use of one port for connectivity to TSX. A User would not pay a fee for the use of such port. However, a User would not be able to use the same port that it uses for connectivity to TSX to connect to Existing Third Party Data. Accordingly, a User that connects to both TSX and Existing Third Party Data would have at least two ports.
As with the previously approved wireless connections to Third Party Data, the Exchange proposes to waive the first month's MRC, to allow Users to test the receipt of TSX for a month before incurring any MRCs.
The company which the Exchange expects to acquire in the Acquisition currently provides wireless connections to TSX to customers who are also Users (the “Existing Customers”). The Exchange would not charge such Existing Customers the non-recurring initial charge or waive the first month's MRC for their wireless connection to TSX.
The Exchange proposes to offer the wireless connection to provide Users with an alternative means of connectivity for TSX. For example, Users may receive connections to TSX from another User, through a telecommunications provider, or over the internet protocol (“IP”) network.
As is the case with all Exchange co-location arrangements, (i) neither a User nor any of the User's customers would be permitted to submit orders directly to the Exchange unless such User or customer is a member organization, a Sponsored Participant or an agent thereof (
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users 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 service is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because the wireless connection to TSX would provide Users with an alternative means of connectivity to TSX. Users that do not opt to utilize the Exchange's proposed wireless connections would still be able to obtain TSX through other methods. For example, Users may receive connections to TSX from another User, through a telecommunications provider, or over the IP network. Users that opt to use wireless connections to TSX would receive the TSX that is available to all Users, as all market participants that contract with Toronto Stock Exchange for TSX may receive it.
The Exchange believes that this removes impediments to, and perfects the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protects investors and the public interest because it would provide Users with choices with respect to the form and optimal latency of the connectivity they use to receive TSX, allowing a User that opts to receive TSX
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act for multiple reasons. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations. Accordingly, fees charged for co-location services are constrained by the active competition for the order flow of, and other business from, such market participants. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for co-location services, affected market participants will opt to terminate their co-location arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of alternative strategies, including placing their servers in a physically proximate location outside the exchange's data center (which could be a competing exchange), or pursuing strategies less dependent upon the lower exchange-to-participant latency associated with co-location. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only co-location revenues but also the liquidity of the formerly co-located trading firms, which could have additional follow-on effects on the market share and revenue of the affected exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will result in fees being charged only to Users that voluntarily select to receive the corresponding services and because those services will be available to all Users. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the services and fees proposed herein are not unfairly discriminatory and are equitably allocated because, in addition to the services being completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on an equal basis (
The Exchange believes that the proposed charges are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange proposes to offer the wireless connection to TSX described herein as a convenience to Users, but in order to do so must provide, maintain and operate the Data Center facility hardware and technology infrastructure. The Exchange must handle the installation, administration, monitoring, support and maintenance of such services, including by responding to any production issues. Since the inception of co-location, the Exchange has made numerous improvements to the network hardware and technology infrastructure and has established additional administrative controls. The Exchange has expanded the network infrastructure to keep pace with the increased number of services available to Users. Specifically, in order to offer wireless connections, the Exchange must install, test, maintain and operate the wireless equipment.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory that a User that has already purchased wireless connections to other Third Party Data would be charged a non-recurring charge when it purchases a wireless connection to TSX, because it would allow the Exchange to defray or cover certain costs it incurs in installing the wireless connection to TSX, which costs it incurs irrespective of whether the User has existing wireless connections to Third Party Data, while providing the User the benefit of the installation, which would allow it to receive TSX within co-location and with a lower latency over the fiber optics option. To do the initial installation, the Exchange must provide the personnel required for initial installation and testing. The costs associated with installing wireless connections are incrementally higher than those associated with installing fiber optics-based solutions.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory that an Existing Customer would not be subject to the non-recurring initial charge, because such User's wireless connection to TSX would be in place at the time of the Acquisition, and the Exchange would not have to install the wireless connection.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory that a User that connects to both TSX and Existing Third Party Data may not use the same port for connectivity to both, and so would have at least two ports, because the proposed wireless connection would include the use of one port for connectivity to TSX and the Existing Third Party Data includes the use of one port for connectivity to Existing Third Party Data. A User would not pay a separate fee for using such ports.
The Exchange believes the proposed pricing for the wireless connection to TSX is reasonable because it would allow the Exchange to defray or cover the costs associated with offering Users a wireless connection to TSX while providing Users the benefit of receiving TSX within co-location and with a lower latency over the fiber optics option. The wireless connection for TSX allows Users to select the TSX connectivity option that better suits their needs.
The Exchange believes that the proposed waiver of the first month's MRC is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory as it would allow Users to test the receipt of TSX for a month before incurring any monthly recurring fees and may act as an incentive to Users to connect to TSX. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory that an Existing Customer would not have its first month's MRC for the wireless connection waived, as such User's wireless connection to TSX would be in place prior to the Acquisition, and therefore would not need to be tested. From the perspective of the Existing Customer, the wireless connection to TSX would continue without interruption, before and after the Acquisition.
Moreover, the fees are equitably allocated, reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because the wireless connection for TSX would provide Users with an alternative means of connectivity for TSX. Users that do not opt to utilize the Exchange's proposed wireless connections would still be able to obtain TSX through other methods. For example, Users may receive connections to TSX from another User, through a telecommunications provider, or over the IP network. Users that opt to use wireless connections for TSX would receive the TSX that is available to all Users, as all market participants that contract with the Toronto Stock Exchange for TSX may receive it.
For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements, terms and conditions
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 proposed fees are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that allowing Users to receive TSX through a wireless connection will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because such access will satisfy User demand for additional options for connectivity to TSX. The proposed wireless connection to TSX would compete with fiber optic network connections to TSX, which may be more attractive to some Users as they are more reliable and less susceptible to weather conditions. Users that do not opt to utilize the proposed wireless connection would be able to obtain TSX through other methods, including, for example, from another User, through a telecommunications provider, or over the IP network.
Through an affiliate, the Exchange would provide the proposed wireless connection to TSX through wireless connections into the co-location center in the Data Center. The proposed connection to TSX will not traverse through the pole on the grounds of the Data Center utilized for the Existing Third Party Data, as the wireless network utilized for the Existing Third Party Data has exclusive rights to operate wireless equipment on the Data Center pole.
Finally, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations. Accordingly, fees charged for co-location services are constrained by the active competition for the order flow of, and other business from, such market participants. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for co-location services, affected market participants will opt to terminate their co-location arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of alternative strategies, including placing their servers in a physically proximate location outside the exchange's data center (which could be a competing exchange), or pursuing strategies less dependent upon the lower exchange-to-participant latency associated with co-location. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only co-location revenues but also the liquidity of the formerly co-located trading firms, which could have additional follow-on effects on the market share and revenue of the affected exchange. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
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
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange notes that waiver of the operative delay will ensure that Existing Customers are able to continue their existing wireless connectivity to TSX after the Acquisition, without any cessation of service. The Commission believes that it is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to waive the 30-day operative delay and hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.
