| Page Range | 13375-13624 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 13623 - Education and Sharing Day, U.S.A., 2018 | |
| 83 FR 13511 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; 30 CFR 550, Subpart B, Plans and Information | |
| 83 FR 13527 - Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science Board | |
| 83 FR 13526 - Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science Board | |
| 83 FR 13487 - Sunshine Act Meetings; Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Member Meeting | |
| 83 FR 13497 - Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 13527 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Testing Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria Consolidation | |
| 83 FR 13496 - Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee; Vacancies | |
| 83 FR 13510 - Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease WYW180886, Wyoming | |
| 83 FR 13531 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; PXS/ADS Line Resistance Changes | |
| 83 FR 13417 - Procedures for the Mobility Fund Phase II Challenge Process | |
| 83 FR 13508 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Alpine Satellite Development Plan for the Proposed Greater Mooses Tooth 2 Development Project, National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska; Notice of Public Meetings and Subsistence Hearings | |
| 83 FR 13516 - Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation | |
| 83 FR 13515 - Certain Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Institution of Investigation | |
| 83 FR 13477 - Endangered Species; File No. 21233 | |
| 83 FR 13474 - Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 13530 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Raceway and Cable Routing | |
| 83 FR 13466 - Tuna Conventions Act; Advance Notice of Rulemaking; Regulatory Amendments to Procedures for the Active and Inactive Vessel Register | |
| 83 FR 13463 - Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding | |
| 83 FR 13485 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 83 FR 13484 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 83 FR 13483 - Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Pebble Project | |
| 83 FR 13457 - Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Ohio NSR PM2.5 | |
| 83 FR 13523 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act | |
| 83 FR 13580 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review | |
| 83 FR 13494 - Government-Owned Invention; Availability for Licensing | |
| 83 FR 13499 - Announcement of Tenant Protection Voucher Funding Awards for Fiscal Year 2017 for the Housing Choice Voucher Program | |
| 83 FR 13506 - Waivers and Alternative Requirements for the Jobs Plus Initiative Program | |
| 83 FR 13524 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and The Clean Water Act | |
| 83 FR 13474 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 26-Atlanta, Georgia; Authorization of Production Activity; Kubota North America Corporation (Agricultural and Specialty Vehicles); Jefferson and Gainesville, Georgia | |
| 83 FR 13474 - Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 124 (Expansion of Service Area) Under Alternative Site Framework; Gramercy, Louisiana | |
| 83 FR 13472 - Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 30 Under Alternative Site Framework; Salt Lake City, Utah | |
| 83 FR 13471 - Notice of Public Meetings of the Ohio Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 13470 - Notice of Public Meetings of the Indiana Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights | |
| 83 FR 13498 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension, With Changes, of an Existing Information Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 13473 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 26-Atlanta, Georgia; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; PBR, Inc. d/b/a/SKAPS Industries (Non-Woven Geotextiles); Athens, Georgia | |
| 83 FR 13473 - Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 241; (Expansion of Service Area) Under Alternative Site Framework; Fort Lauderdale, Florida | |
| 83 FR 13473 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 204-Tri-Cities, Tennessee; Authorization of Production Activity; Eastman Chemical Company (Acetic Anhydride and Acetic Acid); Kingsport, Tennessee | |
| 83 FR 13474 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 39-Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas; Authorization of Production Activity; Dallas Airmotive, Inc (Aircraft Engine Refurbishment and Disassembly); DFW Airport, Texas | |
| 83 FR 13475 - Monosodium Glutamate From Indonesia: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 83 FR 13475 - Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review | |
| 83 FR 13477 - Amorphous Silica Fabric From the People's Republic of China: Correction to the Opportunity To Request Administrative Review Notice | |
| 83 FR 13581 - Fine Arts Committee Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 13469 - Notice of Availability of Proposed Changes to the Chronic Wasting Disease Herd Certification Program Standards | |
| 83 FR 13588 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Changes in Periods of Accounting | |
| 83 FR 13553 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Adopt New Equity Trading Rules To Trade Securities Pursuant to Unlisted Trading Privileges, Including Orders and Modifiers, Order Ranking and Display, and Order Execution and Routing on Pillar, the Exchange's New Trading Technology Platform | |
| 83 FR 13525 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Recovery Act | |
| 83 FR 13533 - New Postal Product | |
| 83 FR 13410 - Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area; Technical Amendment | |
| 83 FR 13514 - Yakima River Basin Conservation Advisory Group Charter Renewal | |
| 83 FR 13582 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Southern Utah University | |
| 83 FR 13583 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; DroneSeed Co. | |
| 83 FR 13481 - U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 13431 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Northern Rockfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 83 FR 13583 - Environmental Impact Statement: Alexander, Pulaski, and Union Counties, Illinois | |
| 83 FR 13519 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Chattem Chemicals, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 13479 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 13521 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Navinta LLC | |
| 83 FR 13522 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Insys Manufacturing LLC | |
| 83 FR 13522 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: National Center for Natural Products Research NIDA MPROJECT | |
| 83 FR 13523 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: S&B Pharma, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 13519 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Fisher Clinical Services, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 13521 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Siegfried USA, LLC | |
| 83 FR 13521 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Sharp Clinical Services, INC. | |
| 83 FR 13520 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Novitium Pharma, LLC | |
| 83 FR 13426 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Modifications to Greater Amberjack Recreational Fishing Year and Fixed Closed Season | |
| 83 FR 13428 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Authorization of an Oregon Recreational Fishery for Midwater Groundfish Species | |
| 83 FR 13480 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 13478 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Scoping Process | |
| 83 FR 13520 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Lannett Company, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 13487 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 13478 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings | |
| 83 FR 13526 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License | |
| 83 FR 13493 - Joint Meeting of the Arthritis Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments | |
| 83 FR 13490 - Joint Meeting of the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments | |
| 83 FR 13487 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing and Collaboration; Notification of Q&A Webinar | |
| 83 FR 13586 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple TTB Information Collection Requests | |
| 83 FR 13544 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; CboeEDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Paragraph (h) of Exchange Rule 11.6 Describing the Operation of Orders With a Minimum Execution Quantity Instruction | |
| 83 FR 13574 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Paragraph (h) of Exchange Rule 11.6 Describing the Operation of Orders With a Minimum Execution Quantity Instruction | |
| 83 FR 13577 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule 11.9 Describing the Operation of Minimum Quantity Orders | |
| 83 FR 13534 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule 11.9 Describing the Operation of Minimum Quantity Orders | |
| 83 FR 13547 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Transaction Fees at Chapter XV, Section 2, Which Governs the Pricing for Nasdaq Participants Using The Nasdaq Options Market | |
| 83 FR 13537 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade the Shares of the ProShares Bitcoin ETF and the ProShares Short Bitcoin ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E, Commentary .02 | |
| 83 FR 13552 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Flexibly Structured Options | |
| 83 FR 13480 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Fastener Quality Act Insignia Recordal Process | |
| 83 FR 13517 - Certain Access Control Systems and Components Thereof; Notice of the Commission's Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of the Investigation | |
| 83 FR 13442 - Bump-Stock-Type Devices | |
| 83 FR 13524 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act | |
| 83 FR 13464 - Request for Information on Regulatory Challenges to Safely Transporting Hazardous Materials by Surface Modes in an Automated Vehicle Environment; Correction | |
| 83 FR 13375 - Importation of Fresh Cherimoya Fruit From Chile Into the United States | |
| 83 FR 13433 - Importation of Pummelo From Thailand Into the Continental United States | |
| 83 FR 13509 - Notice of Realty Action: Classification for Lease and/or Conveyance for Recreation and Public Purposes of Public Lands for a Park in the Northwest Portion of the Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada | |
| 83 FR 13507 - Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Leases; OKNM127909, OKNM127910, OKNM127911, OKNM127912, OKNM127913, OKNM127917, and OKNM127920, Oklahoma | |
| 83 FR 13482 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 13378 - Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas; Decreased Assessment Rate | |
| 83 FR 13583 - Automation in the Railroad Industry | |
| 83 FR 13416 - Suspension of Community Eligibility | |
| 83 FR 13496 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; National Catastrophic Resource Catalog | |
| 83 FR 13526 - Millennium Challenge Corporation Advisory Council Notice of Open Meeting | |
| 83 FR 13472 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Oregon Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights | |
| 83 FR 13470 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Oregon Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights | |
| 83 FR 13481 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 13436 - Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 13404 - Modification and Revocation of Multiple Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Northcentral United States | |
| 83 FR 13542 - Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the Forty-Second Amendment to the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis | |
| 83 FR 13539 - Consolidated Tape Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the Twenty-Third Charges Amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and the Fourteenth Charges Amendment to the Restated CQ Plan | |
| 83 FR 13533 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 83 FR 13580 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to Small Business Regional Regulatory Fairness Boards | |
| 83 FR 13581 - Union Pacific Railroad Company-Abandonment Exemption-in Harris County, Tex. | |
| 83 FR 13528 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Reactor Vessel Head Vent Capacity | |
| 83 FR 13491 - Fiscal Year 2018 Generic Drug Regulatory Science Initiatives; Public Workshop; Request for Comments | |
| 83 FR 13495 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 13488 - Product-Specific Guidance for Doxycycline Hyclate; Revised Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 13415 - Good Guidance Practices; Technical Amendment | |
| 83 FR 13440 - Medical Gas Regulation; Public Workshop; Request for Comments | |
| 83 FR 13510 - Notice of the 2018 Meeting Schedule for the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park Advisory Commission | |
| 83 FR 13532 - New Postal Products | |
| 83 FR 13438 - Proposed Amendment and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Columbus, NE | |
| 83 FR 13484 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program: Technical Assistance To Support Monitoring, Evaluation, Data Collection, and Dissemination of Best Practices | |
| 83 FR 13525 - Notice of a Change in Status of an Extended Benefit (EB) Period for Alaska | |
| 83 FR 13460 - Registration of Isobutanol as a Gasoline Additive: Opportunity for Public Comment | |
| 83 FR 13380 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Type Certificate Previously Held by Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) | |
| 83 FR 13395 - Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters | |
| 83 FR 13383 - Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 13401 - Airworthiness Directives; Honda Aircraft Company LLC | |
| 83 FR 13414 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 83 FR 13411 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 83 FR 13590 - Connect America Fund Phase II Auction; Notice and Filing Requirements and Other Procedures for Auction 903 | |
| 83 FR 13387 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 13398 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Air Force Department
Engineers Corps
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule.
We are amending the regulations to allow the importation of fresh cherimoya fruit from Chile into the continental United States in accordance with a systems approach as an alternative to the current required treatment. Commercial consignments of fresh cherimoya fruit are currently authorized entry into all ports of the United States from Chile subject to a mandatory soapy water and wax treatment. The systems approach includes requirements for production site registration, low pest prevalence area certification, post-harvest processing, and inspection at the packinghouse. The fruit will also be required to be imported in commercial consignments and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that the consignment was produced in accordance with the regulations. Fresh cherimoya fruit that does not meet the conditions of the systems approach or is imported into locations outside the continental United States will continue to be allowed to be imported into the United States subject to the current soapy water and wax treatment. This will allow for the importation of fresh cherimoya fruit from Chile while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests into the continental United States.
Effective April 30, 2018.
Ms. Claudia Ferguson, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, Imports, Regulations, and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2352.
Under the regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-81, referred to below as the regulations or the fruits and vegetables regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States.