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) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
• 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order pursuant to: (a) Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) granting an exemption from sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act granting an exemption from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; (c) sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and (d) section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint arrangements and transactions. Applicants request an order that would permit certain registered open-end management investment companies to participate in a joint lending and borrowing facility.
Touchstone Investment Trust, Touchstone Strategic Trust, Touchstone Variable Series Trust, Touchstone Funds Group Trust, and Touchstone Institutional Funds Trust, registered under the Act as open-end management investment companies with one or more series, and Touchstone Advisors, Inc. (the “Adviser”), registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
The application was filed on February 11, 2016, and amended on July 11, 2016 and January 26, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on March 27, 2017 and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: c/o Jill T. McGruder, 303 Broadway, Suite 1100, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202.
Steven I. Amchan, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6826 or David J. Marcinkus, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order that would permit the applicants to participate in an interfund lending facility where each Fund could lend money directly to and borrow money directly from other Funds to cover unanticipated cash shortfalls, such as unanticipated redemptions or trade fails.
2. Applicants anticipate that the proposed facility would provide a borrowing Fund with a source of liquidity at a rate lower than the bank borrowing rate at times when the cash position of the Fund is insufficient to meet temporary cash requirements. In addition, Funds making short-term cash loans directly to other Funds would earn interest at a rate higher than they otherwise could obtain from investing their cash in repurchase agreements or certain other short term money market instruments. Thus, applicants assert that the facility would benefit both borrowing and lending Funds.
3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions
4. Applicants assert that the facility does not raise the concerns underlying section 12(d)(1) of the Act given that the Funds are part of the same group of investment companies and there will be no duplicative costs or fees to the Funds.
5. Applicants also believe that the limited relief from section 18(f)(1) of the Act that is necessary to implement the facility (because the lending Funds are not banks) is appropriate in light of the conditions and safeguards described in the application and because the Funds would remain subject to the requirement of section 18(f)(1) that all borrowings of a Fund, including combined interfund loans and bank borrowings, have at least 300% asset coverage.
6. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Rule 17d-1(b) under the Act provides that in passing upon an application filed under the rule, the Commission will consider whether the participation of the registered investment company in a joint enterprise, joint arrangement or profit sharing plan on the basis proposed is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of the other participants.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to change the co-location services offered by the Exchange to include a means for co-located Users to receive the Toronto Stock Market market data feed through a wireless connection. In addition, the proposed rule change reflects changes to the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule (the “Options Fee Schedule”) and, through its wholly owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”), the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (the “Equities Fee Schedule” and, together with the Options Fee Schedule, the “Fee Schedules”) related to the proposed service. 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
The Exchange proposes to change the co-location
The Exchange provides Users with wireless connections to seven market data feeds or combinations of feeds from third party markets (the “Existing Third Party Data”).
Through a new affiliate, the Exchange would provide the proposed wireless connection to TSX through wireless connections into the colocation center in the Data Center. The proposed rule change would become operative when the Exchange acquires such new affiliate (the “Acquisition”), expected to be no later than June 30, 2017. The Exchange will announce the date that the wireless connection to the TSX will be available through a customer notice.
To receive TSX, the User would enter into a contract with the Toronto Stock Exchange, which would charge the User the applicable market data fees for TSX. The Exchange would charge the User fees for the wireless connection for TSX.
For each wireless connection to TSX, a User would be charged a $5,000 non-recurring initial charge and a monthly recurring charge (“MRC”) of $8,500. The Exchange proposes to revise the Fee Schedules to reflect fees related to the connection to TSX.
As with the Existing Third Party Data, if a User purchased two wireless connections, it would pay two non-recurring initial charges. The wireless connection would include the use of one port for connectivity to TSX. A User would not pay a fee for the use of such port. However, a User would not be able to use the same port that it uses for connectivity to TSX to connect to Existing Third Party Data. Accordingly, a User that connects to both TSX and Existing Third Party Data would have at least two ports.
As with the previously approved wireless connections to Third Party Data, the Exchange proposes to waive the first month's MRC, to allow Users to test the receipt of TSX for a month before incurring any MRCs.
The company which the Exchange expects to acquire in the Acquisition currently provides wireless connections to TSX to customers who are also Users (the “Existing Customers”). The Exchange would not charge such Existing Customers the non-recurring initial charge or waive the first month's MRC for their wireless connection to TSX.
The Exchange proposes to offer the wireless connection to provide Users with an alternative means of connectivity for TSX. For example, Users may receive connections to TSX from another User, through a telecommunications provider, or over the Internet protocol (“IP”) network.
As is the case with all Exchange co-location arrangements, (i) neither a User nor any of the User's customers would be permitted to submit orders directly to the Exchange unless such User or customer is a member organization, a Sponsored Participant or an agent thereof (
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users 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 service is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because the wireless connection to TSX would provide Users with an alternative means of connectivity to TSX. Users that do not opt to utilize the Exchange's proposed wireless connections would still be able to obtain TSX through other methods. For example, Users may receive connections to TSX from another User, through a telecommunications provider, or over the IP network. Users that opt to use wireless connections to TSX would receive the TSX that is available to all Users, as all market participants that contract with Toronto Stock Exchange for TSX may receive it.
The Exchange believes that this removes impediments to, and perfects the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protects investors and the public interest because it would provide Users with choices with respect to the form and optimal latency of the connectivity they use to receive TSX, allowing a User that opts to receive TSX to select the connectivity and number of ports that better suit its needs, helping it tailor its Data Center operations to the requirements of its business operations.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act for multiple reasons. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations. Accordingly, fees charged for co-location services are constrained by the active competition for the order flow of, and other business from, such market participants. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for co-location services, affected market participants will opt to terminate their co-location arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of alternative strategies, including placing their servers in a physically proximate location outside the exchange's data center (which could be a competing exchange), or pursuing strategies less dependent upon the lower exchange-to-participant latency associated with co-location. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only co-location revenues but also the liquidity of the formerly co-located trading firms, which could have additional follow-on effects on the market share and revenue of the affected exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will result in fees being charged only to Users that voluntarily select to receive the corresponding services and because those services will be available to all Users. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the services and fees proposed herein are not unfairly discriminatory and are equitably allocated because, in addition to the services being completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on an equal basis (
The Exchange believes that the proposed charges are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange proposes to offer the wireless connection to TSX described herein as a convenience to Users, but in order to do so must provide, maintain and operate the Data Center facility hardware and technology infrastructure. The Exchange must handle the installation, administration, monitoring, support and maintenance of such services, including by responding to any production issues. Since the inception of co-location, the Exchange has made numerous improvements to the network hardware and technology infrastructure and has established additional administrative controls. The Exchange has expanded the network infrastructure to keep pace with the increased number of services available to Users. Specifically, in order to offer wireless connections, the Exchange must install, test, maintain and operate the wireless equipment.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory that a User that has already purchased wireless connections to other Third Party Data would be charged a non-recurring charge when it purchases a wireless connection to TSX, because it would allow the Exchange to defray or cover certain costs it incurs in installing the wireless connection to TSX, which costs it incurs irrespective of whether the User has existing wireless connections to Third Party Data, while providing the User the benefit of the installation, which would allow it to receive TSX within co-location and with a lower latency over the fiber optics option. To do the initial installation, the Exchange must provide the personnel required for initial installation and testing. The costs associated with installing wireless connections are incrementally higher than those associated with installing fiber optics-based solutions.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory that an Existing Customer would not be subject to the non-recurring initial charge, because such User's wireless connection to TSX would be in place at the time of the Acquisition, and the Exchange would not have to install the wireless connection.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory that a User that connects to both TSX and Existing Third Party Data may not use the same port for connectivity to both, and so would have at least two ports, because the proposed wireless connection would include the use of one port for connectivity to TSX and the Existing Third Party Data includes the use of one port for connectivity to Existing Third Party Data. A User would not pay a separate fee for using such ports.