Currently, pursuant to 7 CFR 319.56-4(a), fresh cherimoya (
On April 4, 2016, we published in the
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending June 3, 2016. We received 26 comments by that date. They were from importers, exporters, distributors, organizations, private citizens, and representatives of State and foreign governments. Of these, 17 were supportive of the proposed action. The remainder are discussed below, by topic.
An issue of concern to several commenters was the potential introduction of the false red mite into the United States via infested fresh cherimoya fruit from Chile. One commenter stated that the post-harvest procedures noted in the pest risk assessment (PRA) of blowing fruit with compressed air to remove dust and insects, along with selection and manual packing of the fruit, would be insufficient to reliably remove pests from the pathway of fresh fruit imported into the continental United States. Another commenter also was concerned about the testing of only two or three fruit samples from each registered production site, wanting to ensure that sample sizes would be large enough to prevent pest-infested fruit from entering citrus and grape production areas in the United States. This commenter suggested incorporating an additional checkpoint test for false red mite on random fruit samples in the packaging sites prior to clearance for export.
We note that the mitigations mentioned by the first commenter are standard industry practices, not the mitigations for false red mite (though the standard industry practices may remove some mites from the pathway). Chile will be allowed to export fresh cherimoya fruit to the United States subject to either a soapy water and wax treatment (as currently allowed), or through a systems approach based on low pest prevalence. Orchard and packinghouse inspections will be required to verify and maintain place of production freedom from false red mite. Chile is currently using the same systems approach for a number of other commodities (
One commenter questioned why the alternative conditions for the importation of cherimoyas was being proposed and asked if it was a reflection of cost, stating that cost-saving measures alone should not be adopted if they increase the potential for greater phytosanitary risk.
The original soapy water and wax treatment for cherimoya is older than the systems approach. Chile requested the systems approach as an option for fresh cherimoya fruit being exported to the continental United States, and we have determined that it provides an equivalent level of phytosanitary security.
One commenter expressed support for the proposed rule with the caveat that any treatments conducted be equivalent to those required domestically, and that any imported fruit not meeting proper standards upon arrival in the United States receive additional treatment so as not to waste the fruit.
The Tripartite Agreement on Phytosanitary Cooperation between USDA, Chilean Association of Fresh Fruit Exporters, and the Agriculture and Livestock Service of the Chilean Ministry of Agriculture has been in operation since 1982. This agreement requires that all fruit exported to the United States be shipped from Chile with the required phytosanitary certification (preclearance program). Under the preclearance program, the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Chile must provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details the activities that the NPPO of Chile will, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to comply with our regulations governing the import or export of a specific commodity. Operational workplans establish procedures and guidance for the day-to-day operations of specific import/export programs, specify how phytosanitary issues are dealt with in the exporting country, and make clear who is responsible for dealing with those issues. APHIS and the NPPO of Chile have an existing operational workplan for commodities imported into the United States pursuant to a systems approach; this current operational workplan will be revised to reflect the contents of this final rule. USDA offices in Chile make possible the supervision of all phytosanitary aspects of each export shipment, whether fumigated, treated with soapy water and wax, or inspected, thus providing the necessary quarantine assurances to the U.S. market. All activities related to implementation of system approaches for export are directly supervised by USDA personnel. There is sufficient oversight for all treatment of fruit bound for export from Chile to the United States.
If a commodity arrives in the United States and is found to be infested with a quarantine pest, treatment will be offered only if there is an APHIS-approved treatment available. For fresh cherimoya fruit from Chile, the only approved treatment for false red mite is the soapy water and wax treatment, which must be performed in the country of origin. As there is no APHIS-approved treatment option for infested fresh cherimoya fruit at U.S. ports of entry at this time, consignments found to be infested with quarantine pests would have to be re-exported or destroyed.
Another commenter requested that fresh cherimoya fruit produced under this systems approach not be shipped into certain States due to the exotic pest-conducive environments in the Chilean production area, which in turn would place a high risk of infestation on the States' broad range of fruit and vegetable crops.
We do not agree with this commenter. Though not unprecedented, taking this kind of action for such a minor commodity would be unusual. APHIS believes that the proposed systems approach mitigations are sufficient to provide phytosanitary protection. As previously indicated, the systems approach currently is being used for citrus, baby kiwi, pomegranate, and kiwi with a high success rate, with almost no interceptions of false red mite at U.S. ports of entry. Furthermore, from 1984 to 2013 there have been no interceptions of
Following post-harvest processing, fresh cherimoya fruit must undergo inspection and sampling to check for the presence of false red mites. Two commenters stated that checking for the pest presence in fruit should be done only in the final stages of the process during the preclearance program inspection. One of these commenters also expressed concern regarding the use of biometric sampling instead of the 2 percent currently used for phytosanitary inspections of fresh cherimoya fruit. The commenter stated that this represented a larger number of fruit and therefore would result in a greater loss of boxes from commercial batches if sampled fruit is to be discarded.
During the preclearance program inspection in Chile, any consignments containing false red mite will be rejected and the production sites will be removed from the program for the rest of that harvest season. Production sites will have to requalify as low prevalence before they can ship in the next season. With respect to the issue of biometric sampling, the proposed method is not destructive sampling. Once the biometric sample is drawn from each consignment of fruit, the fruit will be visually inspected for quarantine pests and a portion of the biometric sample must be washed with soapy water. The collected filtrate after washing must then be microscopically examined for the presence of false red mite. Fruit samples that do not contain false red mite can simply be washed and placed back into their boxes. APHIS will select the sampling rate based on the hypergeometric distribution; normally to find a 2 percent pest population, 150 fruits will be inspected. Except for very small shipments, a 2 percent straight sample will require sampling more fruit than the hypergeometric distribution would require. Again, we note that this is not destructive sampling, but merely a wash for mite, after which, uninfested fruits would be returned to their boxes.
One commenter expressed concern that the proposed regulation does not provide a monetary assessment or a prediction of how the regulation would impact the price of fruit.
We do not have information on whether the systems approach allowed by this rule will lower the cost of exporting fresh cherimoya fruit from Chile to the United States, in comparison to the current soapy water and wax treatment for false red mite, or on the extent to which any cost savings may be passed on to U.S. importers. We expect cost savings due to this rule will be minimal. We also expect any increase in the quantity of fresh cherimoya fruit imported from Chile because of this rule to be limited, given that over 80 percent of Chile's fresh cherimoya fruit exports are already destined for the United States. If modest price or quantity
We have made minor, nonsubstantive changes to clarify a few provisions in the regulatory text. These editorial changes do not substantively affect the import requirements.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the changes discussed in this document.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, because this final rule is not significant, it is not a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the
Over 80 percent of Chile's fresh cherimoya fruit exports are to the United States. Any economic impact of this rule for U.S. entities will be minor because the volume of fresh cherimoya fruit imported from Chile is not expected to change significantly. Any effect on fresh cherimoya fruit prices received by U.S. producers will be all the more muted because of the difference in marketing seasons. As previously indicated, the Agricultural Marketing Resource Center reports that the season for fresh California cherimoya fruit usually starts in January and lasts until May. Fresh cherimoya fruit from South America (mainly from Chile) usually is imported in the fall.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule allows fresh cherimoya fruit to be imported into the continental United States from Chile under a systems approach. State and local laws and regulations regarding fresh cherimoya fruit imported under this rule will be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Fresh cherimoya (
(a)
(b) The risks presented by
(1)
(i) A soapy water and wax treatment, in accordance with part 305 of this chapter.
(ii) Each consignment of fresh cherimoya fruit must be accompanied by documentation to validate foreign site preclearance inspection after soapy water and wax treatment completed in Chile; or
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(A) Fruit presented for inspection must be identified in the shipping documents accompanying each lot of fruit to specify the production site or sites in which the fruit was produced and the packing shed or sheds in which the fruit was processed. This identification must be maintained until the fruit is released for entry into the United States.
(B) A biometric sample of the boxes, crates, or other APHIS-approved packing containers from each consignment will be selected by the NPPO of Chile, and the fruit from these boxes, crates, or other APHIS-approved packing containers will be visually inspected for quarantine pests. If a single live
(v)
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule implements a recommendation from the Texas Valley Citrus Committee (Committee) to decrease the assessment rate established for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods for oranges and grapefruit handled under Marketing Order 906. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated. This rule also makes administrative revisions to the subpart headings of the Order.
Effective April 30, 2018.
Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, amends regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 906, as amended (7 CFR part 906), regulating the handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Part 906 (referred to as the “Order”), is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of producers and handlers of oranges and grapefruit operating within the production area.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained, in Executive Order 13771. See OMB’s Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (February 2, 2017).
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the provisions of the Order now in effect, Texas orange and grapefruit handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate will be applicable to all assessable oranges and grapefruit beginning on August 1, 2017, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to
The Order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
This rule decreases the assessment rate from $0.09, the rate that was established for the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal periods, to $0.02 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit handled for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods. The decrease reflects a reduction in expenses of more than $595,000 from not funding the Mexican fruit fly control program.
The Committee met on August 8, 2017, and unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $152,920 and an assessment rate of $0.02 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit. The assessment rate of $0.02 is $0.07 lower than the rate currently in effect. The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to reflect that they would not be funding the Mexican fruit fly control program, reducing their budget by more than $595,000. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.
Of the total $152,920 budgeted for the 2017-18 fiscal period, major expenditures recommended by the Committee include $79,220 for management, $50,000 for compliance, and $23,700 for operating expenses. Compared to the previous fiscal year's budget of $751,148, budgeted expenses for these items in 2016-17 were $77,200, $50,000, and $23,700, respectively.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by considering anticipated expenses, expected shipments, and the amount of funds available in the authorized reserve. Income derived from handler assessments calculated at $150,000 (7.5 million 7/10-bushel cartons assessed at $0.02 per carton), along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses of $152,920. Funds in the reserve (currently $282,572) will be kept within the maximum permitted by the Order (approximately one fiscal period's expenses as stated in § 906.35).
The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2017-18 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 170 producers of oranges and grapefruit in the production area and 13 handlers subject to regulation under the Order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to Committee data, the average price for Texas citrus during the 2015-16 season was approximately $17.48 per box and total shipments were 7.5 million boxes. Using the average price and shipment information, the number of handlers (13), and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of handlers would have average annual receipts of greater than $7,500,000. Thus, the majority of Texas citrus handlers may be classified as large business entities.
In addition, based on information from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the weighted grower price for Texas citrus during the 2015-16 season was approximately $14.64 per box. Using the weighted average price and shipment information, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of producers would have annual receipts of less than $750,000. Thus, the majority of Texas citrus producers may be classified as small business entities.
This rule decreases the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.09 to $0.02 per 7/10-weight bushel carton or equivalent of Texas citrus. The Committee unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $152,920 and an assessment rate of $0.02 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent handled. The assessment rate of $0.02 is $0.07 lower than the 2016-17 rate. The quantity of assessable oranges and grapefruit for the 2017-18 fiscal period is estimated at 7.5 million 7/10-bushel cartons. Thus, the $0.02 rate should provide $150,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2017-18 year include $79,220 for management, $50,000 for compliance, and $23,700 for operating expenses. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2016-17 were $77,200, $50,000, and $23,700, respectively.
The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to reflect that it would not be funding the Mexican fruit fly control program, reducing its budget by more than $595,000.
Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Budget and Personnel Committee, and the Research Committee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by these committees who reviewed the relative value of various activities to the Texas citrus industry. These committees determined that all program activities
A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the average grower price for the 2017-18 season should be approximately $15.50 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2017-18 crop year as a percentage of total grower revenue would be about 0.1 percent.