The Exchange believes the proposed pricing for the wireless connection to TSX is reasonable because it would allow the Exchange to defray or cover the costs associated with offering Users a wireless connection to TSX while providing Users the benefit of receiving TSX within co-location and with a lower latency over the fiber optics option. The wireless connection for TSX allows Users to select the TSX connectivity option that better suits their needs.
The Exchange believes that the proposed waiver of the first month's MRC is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory as it would allow Users to test the receipt of TSX for a month before incurring any monthly recurring fees and may act as an incentive to Users to connect to TSX. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory that an Existing Customer would not have its first month's MRC for the wireless connection waived, as such User's wireless connection to TSX would be in
Moreover, the fees are equitably allocated, reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because the wireless connection for TSX would provide Users with an alternative means of connectivity for TSX. Users that do not opt to utilize the Exchange's proposed wireless connections would still be able to obtain TSX through other methods. For example, Users may receive connections to TSX from another User, through a telecommunications provider, or over the IP network. Users that opt to use wireless connections for TSX would receive the TSX that is available to all Users, as all market participants that contract with the Toronto Stock Exchange for TSX may receive it.
For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements, terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
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 proposed fees are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that allowing Users to receive TSX through a wireless connection will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because such access will satisfy User demand for additional options for connectivity to TSX. The proposed wireless connection to TSX would compete with fiber optic network connections to TSX, which may be more attractive to some Users as they are more reliable and less susceptible to weather conditions. Users that do not opt to utilize the proposed wireless connection would be able to obtain TSX through other methods, including, for example, from another User, through a telecommunications provider, or over the IP network.
Through an affiliate, the Exchange would provide the proposed wireless connection to TSX through wireless connections into the co-location center in the Data Center. The proposed connection to TSX will not traverse through the pole on the grounds of the Data Center utilized for the Existing Third Party Data, as the wireless network utilized for the Existing Third Party Data has exclusive rights to operate wireless equipment on the Data Center pole.
Finally, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations. Accordingly, fees charged for co-location services are constrained by the active competition for the order flow of, and other business from, such market participants. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for co-location services, affected market participants will opt to terminate their co-location arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of alternative strategies, including placing their servers in a physically proximate location outside the exchange's data center (which could be a competing exchange), or pursuing strategies less dependent upon the lower exchange-to-participant latency associated with co-location. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only co-location revenues but also the liquidity of the formerly co-located trading firms, which could have additional follow-on effects on the market share and revenue of the affected exchange. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
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
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange notes that waiver of the operative delay will ensure that Existing Customers are able to continue their existing wireless connectivity to TSX after the Acquisition, without any cessation of service. The Commission believes that it is consistent with the
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) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange seeks to amend Rule 6.6. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below (additions are
(a) Whenever in the judgment of any two Floor Officials
(b) If a market is declared fast, any two Floor Officials shall have the power to do one or more of the following with respect to the class or classes involved[.]
(c)-(d) No change.
[(e) A Post Director or Order Book Official (“OBO”) at a station at a trading post may turn off RAES for a class or classes of options contracts traded at that station for a period of time not to exceed five minutes if, because of an influx of orders or other unusual conditions or circumstances in respect of such options or their underlying securities, the Post Director or OBO determines that such action is appropriate in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market. Whenever such action is taken, notice thereof shall immediately be given to
. . . Interpretation and Policies:
.01 [The Exchange has implemented an automatic system that monitors news wires for announcements pertaining to stocks underlying stock options at the end of each trading day, commencing shortly before the close of trading in the primary markets for underlying stocks and continuing for so long as stock options continue to be traded, and automatically suspends RAES in a class of stock options whenever the system notes that a news announcement pertaining to the underlying stock has been made. Two Floor Officials are notified promptly by senior help desk personnel each time RAES is automatically suspended. Depending on the Floor Officials' judgment as to the significance of the news announcement and whether its impact has been reflected in current options quotations, and depending on how much time remains before the close of options trading on CBOE, the Floor Officials will consider whether to resume operation of RAES in the affected classes of options. During the time that RAES is suspended, customer orders are routed to terminals on the trading floor for execution. The implementation of this system does not affect the authority of Floor Officials to halt trading under Rule 6.3, or to declare a fast market under Rule 6.6(a) and to take the actions described in Rule 6.6(b).]
(a) No change.
(b) With respect to orders received during a malfunction or disruption of the Exchange's systems under paragraph (a)(4) above
(1)-(2) No change.
(c) 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 seeks to amend Rule 6.6 to update the circumstances in which the Exchange may declare a “fast” market; add actions the Exchange may take when a fast market has been declared; and remove outdated provisions.
First, Rule 6.6 currently states that whenever in the judgment of any two Floor Officials, because of an influx of orders or other unusual conditions or circumstances, the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market so requires, those Floor Officials may declare the market in one or more classes of option contracts to be fast. The Exchange is seeking to further specify that “other unusual conditions or circumstances” can include periods of time during which there is extraordinary market volatility (
As under the current rule, a fast market will only be declared when two Floor Officials believe declaring a market fast is necessary in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market. In other words, if two Floor Officials do not believe they need to declare a fast market because of extraordinary market volatility to maintain a fair and orderly market, the Exchange will not declare a fast market. Currently, Floor Officials use their experience and expertise to determine if a market should be declared fast because of an influx of orders or other unusual conditions or circumstances. This proposal is only adding to the rule examples of unusual conditions or circumstances that can be considered when making this determination such as when: The previous day's closing price of the S&P 500 Index is more than 2% away from the previous day's opening price; (ii) the front-month E-mini S&P 500 Future (symbol ES/1) is trading more than 20 points above or below the previous day's closing values by 8:00 a.m. CT
The Exchange reviewed approximately eight months of data and observed the previous day's closing price of the S&P 500 Index being more than 2% away from the previous day's opening price on fewer than five days; however, the Exchange believes that when such moves in the S&P 500 Index do occur openings and intraday options trading can be volatile. Additionally, the inclusion of this provision in the rule text will help to serve as notice to market participants as to when the Exchange might call a fast market.
With regards to when the front-month E-mini S&P 500 Future (symbol ES/1) is trading more than 20 points above or below the previous day's closing values by 8:00 a.m. CT, the Exchange notes that E-mini S&P 500 Futures are often used as a way to measure the state of the overall market in similar manner to which the S&P 500 Index is generally used to measure the state of the overall market. The Exchange believes a 20 point move represents a fairly significant move in the E-mini S&P 500 Futures and could indicate that the opening and intraday options trading will be volatile. Additionally, as
The Exchange reviewed approximately eight months of data and observed the intraday price of the S&P 500 Index moving more than 1% in any one hour interval during regular trading hours on at least 30 days. Although not an infrequent occurrence, the Exchange believes it is critically important to have an intraday variable that will be used by Floor Officials to guide them as they determine whether there is a fast market. The Exchange notes that this is simply an example of an unusual condition or circumstance that can be considered when making this determination as to whether a fast market should be called. The Exchange notes that a 1% move an hour in the S&P 500 Index is not necessarily cause to call a fast market—just as a 2% move from the previous days open to the previous days close in the S&P 500 Index is not necessarily a cause to call a fast market. However, the Exchange notes that intraday moves of 1% an hour in the S&P 500 Index can cause intraday options trading can be volatile. Floor Officials will use their considerable experience and expertise to make the fast market determination. Additionally, the inclusion of this provision in the rule text will help to serve as notice to market participants as to when the Exchange might call a fast market.
Second, paragraph (b) of Rule 6.6 currently identifies several actions Floor Officials may take when a market is declared fast.
To illustrate, consider SPX options, which have a multiplier of $100 and a minimum tick size for simple orders of $.10 when the bid of the option is more than $3.00. As each option contract contains 100 options, each tick move is $1000 ($100 × $.10 × 100 options). Considering that most SPX market participants execute orders significantly larger than one contract and that options prices can move significantly in seconds, it is not difficult to imagine a customer losing thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars because the customer's broker was required to systematize the customer's order prior to representing the order during a fast market.
The Exchange believes that during these fast markets, which have the potential to cause significant losses for customers and market participants, the entire marketplace would be better served by receiving executions on orders as quickly as possible. Thus, the Exchange proposes, in limited and extraordinary circumstances, to delay (not waive) the requirement to systematize an order.
Rule 6.24 was adopted in its current form by SR-CBOE-2004-077 [sic]. SR-CBOE-2004-77 was submitted to fulfill certain of the undertakings contained in an order issued by the Commission relating to the settlement of an enforcement action against CBOE and other options exchanges (collectively “Options Exchanges”).
Specifically, proposed paragraph (b) of Rule 6.24 states:
With respect to orders received during a malfunction or disruption of the Exchange's systems under paragraph (a)(4) above or during a time period when a fast market has been declared under Rule 6.6(a) and the Exchange has suspended the requirement to systematize an order prior to its representation to the trading floor under Rule 6.6(b)(iii):
(1) Transmitted to the Floor. Each order transmitted to the Exchange must be recorded legibly in a written form that has been approved by the Exchange, and the Trading Permit Holder receiving such order must record the time of its receipt on the floor and legibly record the terms of the order, in written form.
(2) Cancellations and Changes. Each cancellation of, or change to, an order that has been transmitted to the floor must be recorded legibly in a written form that has been approved by the Exchange, and the Trading Permit Holder receiving such cancellation or change must record the time of its receipt on the floor.
Thus, information regarding all non-electronic orders will remain a part of the Exchange's audit trail in the same manner as non-electronic orders that cannot be systematized because of a malfunction or disruption of the Exchange' system.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.6.01
In the event that the Exchange suspends the requirement to systematize an order prior to its representation pursuant to paragraph (b) of this Rule 6.6, Trading Permit Holders or TPH organizations shall follow the procedures as described in paragraph (b) of Rule 6.24. Upon the Floor Officials' determination to reinstate the systematization requirement, Trading Permit Holders shall immediately resume systematizing orders prior to representing them on the trading floor. Additionally, Trading Permit Holders shall exert best efforts to input electronically into the Exchange's systems all relevant order information received during the time period when there was a fast market as soon as possible, and in any event shall input such data electronically into the Exchange's systems not later than close of business on the trade date during which the fast market existed.
The Exchange notes that the collection and reporting of quotation information to OPRA will not be effected by this rule filing because the Exchange will continue to “collect and promptly transmit to the OPRA System by means of its own facilities bids and offers at stated prices or limits with respect to individual Eligible Securities in which it provides a market,” which, by definition, means the marketplace will continue to have access to the “current state of the market” in all securities traded on the Exchange.
Additionally, even though in these very limited situations market participants will be able to represent a particular order in the trading crowd prior to systematizing the order, market participants must continue to report the execution of the order within 90 seconds.
Lastly, the proposed rule removes outdated provisions in Rule 6.6 that reference Order Book Officials and the Retail Automatic Execution System (“RAES”), as the Exchange no longer utilizes Order Book Officials or RAES.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed amendment promotes just and equitable principles of trade by giving Floor Officials the ability to declare a fast market when there is extraordinary market volatility that hinders the maintenance of fair and orderly markets. In addition, the proposed amendment protects investors and the public interest by further specifying the actions Floor Officials may take once they declare a fast market. Specifically, the Exchange believes having the ability to suspend the requirement to systematize an order prior to representing the order to the trading floor serves investors and the public interest because it provides floor brokers with the ability to better accommodate customers during times of extreme volatility and high order volume, which can prevent or limit significant customer losses during those times. Furthermore, the Exchange believes the proposed amendment is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices because the rule is narrowly applied to situations in which two Floor Officials (one of which must be an Exchange employee) believe the maintenance of fair and orderly markets necessitates a fast market declaration. Additionally, the Exchange believes delaying the systemization of an order under these limited and extraordinary circumstances will not significantly impact the integrity of the audit trail. In fact, the Exchange believes that if there is any impact on the audit trail it is outweighed by the benefits to customers and other market participants. Additionally, impacts to individual market surveillances, if any, can be remedied through manual reviews of the required paper order tickets.
Additionally, as proposed in Rule 6.6.01, if the requirement to systematize an order prior to representing the order is suspended, Trading Permit Holders are required to record order information in written form, which provides an adequate audit trail for regulatory purposes. Additionally, as proposed by Rule 6.6.01 and 6.6.02 [sic], Trading Permit Holders are required to input electronically into the Exchange's systems all relevant order information received during the time period when there was a fast market as soon as possible, and in any event shall input such data electronically into the Exchange's systems not later than close of business on the trade date during which the fast market existed, which will provide an adequate audit trail for regulatory purposes.