This action decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers.
The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Texas citrus industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the August 8, 2017, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Texas orange and grapefruit handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 906 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after August 1, 2017, an assessment rate of $0.02 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent is established for oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-16-14 for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (now Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH) Model EC 135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters. AD 2013-16-14 required installing a washer in and modifying the main transmission filter housing upper part. Since we issued AD 2013-16-14, Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH has extended the overhaul interval for the main transmission and determined that other models may have the same unsafe condition. This AD retains the requirements of AD 2013-16-14, adds models to the applicability, and revises
This AD is effective May 3, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 3, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of October 9, 2013 (78 FR 54383, September 4, 2013).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Rao Edupuganti, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to remove AD 2013-16-14, Amendment 39-17552 (78 FR 54383, September 4, 2013), and add a new AD. AD 2013-16-14 applied to Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (now Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH) Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters with a certain serial-numbered main transmission FS108 housing upper part (upper part), part number (P/N) 4649 301 034. AD 2013-16-14 required installing a corrugated washer in the upper part filter housing and modifying each affected upper part by machining the oil filter bypass inlet.
The NPRM published in the
Accordingly, the NPRM proposed to retain the requirement to install a corrugated washer and modify the upper part and also proposed adding Airbus Helicopters Deutschland Model EC135P3 and Model EC135T3 helicopters and upper part P/N 4649 301 067 and P/N 4649 301 088 to the applicability and extending the compliance time for machining the upper part to 5,150 hours TIS.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.
We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) EC135-63A-017, Revision 2, dated December 5, 2016 (ASB EC135-63A-017), for Model EC135 T1, T2, T2+, T3, P1, P2, P2+, P3, and 635 T1, T2+, T3, P2+, and P3 helicopters. This service information specifies removing the oil filter element and installing a corrugated washer. ASB EC135-63A-017 also specifies reworking the affected upper part at the next repair or overhaul of the main transmission, no later than 5,150 flight hours after receipt of the service bulletin. EASA classified this ASB as mandatory and issued AD 2017-0002 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.
We also reviewed ZF Luftfahrttechnik GmbH Service Instruction No. EC135FS108-1659-1009, dated September 14, 2010, which specifies procedures for repairing the main transmission upper housing, and includes dimensions and tolerances for machining the upper part.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We reviewed Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-63A-017, Revision 0, dated October 11, 2010, for Model EC135 T1, T2, T2+, P1, P2, P2+, and 635 T1, T2+, and P2+ helicopters. This service information specifies the same Accomplishment Instructions as ASB EC135-63A-017, Revision 2, except with a shorter compliance time to rework the affected upper part.
We estimate that this AD will affect 236 helicopters of U.S. Registry. At an average labor rate of $85 per work hour, we estimate that operators will incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Installing the corrugated washer requires about .5 work hour, and required parts cost about $10, for a cost per helicopter of about $53, and a cost to the U.S. operator fleet of $12,508. Machining the housing upper part requires about 5 work hours and required parts cost about $73, for a cost per helicopter of $498, and a total cost to U.S. operators of $117,528. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this AD to be $130,036 for the U.S. operator fleet or $551 per helicopter.
According to Airbus Helicopters' service information some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected persons. We do not control warranty coverage by Airbus Helicopters. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that a regulatory distinction is required, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, P3, T1, T2, T2+, and T3 helicopters with a main transmission FS108 housing upper part, part number (P/N) 4649 301 034, 4649 301 067, or 4649 301 088 and a serial number listed in Table 1 of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin EC135-63A-017, Revision 2, dated December 5, 2016 (ASB EC135-63A-017), certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as an improperly manufactured bypass inlet in the oil filter area. This condition could adversely affect the oil-filter bypass function, resulting in failure of the main transmission and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD replaces AD 2013-16-14, Amendment 39-17552 (78 FR 54383, September 4, 2013).
This AD becomes effective May 3, 2018.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Within 3 months, remove the oil filter element and install a corrugated washer, P/N 0630100377, in the middle of the filter housing of the housing upper part as depicted in Figure 2 of ASB EC135-63A-017.
(2) Within 5,150 hours time-in-service or at the next main transmission repair or overhaul, whichever occurs first, machine the main transmission housing upper part in accordance with Annex A of ZF Luftfahrttechnik GmbH Service Instruction No. EC135FS108-1659-1009, dated September 14, 2010.
(3) Do not install a main transmission upper part, P/N 4649 301 034, 4649 301 067, or 4649 301 088, on any helicopter unless it has been modified as required by paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(2) of this AD.
Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the procedures specified in Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-63A-017, Revision 0, dated October 11, 2010, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraph (f) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Rao Edupuganti, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-63A-017, Revision 0, dated October 11, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2017-0002, dated January 9, 2017. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6320 Main Rotor Gearbox.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on May 3, 2018.
(i) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin EC135-63A-017, Revision 2, dated December 5, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on October 9, 2013 (78 FR 54383, September 4, 2013).
(i) ZF Luftfahrttechnik GmbH Service Instruction No. EC135FS108-1659-1009, dated September 14, 2010.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
(6) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Textron Aviation Inc. Models A36TC, B36TC, S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes. This AD was prompted by a fatal accident where the exhaust tailpipe fell off during takeoff. This AD adds a life limit to the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling (clamp) that attaches the exhaust tailpipe to the turbocharger and requires an annual visual inspection of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling (clamp). We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 3, 2018.