The Exchange notes that the collection and reporting of quotation information to OPRA will not be effected by this rule filing because the Exchange will continue to “collect and promptly transmit to the OPRA System by means of its own facilities bids and offers at stated prices or limits with respect to individual Eligible Securities in which it provides a market,” which, by definition, means the marketplace will continue to have access to the “current state of the market” in all securities traded on the Exchange.
Finally, the Exchange does not believe the proposal permits unfair discrimination because the benefit of receiving executions in a more timely fashion will likely outweigh any perceived negatives. For example, a broker that does not need to spend crucial time systematizing an order prior to representing an order better serves the client by accessing liquidity as soon as possible.
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. More specifically, the Exchange does not believe the proposed amendment will impose any burden on intramarket competition because it provides the same relief to all floor brokers in the same manner under the same limited and extraordinary circumstances. In addition, the Exchange does not believe the proposed changes will impose any burden on intermarket competition. The proposed rule change relates solely to information that floor brokers must submit to the Exchange with respect to orders they represent and execute on the Exchange's trading floor. The proposed rule change has little to no effect on market participants because OPRA will be receiving timely quotations during fast markets, which will give all market participants an up-to-date view of the market during a fast market. Any perceived burden on market participants is outweighed by the fact that market participants will be able to receive executions in a timelier manner during times of high market volatility.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Section II, entitled “Multiply Listed Options Fees,”
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated that the amendments be operative on March 1, 2017.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to increase the maximum QCC rebate that will be paid by the Exchange in a given month. The Exchange believes that this increase will incentivize participants to transact additional QCC Orders on Phlx.
Today, the Exchange assesses a $.20 per contract QCC Transaction Fee for a Specialist,
The Exchange will not pay a QCC Rebate where the transaction is either: (i) Customer-to-Customer; (ii) Customer-to-Professional, (iii) Professional-to-Professional or (iv) a dividend, merger, short stock interest or reversal or conversion strategy execution.
The Exchange will continue to pay rebates on QCC Orders as described above. The Exchange proposes to amend the QCC Rebate Schedule to increase the maximum QCC Rebate of $450,000 per month to $550,000 per month.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers' . . . .”
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to increase the maximum amount of the QCC Rebate the Exchange would pay a market participant in a
The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to increase the maximum amount of the QCC Rebate the Exchange would pay a market participant in a given month from $450,000 to $550,000 because all qualifying market participants are eligible to obtain this maximum amount of QCC rebates provided they transact a qualifying number of QCC Orders. All market participants are eligible to transact QCC Orders.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets or will impose any inter-market burden on competition for the reasons stated above.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any intra-market burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the maximum QCC Rebate does not impose a burden on competition, rather the increased cap should encourage market participants to transact a greater number of QCC Orders in order to obtain the maximum QCC Rebate. All market participants are eligible to transact QCC Orders.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Nevada dated 02/23/2017.
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,
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
Oregon: Harney, Lake
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 150556 and for economic injury is 150560.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Nevada, California, Oregon.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of KANSAS (FEMA-4304-DR), dated 02/24/2017.
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.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 02/24/2017, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15057B and for economic injury is 15058B.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of denials.
FMCSA announces its denial of 144 applications from individuals who requested an exemption from the Federal vision standard applicable to interstate truck and bus drivers and the reasons for the denials. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions does not provide a level of safety that will be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
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 Federal vision standard for a renewable 2-year period if it finds “such an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such an exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption are set forth in 49 CFR part 381.
Accordingly, FMCSA evaluated 144 individual exemption requests on their merit and made a determination that these applicants do not satisfy the criteria eligibility or meet the terms and conditions of the Federal exemption program. Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of final disposition on the exemption request. Those decision letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitute final Agency action. The list published in this notice summarizes the Agency's recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically publishing names and reasons for denial.
The following 45 applicants had no experience operating a CMV:
The following 19 applicants did not have 3 years of experience driving a CMV on public highways with their vision deficiencies:
The following 11 applicants did not have 3 years of recent experience driving a CMV with the vision deficiency:
The following 2 applicants did not have sufficient driving experience during the past 3 years under normal highway operating conditions:
Dwayne S. Davidson (OH) was charged with a moving violation(s) in conjunction with a CMV accident(s).
Jerry M. Richardson (NC) does not have verifiable proof of commercial driving experience over the past 3 years under normal highway operating conditions that would serve as an adequate predictor of future safe performance.
Roy W. Houser, II (NC) did not hold a license which allowed operation of vehicles over 26,000 pounds for all or part of the preceding 3-year period.
Roberto Fernandez (NJ) did not have an optometrist or ophthalmologist willing to make a statement that they are able to operate a CMV from a vision standpoint.
The following 18 applicants were denied for multiple reasons:
The following 3 applicants have not had stable vision for the preceding 3-year period:
The following 2 applicants do not meet the vision standard in the better eye:
The following 12 applicants met the current federal vision standards. Exemptions are not required for applicants who meet the current regulations for vision:
The following 25 applicants will not be driving interstate, intrastate commerce, or are not required to carry a DOT medical card:
The following 3 applicants performs transportation for the Federal government, state, or any political sub-division of the state:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 128 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.
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 December 29, 2016, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 128 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (81 FR 96165). The public comment period ended on January 30, 2017, and no comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions 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)(10).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to driver 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 a 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 red, green, and amber.
FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.
As of January 3, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 29 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (64 FR 40404; 64 FR 54948; 64 FR 66962; 65 FR 159; 65 FR 20245; 65 FR 33406; 65 FR 45817; 65 FR 57230; 65 FR 77066; 66 FR 66969; 67 FR 10475; 67 FR 57266; 67 FR 71610; 69 FR 8260; 69 FR 17263; 69 FR 26206; 69 FR 31447; 69 FR 52741; 69 FR 53493; 69 FR 62741; 69 FR 62742; 69 FR 64810; 71 FR 19604; 71 FR 26602; 71 FR 27033; 71 FR 62147; 71 FR 66217; 72 FR 185;
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-1999-5748; FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0231; FMCSA-2008-0292; FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2010-0201; FMCSA-2010-0327; FMCSA-2012-0279; FMCSA-2014-0010; FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-2014-0298. Their exemptions are effective as of January 3, 2017, and will expire on January 3, 2019.
As of January 9, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 20 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (71 FR 63379; 72 FR 1051; 73 FR 78423; 75 FR 79083; 77 FR 59248; 77 FR 71669; 77 FR 74734; 79 FR 73686):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2012-0278. Their exemptions are effective as of January 9, 2017, and will expire on January 9, 2019.
As of January 10, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 21 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (75 FR 69737; 76 FR 1499; 77 FR 74733; 79 FR 72756; 79 FR 73397; 80 FR 9304):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2010-0287; FMCSA-2014-0299. Their exemptions are effective as of January 10, 2017, and will expire on January 10, 2019.
As of January 12, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 21 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR 20245; 65 FR 57230; 67 FR 67234; 69 FR 53493; 69 FR 62741; 69 FR 64742; 71 FR 62147; 71 FR 62148; 73 FR 61925; 73 FR 74565; 75 FR 59327; 75 FR 66423; 75 FR 72863; 76 FR 2190; 77 FR 68199; 77 FR 74273; 79 FR 73687):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2010-0354. Their exemptions are effective as of January 12, 2017, and will expire on January 12, 2019.
As of January 13, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 5 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR 45817; 65 FR 77066; 67 FR 46016; 67 FR 57267; 67 FR 71610; 69 FR 71098; 71 FR 32183; 71 FR 41310; 71 FR 63379; 72 FR 1050; 72 FR 1054; 73 FR 75806; 73 FR 78421; 75 FR 79079; 77 FR 76166; 79 FR 73687):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-26006. Their exemptions are effective as of January 13, 2017, and will expire on January 13, 2019.
As of January 14, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 10 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (69 FR 64806; 70 FR 2705; 72 FR 1056; 73 FR 76439; 75 FR 65057; 75 FR 79081; 75 FR 79084; 77 FR 75496; 79 FR 74169):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2010-0327. Their exemptions are effective as of January 14, 2017, and will expire on January 14, 2019.
As of January 17, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 5 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (67 FR 68719; 68 FR 2629; 69 FR 71100; 72 FR 1053; 73 FR 76440; 75 FR 80887; 77 FR 76167; 79 FR 74168):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2002-12844. Their exemptions are effective as of January 17, 2017, and will expire on January 17, 2019.
As of January 31, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 17 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (69 FR 17263; 69 FR 314477; 70 FR 44946; 71 FR 43557; 71 FR 63379; 72 FR 1050; 73 FR 42403; 73 FR 78422; 75 FR 38602; 75 FR 54958; 75 FR 96737; 75 FR 70078; 75 FR 72863; 75 FR 77492; 75 FR 79079; 76 FR 1499; 76 FR 2190; 76 FR 5425; 77 FR 60008; 77 FR 68202; 77 FR 71671; 77 FR 74733; 78 FR 800; 80 FR 603):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2002-12844. Their exemptions are effective as of January 31, 2017, and will expire on January 31, 2019.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, 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 applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 14 individuals for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before April 5, 2017. All comments will be investigated by FMCSA. The exemptions will be issued the day after the comment period closes.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0214 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 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-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
Mr. Baseman, 31, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion Mr. Baseman has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Baseman reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 90,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 3 years, accumulating 30,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Ferrucci, 53, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “In conclusion, Mr. Ferrucci has the required, stable vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Ferrucci reported that he has driven straight trucks for 7 years, accumulating 105,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Florida. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Fields, 56, has a cataract 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, counting fingers. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Fields reported that he has driven straight trucks for 22 years, accumulating 1.1 million miles. He holds an operator's license from Virginia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Greene, 35, has poor vision in his right eye due to inflammation in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is hand motion, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated, “It is my medical opinion that Mr. Green [sic] has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Greene reported that he has driven straight trucks for 18 years, accumulating 15,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Vermont. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Haupt, 47, has had a macular hole in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is counting fingers, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “I certify, in my medical opinion, that Mr. Haupt is fully capable and visually competent to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Haupt reported that he has driven straight trucks for 26 years, accumulating 78,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from South Dakota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Jones, 30, has had a retinal detachment in his right eye due to Von Hippel Lindau disease in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my professional vision [
Mr. Lampasone, 51, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my opinion, this patient has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Lampasone reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 1.2 million miles. He holds an operator's license from New York. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Lampe, 52, has had a prosthetic left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my opinion he has stable and sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks needed to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Lampe reported that he has driven straight trucks for 19 years, accumulating 190,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Oregon. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Lange, 66, has had amblyopia in his right eye since 2011. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “I do certify that in my medical opinion, Mr. Lange has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV).” Mr. Lange reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 30 years, accumulating 525,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Colorado. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Matheson, 49, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic incident in 2003. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “US Dept [sic] of Transportation . . . Vision is better than 20/40 in the left eye and visual field meets requirements.” Mr. Matheson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 50,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Wyoming. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Nicklow, 41, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 1992. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated, “If a commercial vehicle can be driven with one healthy eye with intact visual field than he should have sufficient vision to drive [
Mr. Taylor, 38, has had optic atrophy in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, light perception. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated, “As medical professionals, we feel his vision is sufficient to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Taylor reported that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 195,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Rhode Island. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Turton, 34, has had a prosthetic right eye due to micropthalmia since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion Eric Turton has sufficient vision to perform his commercial driving tasks.” Mr. Turton reported that he has driven straight trucks for 8 years, accumulating 520,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from New York. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Williams, 29, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “In my professional opinion Kendrick has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Williams reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 3 years, accumulating 390,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. 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 the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
FMCSA will consider all comments and material 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 documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 79 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
On November 17, 2016, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 79 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (81 FR 81230). The public comment period ended on December 19, 2016, and no comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions 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)(10).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to driver 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 a 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 red, green, and amber.
FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.
As of September 9, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 41 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (64 FR 68195; 65 FR 20251; 67 FR 38311; 67 FR 46016; 67 FR 57267; 67 FR 76439; 68 FR 10298; 69 FR 17263; 69 FR 26921; 69 FR 31447; 69 FR 51346; 70 FR 44946; 71 FR 14566; 71 FR 16410; 71 FR 27033; 71 FR 30227; 71 FR 32184; 71 FR 41311; 71 FR 50970; 72 FR 67340; 73 FR 1395; 73 FR 15567; 73 FR 15568; 73 FR 27014; 73 FR 27015; 73 FR 27017; 73 FR 28186; 73 FR 35197; 73 FR 35199; 73 FR 36955; 73 FR 38499; 73 FR 42403; 73 FR 48270; 73 FR 48273; 73 FR 48275; 74 FR 43217; 74 FR 57551; 75 FR 19674; 75 FR 25917; 75 FR 25919; 75 FR 27623; 75 FR 27624; 75 FR 34212; 75 FR 36779; 75 FR 38602; 75 FR 39729; 75 FR 44051; 75 FR 47888; 75 FR 50799; 76 FR 49528; 76 FR 61143; 76 FR 66123; 76 FR 67248; 76 FR 73769; 76 FR 79761; 77 FR 3547; 77 FR 23797; 77 FR 27847; 77 FR 36338; 77 FR 38384; 77 FR 38386; 77 FR 40945; 77 FR 40946; 77 FR 41879; 77 FR 46153; 77 FR 48590; 77 FR 52391; 78 FR 24798; 78 FR 46407; 78 FR 62935; 78 FR 63302; 78 FR 67454; 78 FR 67460; 78 FR 76395; 78 FR 76705; 78 FR 77780; 78 FR 77782; 79 FR 4803; 79 FR 10606; 79 FR 14331; 79 FR 14571; 79 FR 22003; 79 FR 23797; 79 FR 79 27681; 79 FR 28588; 79 FR 29495; 79 FR 35212; 79 FR 35218; 79 FR 35220; 79 FR 37842; 79 FR 38649; 79 FR 38659; 79 FR 41735; 79 FR 41737; 79 FR 45868; 79 FR 46153; 79 FR 47175; 79 FR 53514; 79 FR 56102):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket Nos. FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2004-17195; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2007-0017; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0174; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0114; FMCSA-2011-0142; FMCSA-2011-0276; FMCSA-2011-0299; FMCSA-2012-0104; FMCSA-2012-0161; FMCSA-2013-0027; FMCSA-2013-0166; FMCSA-2013-0168; FMCSA-2013-0170; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-0005; FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0007; FMCSA-2014-0008. Their exemptions are effective as of September 9, 2016, and will expire on September 9, 2018.