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Thomas Teplik, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: (316) 946-4196; fax: (316) 946-4107; email:
We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Textron Aviation Inc. Models A36TC, B36TC, S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes. The SNPRM published in the
We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the
The SNPRM proposed to add to the applicability of the AD, add a life limit to the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling (clamp) that attaches the exhaust tailpipe to the turbocharger, and require an annual visual inspection of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling (clamp). We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the SNPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Michelle Prengle agrees with the AD action. She states, “I am the daughter of the pilot from which this AD is prompted. My brothers and I lost our father and stepmother in this accident. I want people to know that my father loved to fly and believed that flying was the safest form of transportation. I wish that this AD be implemented to honor what my father truly believed, that flying is the safest form of transportation. I believe it will provide one more measure that will save lives in the future.”
Paul Gryko recommended removal of multi-segment couplings from all airplanes and replace with one-piece couplings. The commenter discussed other airplane models that have the multi-segment coupling installed and other AD actions affecting exhaust tailpipe v-band couplings. The commenter discussed that multi-segment couplings may have different part numbers on different airplanes with different torque values. Having one one-piece coupling with the same torque value for use on all airplanes would benefit the industry. The commenter discussed the possibility of expanding the scope of this AD or issuing a different AD action.
We do not agree with this comment. The FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on certain Models A36TC, B36TC, S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes. This AD addresses the unsafe condition on those specific airplanes. Including the actions of this AD on other airplane models that may have the affected exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling installed goes beyond the scope of this AD. However, the FAA is looking at the possibility of this unsafe condition affecting other airplanes.
We have not changed this AD based on this comment.
Dustin Todd requested we expand the AD to all Textron airplanes equipped with TSIO-520 engines and to require inspection of all areas of the turbocharger exhaust pipe. During a 50-hour oil change, he found a crack in the turbocharger exhaust pipe. The crack appeared to have originated beneath the coupling. Removal of the coupling is not required during 100-hour or annual inspections, so the crack could go undetected for hours or years.
We disagree with this comment. The FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on certain Models A36TC, B36TC, S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes. This AD requires a life limit replacement and inspection of the exhaust tailpipe v-band couplings as installed on those affected airplanes. To include all Textron airplanes equipped with Continental TSIO-520 engines and to require inspection of all areas of the turbocharger exhaust pipe would be beyond the scope of this AD. However, the FAA is looking at the possibility of this unsafe condition affecting other airplanes.
We have not changed this AD based on this comment.
David Cort commented the proposed AD is an overreaction to address one airplane affected out of 731 airplanes. The commenter believes over torqueing and the additional stress of heat expansion on the coupling caused the fatigue cracks. The commenter also noted the difficulty in accessing the coupling and applying the correct amount of torque. The commenter believes removing and reinstalling couplings by inexperienced mechanics could add to the problem. We infer the commenter wants the SNPRM withdrawn. If the FAA proceeds with the AD action, the commenter believes the compliance time should be no less than 1,000 hours time-in-service (TIS).
We disagree with this comment. The FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on certain Models A36TC, B36TC, S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes. This AD describes procedures for the correct amount of torque and the actions required by this AD must be done by an appropriately certified mechanic. The accident/incident failure data and existing AD actions demonstrate that a 500-hour life limit is appropriate for this type of multi-segment coupling.
We have not changed this AD based on this comment.
Textron Aviation, Inc. requested we withdraw the SNPRM. The commenter stated there are no unique aspects to the engine installation on the affected airplanes or the v-band coupling installation that would justify a need for an AD specific to the affected airplanes. The commenter states an appliance specific AD would be a more appropriate approach to addressing the unsafe condition identified by the FAA for all airplanes.
We disagree with this comment. The FAA has determined an unsafe condition exists on the specific airplanes affected by this AD. This AD will address the unsafe condition on the specific airplanes this AD affects. However, the FAA is looking at the possibility of this unsafe condition affecting other airplanes.
We have not changed this AD based on this comment.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
We estimate that this AD affects 731 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary inspection that would require removal and reinstallation of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this inspection:
We estimate the following costs for the installation of part number N1000897-40 exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling on Models S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes equipped with the Continental TSIO-520-D engine with AiResearch turbocharger during manufacture. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may do this installation:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective May 3, 2018.
None.
(1) This AD applies to the following Textron Aviation Inc. airplanes; all serial numbers, that are certificated in any category:
(i) Models A36TC and B36TC airplanes equipped with a turbocharged engine.
(ii) Models S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes equipped with the Continental TSIO-520-D engine with AiResearch turbocharger during manufacture; and
(iii) Models S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes equipped with StandardAero Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA1035WE.
(2) If the one-piece v-band coupling (clamp), part number (P/N) NH1000897-40, is installed on Textron Aviation Inc. Models S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes equipped with the Continental TSIO-520-D engine with AiResearch turbocharger during manufacture, this AD does not apply to those airplanes.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 81, Turbocharging.
This AD was prompted by a fatal accident where the exhaust tailpipe fell off during takeoff. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling (clamp) that may lead to detachment of the exhaust tailpipe from the turbocharger and allow high-temperature exhaust gases to enter the engine compartment, which could result in an inflight fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. For the purposes of this AD, the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling may also be referred to as the exhaust tailpipe v-band clamp.
Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after May 3, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), do a maintenance records review to determine the hours TIS of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling. If unable to determine the hours TIS of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling, use the compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.
Use the following compliance times in paragraph (h)(1) or (2) of this AD for the repetitive replacement of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1)
(2)
Replace the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling for the airplanes in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this AD at the applicable compliance time as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
We recommend after installation of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling, you do an engine run and recheck the torque of the v-band coupling.
(1)
P/Ns N4211-375-M and P/N 5322C-375-Z are also known as P/N N4211-375M and P/N 5322C3752. The engineering drawings list the applicable part number v-band couplings as P/N N4211-375-M and P/N 5322C-375-Z; however, the parts catalog lists the applicable v-band couplings as P/N N4211-375M and P/N 5322C3752.