As of September 21, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 17 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR 20245; 65 FR 33406; 65 FR 57230; 65 FR 57234; 67 FR 46016; 67 FR 57266; 67 FR 57267; 69 FR 51346; 69 FR 52741; 71 FR 32185; 71 FR 41311; 71 FR 50970; 71 FR 53489; 73 FR 42403; 73 FR 48270; 73 FR 51336; 75 FR 34210; 75 FR 47888; 75 FR 50799; 75 FR 52062; 77 FR 40945; 77 FR 52389; 79 FR 46300):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2010-0114. Their exemptions are effective as of September 21, 2016, and will expire on September 21, 2018.
As of September 23, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 5 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (73 FR 46973; 73 FR 54888; 75 FR 52063; 77 FR 52388; 79 FR 52388):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0231. Their exemptions are effective as of September 23, 2016, and will expire on September 23, 2018.
As of September 26, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 6 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (77 FR 46793; 77 FR 59245):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0214. Their exemptions are effective as of September 26, 2016, and will expire on September 26, 2018.
As of September 30, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 10 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (63 FR 66227; 64 FR 16520; 71 FR 14567; 71 FR 30228; 73 FR 28187; 73 FR 35195; 73 FR 35196; 73 FR 35197; 73 FR 35198; 73 FR 35199; 73 FR 35200; 73 FR 35201; 73 FR 38497; 38498; 73 FR 38499; 73 FR 48273; 73 FR 48275; 74 FR 37299; 74 FR 48344; 75 FR 25919; 75 FR 39729; 75 FR 44051; 77 FR 40946; 77 FR 46153; 79 FR 46153):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0010. Their exemptions are effective as of September 30, 2016, and will expire on September 30, 2018.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, 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 five individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The renewed exemptions were effective on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before April 5, 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-2014-0103; FMCSA-2014-0104 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 hearing found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a
First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) was adopted in 1970, with a revision in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
The five individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), 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 five applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement (80 FR 57032; 80 FR 60747). In addition, for Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) and the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce.
The five drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency 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. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each driver has received a renewed exemption.
As of November 1, 2016, Kevin Beachum (MD) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 57032). This driver was included in FMCSA-2014-0103. The exemption was effective on November 1, 2016, and will expire on November 1, 2018.
As of November 30, 2016, Bruce H. Dunn (LA); Scott A. Perdue (GA); Melvin Ross (OH); and Thomas Sneer (MN) have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 60747). The drivers were included in FMCSA-2014-0104. The exemptions were effective on November 30, 2016, and will expire on November 30, 2018.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in 49 CFR 390.5; and (2) report all citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA. In addition, 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 driver is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with passengers in interstate commerce. The exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable CDL testing requirements. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. 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 the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Based upon its evaluation of the five exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(11). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 31 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.
The exemptions were granted December 30, 2016. The exemptions expire on December 30, 2018.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
On November 29, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the public (81 FR 86063). That notice listed 31 applicants' case histories. The 31 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2-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 2-year period. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 31 applications on their merits and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.
The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle 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 a 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 red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 31 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons, including amblyopia, central, corneal opacity, central vein occlusion, choroidal melanoma, chorioretinal scar, complete loss of vision, eccentric fixation, exotropia, glaucoma, macular scar, optic nerve atrophy, prosthetic eye, and retinal detachment. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. Twenty of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
The 11 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had it for a range of 4 to 40 years.
Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 31 drivers have been authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging for 3 to 51 years. In the past three years, 1 driver was involved in a crash and 2 drivers were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the November 29, 2016 notice (81 FR 86063).
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
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 3 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 demonstrate 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
Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of the 31 applicants, 1 driver was involved in a crash and 2 drivers were convicted of a moving violation in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to the 31 applicants listed in the notice of November 29, 2016 (81 FR 86063).
We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements on the 31 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver program.
Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. Daniel E. Kinney stated that he has been put in a financial hardship while waiting for his vision exemption. He was issued an exemption effective as of December 30, 2016.
Based upon its evaluation of the 31 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above 49 CFR 391.64(b):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked 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 the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 100 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.
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 December 13, 2016, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 100 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (81 FR 90500). The public comment period ended on January 12, 2017, and no comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions 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)(10).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to driver 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 a 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 red, green, and amber.
FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.
As of August 1, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 21 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (64 FR 54948; 65 FR 159; 66 FR 41654; 66 FR 66969; 67 FR 10471; 67 FR 10475; 67 FR 17102; 67 FR 19798; 68 FR 44837; 68 FR 69432; 69 FR 8260; 69 FR 17267; 69 FR 19611; 70 FR 41811; 71 FR 644; 71 FR 6824; 71 FR 14568; 71 FR 19604; 71 FR 26601; 71 FR 30228; 71 FR 32183; 71 FR 41310; 72 FR 52423; 73 FR 15254; 73 FR 15567; 73 FR 27014; 73 FR 27015; 73 FR 36955; 73 FR 42403; 74 FR 43220; 74 FR 57553; 74 FR 65842; 75 FR 9482; 75 FR 14656; 75 FR 19674; 75 FR 20881; 75 FR 25918; 75 FR 27622; 75 FR 28682; 75 FR 36778; 75 FR 36779; 75 FR 38602; 75 FR 39729; 77 FR 7657; 77 10604; 77 FR 15184; 77 FR 17115; 77 FR 22059; 77 FR 23797; 77 FR 26816; 77 FR 27847; 77 FR 27850; 77 FR 29447; 77 FR 36338; 77 FR 38384; 77 FR 38386; 77 FR 44946; 79 FR 10606; 79 FR 10619; 79 FR 14571; 79 FR 17641; 79 FR 18390; 79 FR 21996; 79 FR 22003; 79 FR 23797; 79 FR 27043; 79 FR 28588; 79 FR 29495; 79 FR 35212; 79 FR 35218; 79 FR 35220; 79 FR 37842; 79 FR 37843; 79 FR 47175):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket Nos. FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-2001-9561; FMCSA-2001-11426; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2010-0050; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2011-0324; FCMSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2012-0104; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-0006. Their exemptions are effective as of August 1, 2016, and will expire on August 1, 2018.