(2) For Models S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes, as specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (ii) of this AD:
(i)
P/Ns U4211-375-M and 4404C375-M may also be known as P/Ns U4211-375M and 4404C375M or 4404C-375-M.
(ii)
(1) If you remove the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling during your annual inspection or within the compliance time specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, you may do the inspection specified in paragraph (k) of this AD in lieu of the inspection required in paragraph (j) of this AD. If you already have the v-band coupling removed, doing the detailed inspection as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD eliminates the possibility of having to remove and reinstall the v-band coupling more than once if certain conditions are found during the inspection required in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(2) At the next annual inspection after May 3, 2018 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 12 months after May 3, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months, do a visual inspection of the installed exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling. Use the inspection steps listed in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (vii) of this AD.
(i) Inspect the coupling and area around the coupling for signs of exhaust stains, sooting, or other evidence of exhaust leakage. If any of those conditions are found, remove the coupling and go to the inspection steps in paragraph (k) of this AD for inspection of a v-band coupling that has been removed.
(ii) Inspect the coupling outer band for cracks, paying particular attention to the spot weld areas. If cracks are found, before further flight, you must replace the v-band coupling with a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.
(iii) Inspect the coupling for looseness or separation of the outer band to the v-retainer segments(s) at all spot welds. If looseness or separation of the outer band to any or multiple retainer segments(s) is found, before further flight, you must replace the v-band coupling with a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.
(iv) Inspect the coupling outer band for cupping, bowing, or crowning. If any of these conditions are found, before further flight, remove the coupling and go to the inspection steps in paragraph (k) of this AD for inspection of a v-band coupling that has been removed.
(v) Inspect the area of the coupling, including the outer band, opposite the t-bolt for damage or distortion. If any damage or distortion is found, before further flight, you must replace the v-band coupling with a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.
(vi) Using a mirror, verify there is a space between each v-retainer coupling segment below the t-bolt. If there is no space between each v-retainer coupling segment below the t-bolt, before further flight, you must replace the v-band coupling with a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.
(vii) Verify the v-band coupling nut is properly torqued as specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(vii)(A) through (C) of this AD:
(A) For P/N N4211-375-M or P/N 5322C-375-Z exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling, torque to 40 in-lbs.
(B) For P/N U4211-375-M exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling, torque to 60 in-lbs.
(C) For 4404C375-M exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling, verify the nut is secure. If not secure, before further flight, loosen and verify running torque and add 20 in-lbs to the running torque when tightened.
(3) These inspections do not terminate the 500-hour TIS repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling and do not restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.
(1) If during the visual inspection required in paragraph (j) of this AD you are required to remove of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling to do a more detailed inspection, you must do the inspection steps listed in paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this AD. If you removed the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling during the annual inspection or within the compliance time specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, you may do the inspection specified in paragraph (k) of this AD in lieu of the inspection required in paragraph (j) of this AD. If you already have the v-band coupling removed, doing the detailed inspection as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD eliminates the possibility of having to remove and reinstall the v-band coupling more than once if certain conditions are found during the inspection required in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(i) Use crocus cloth and mineral spirits/Stoddard solvent, to clean the outer band of the v-band coupling. Pay particular attention to the spot weld areas on the coupling. If during cleaning corrosion cannot be removed or pitting of the v-band coupling is found, do not re-install the v-band coupling. Before further flight, you must install a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.
(ii) Use a 10× magnifier to visually inspect the outer band for cracks, paying particular attention to the spot weld areas. If cracks are found during this inspection, do not re-install the v-band coupling. Before further flight, you must install a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.
(iii) Visually inspect the flatness of the outer band using a straight edge. Lay the straight edge across the width of the outer band. The gap must be less than 0.062 inches. See figure 1 to paragraphs (k)(1)(iii) and (v) of this AD. If the gap exceeds 0.062 inches between the outer band and the straight edge, do not re-install the v-band coupling. Before further flight, you must install a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.
(iv) With the t-bolt in the 12 o'clock position, visually inspect the coupling for the attachment of the outer band to the v-retainer coupling segments by inspecting for gaps between the outer band and the v-retainer coupling segments between approximately the 1 o'clock through 11 o'clock position. It is recommended to use backlighting to see gaps. If gaps between the outer band and the v-retainer coupling segments are found, do not re-install the v-band coupling. Before further flight, you must install a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.
(v) Visually inspect the bend radii of the coupling v-retainer coupling segments for cracks. Inspect the radii throughout the length of the segment. See figure 1 to paragraphs (k)(1)(iii) and (v) of this AD. If any cracks are found, do not re-install the v-band coupling. Before further flight, you must install a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.
(vi) Visually inspect the outer band opposite the t-bolt for damage (distortion, creases, bulging, or cracks), which may be caused from excessive spreading of the coupling during installation and/or removal. If any damage is found, do not re-install the v-band coupling. Before further flight, you must install a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.
(2) If the removed exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling passes all of the inspection steps listed in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (vi) of this AD, you may re-install the same v-band coupling. After the coupling is re-installed and torqued as specified in Replacement of the V-Band Coupling, paragraph (i) of this AD, verify there is space between each v-retainer coupling segment below the t-bolt. If there is no space between each v-retainer coupling segment below the t-bolt, before further flight, you must install a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.
(3) The inspections required in paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this AD only apply to re-installing the same exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling that was removed as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. It does not apply to installation of a new v-band coupling. These inspections do not terminate the 500-hour TIS repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling and do not restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.