As of August 6, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 8 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (64 FR 27027; 64 FR 51568; 71 FR 14566; 71 FR 30227; 73 FR 27014; 75 FR 25918; 75 FR 38602; 75 FR 39729; 77 FR 15184; 77 FR 27850; 77 FR 33017; 77 FR 36336; 77 FR 36338; 77 FR 40946; 77 FR 44708; 77 FR 46795; 79 FR 38661):
The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket Nos. FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2012-0106; FMCSA-2012-0159. Their exemptions are effective as of August 6, 2016, and will expire on August 6, 2018.
As of August 8, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 25 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (79 FR 38659; 79 FR 53514):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0007. Their exemptions are effective as of August 8, 2016, and will expire on August 8, 2018.
As of August 9, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 8 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (77 FR 46793; 77 FR 59245):
The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0114. Their exemptions are effective as of August 9, 2016, and will expire on August 9, 2018.
As of August 18, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 32 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (63 FR 66227; 64 FR 16520; 71 FR 14567; 71 FR 30228; 73 FR 28187; 73 FR 35195; 73 FR 35196; 73 FR 35197; 73 FR 35198; 73 FR 35199; 73 FR 35200; 73 FR 35201; 73 FR 38497; 38498; 73 FR 38499; 73 FR 48273; 73 FR 48275; 74 FR 37299; 74 FR 48344; 75 FR 25919; 75 FR 39729; 75 FR 44051; 77 FR 40946; 77 FR 46153; 79 FR 46153):
The drivers were included in Docket Nos. FMCSA-1999-4334; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0174; FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2010-0082. Their exemptions are effective as of August 18, 2016, and will expire on August 18, 2018.
As of August 19, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 2 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (79 FR 41737; 79 FR 56102):
The drivers were included on the following docket: Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0008. Their exemptions are effective as of August 19, 2016 and will expire on August 19, 2018.
As of August 27, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 2 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (77 FR 38381; 77 FR 51846; 79 FR 41740):
The drivers were included on the following docket: Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0160. Their exemptions are effective as of August 27, 2016 and will expire on August 27, 2018.
As of August 29, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 2 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (77 FR 41879; 77 FR 52391; 79 FR 41735):
The drivers were included on the following docket: Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0161. Their exemptions are effective as of August 29, 2016 and will expire on August 29, 2018.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, 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 Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and comment request.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that FRA is forwarding the proposed Information Collection Requests (ICRs) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICRs describe the information collections and their expected burden. On October 26, 2016, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period for public comment on the ICRs.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 5, 2017.
Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 493-6292); or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Administration, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 493-6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll free.)
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue
The comment came from the Association of American Railroads (AAR) in an email letter sent to FRA on November 29, 2016. In its comment, AAR stated FRA should take this opportunity to: (1) Update the rail equipment accident/incident monetary reporting threshold (reporting threshold), so that the information collected will have practical utility; and (2) improve the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected. At the time of its comment, AAR noted FRA last changed the reporting threshold from $9,900 to $10,500 on December 24, 2013.
FRA regularly reviews and amends, if necessary, its reporting threshold. FRA annually analyzes any cost increases or decreases to the reporting threshold and, under the procedures part 225 appendix B, determines whether any changes to the reporting threshold are needed; the changes in costs may not warrant amending the reporting threshold for a particular calendar year (CY). FRA conducted these analyses between CYs 2014 and 2016 and determined it was not necessary to adjust the reporting threshold based upon any cost increases or decreases. FRA published final rules for each of those CYs providing the bases for its decision and those final rules contained the data FRA used to reach its conclusions.
Finally, AAR commented that, given technology available today, FRA should easily be able to make public the spreadsheets it uses to calculate cost and benefit estimates for proposed and final rules in interactive format (with underlying formulas in a cells-accessible format) instead of a hard-coded PDF format. AAR stated this will greatly facilitate public review and comment and increase the utility of the data collected under part 225 at little or no cost to FRA.
FRA is—and has always been—a strong believer in transparency and provides a full explanation for the costs and benefits of each proposed and final agency rule in the accompanying regulatory impact analysis found in the public docket at
Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
The summary below describes the ICR and its expected burden. FRA is submitting the new request for clearance by OMB as the PRA requires.
A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of Applications for Special Permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application”portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before April 5, 2017.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC, or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for modification of special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before March 21, 2017.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC, or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on special permit applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before April 5, 2017.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR Part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of Applications delayed more than 120 days.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before April 5, 2017.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of one person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13382.
OFAC's actions described in this notice were effective on February 23, 2017, as further specified below.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202-622-2410.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's Web site (
On February 23, 2017, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of the following person pursuant to E.O. 13382, “Blocking Property of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators and Their Supporters”:
METALLIC MANUFACTURING FACTORY, 29 May Street, Damascus-Al-Sabe E Bahrat Square, P.O. Box 12184, Syria [NPWMD] (Linked To: MECHANICAL CONSTRUCTION FACTORY; Linked To: SCIENTIFIC STUDIES AND RESEARCH CENTER).
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
VA Form 21-0960 series is used to gather necessary information from a claimant's treating physician regarding the results of medical examinations. VA gathers medical information related to the claimant that is necessary to adjudicate the claim for VA disability benefits. The Disability Benefit Questionnaire title will include the name of the specific disability for which it will gather information. VAF 21-0960M-2, Ankle Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire, will gather information related to the claimant's diagnosis of an ankle condition.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before May 5, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632-8924 or FAX (202) 632-8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
VA Form 21-0960 series is used to gather necessary information from a claimant's treating physician regarding the results of medical examinations. VA gathers medical information related to the claimant that is necessary to adjudicate the claim for VA disability benefits. The Disability Benefit Questionnaire title will include the name of the specific disability for which it will gather information. VAF 21-0960M-13, Neck (Cervical Spine) Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire, will gather information related to the claimant's diagnosis of a cervical spine condition.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before May 5, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632-8924 or FAX (202) 632-8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
VA Form 21-0960 series is used to gather necessary information from a claimant's treating physician regarding the results of medical examinations. VA gathers medical information related to the claimant that is necessary to adjudicate the claim for VA disability benefits. The Disability Benefit Questionnaire title will include the name of the specific disability for which it will gather information. VAF 21-0960M-16, Wrist Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire, will gather information related to the claimant's diagnosis of a wrist condition.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before May 5, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632-8924 or FAX (202) 632-8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
| 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 |