(4) As of May 3, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), do not install a used exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling on the airplane except for the reinstallation of the inspected exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling that was removed as specified in paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. The Manager, Chicago ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs concerning STC SA1035WE, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the Wichita ACO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m) of this AD. If sending information directly to the manager of the Chicago ACO Branch, send it to the attention of John Tallarovic, Aerospace Engineer, AIR-7C3 Chicago ACO Branch, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696; telephone: (847) 294-8180; fax: (847) 294-7834; email:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Thomas Teplik, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: (316) 946-4196; fax: (316) 946-4107; email:
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2004-03-07, which applied to certain Airbus Model A320-111, -211, -212, and -231 series airplanes. AD 2004-03-07 required repetitive inspections for fatigue cracking around the fasteners attaching the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at a certain frame (FR), adjacent to the longitudinal beams on the left and right sides of the airplane; and repair as necessary. This new AD retains certain requirements of AD 2004-03-07, expands the applicability, and requires an inspection of the fastener holes on the pressure panel and modification or repair as applicable. This AD was prompted by fatigue tests which revealed cracking around the fasteners attaching the pressure panel to the flexible bracket, and by the discovery of additional cracks under the longitudinal beams at locations that are not included in the inspection area required by AD 2004-03-07. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 3, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 3, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of March 15, 2004 (69 FR 5907, February 9, 2004).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3223; fax 206-231-3398.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2004-03-07, Amendment 39-13451 (69 FR 5907, February 9, 2004) (“AD 2004-03-07”). AD 2004-03-07 applied to certain Airbus Model A320-111, -211, -212, and -231 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0206, dated October 13, 2016; corrected October 14, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A318 and Model A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -131,-211, -21-, 213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:
During fatigue tests, cracks were found around the fasteners connecting the pressure panel with the flexible bracket at fuselage frame (FR) 36, adjacent to the longitudinal beams on left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could impair the structural integrity of the aeroplane.
To address this unsafe condition, DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued [French] AD 2000-531-155(B) [which corresponds with FAA AD 2004-03-07] to require repetitive inspections of the longitudinal beams of the FR 36 pressure panel and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of a repair.
Since that [French] AD was issued, additional cracks have been found under the beams, but in locations not covered by the required inspections. Fatigue and damage tolerance analyses were performed, the results of which indicated that all the holes in the pressure panel above all the longitudinal beams have to be cold worked.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD 2000-531-155(B), which is superseded, extends the applicability to all A320 family aeroplanes and requires [a special detailed inspection of the fastener holes on the pressure panel between FR35 and FR36 under the longitudinal beam and] modification [or repair] of all the affected holes.
This [EASA] AD is republished to correct the number of the superseded DGAC AD.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
United Airlines (UAL) requested that we omit paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD, which would require operators to report any findings of cracking that exceeded the limits specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016, from the proposed AD. UAL stated that paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD is confusing and unjustified because there is no explanation for why it is required when it was not included in EASA AD 2016-0206. UAL stated the requirement to report findings in paragraph (k)(2)(ii) is redundant with the actions of paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the proposed AD. UAL noted that for the
We agree to remove the reporting requirement specified in paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD from this AD. Neither Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016, nor the MCAI specifically includes reporting to a website as specified in paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD. We note that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016, does include reporting within the required for compliance (RC) procedure for the repair, which indicates that reporting would be required regardless of whether reporting was called out in the MCAI. We also verified with EASA that reporting should be done as defined in the service information. However, we have determined that a specific reporting requirement is not necessary. As stated by the commenter, operators will report findings to obtain the repair, which is specified in paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the proposed AD. We have removed paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and (k)(2)(ii) from this AD and revised paragraph (k)(2) of this AD to include the information that was in paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the proposed AD. We have also added paragraph (n) to this AD to specify that reporting is not required for this AD and redesignated the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
Two commenters requested that we refer to the latest service information. UAL requested that we update paragraph (k) of the proposed AD to use Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, which corrects an error with the fastener lengths for part number (P/N) EN6115K3. We infer that UAL intended to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, because there is no Revision 02 for Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, and because P/N EN6115K3 is referenced in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017. Airbus requested that we refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, in the proposed AD.
We agree to refer to the latest service information in this AD. In addition to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, we have also reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendix 02, dated December 6, 2017, which updates kit information and figures among other minor changes. We have revised paragraph (k)(1) of this AD accordingly. We have also provided credit for Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 01, dated April 4, 2016; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016; in paragraphs (o)(3)(ii) and (o)(3)(iv) of this AD, respectively.
Airbus requested that Model A320-215 and Model A320-216 airplanes be in included in the applicability of the proposed AD. The commenter noted that these airplane models are included in the MCAI.
We do not agree with the commenter's request. We have not certified Model A320-215 airplanes for operation in the U.S., and therefore, we did not include that model in the applicability of this AD. We did not include Model A320-216 airplanes in the applicability of this AD because the MCAI was already added to the required airworthiness action list (RAAL) for Model A320-216 airplanes. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Airbus stated that the proposed AD identifies the means of inspection,
We acknowledge the description of the rototest inspection is different for each service bulletin specified in the Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51 paragraph in the preamble of the NPRM. In the NPRM, we matched the description of the inspection as given in each service bulletin specified in the Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51 paragraph. We have revised the description of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, to remove the reference to an inspection and repair.
Airbus requested that we revise paragraph (e) of the proposed AD to clarify that the proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracking in an additional area. Airbus stated that paragraph (e) of the proposed AD describes only the fatigue test results that prompted AD 2004-03-07.
We agree to revise paragraph (e) of this AD for clarity. This AD was prompted by the original report of cracking and the additional report. We have revised paragraph (e) of this AD to include the additional cracking that prompted the issuance of this AD.
Airbus requested that we revise the language in paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the proposed AD, which specifies to repair any cracking in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016. Airbus stated that this service information does not provide direct repair instructions and instead specifies to contact Airbus.
We agree to clarify the language in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD (which corresponds with paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the proposed AD). Paragraph (k)(2) of this AD also specifies that where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), operators must request approval of repair instructions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p)(2) of this AD, and accomplish the repair accordingly within the compliance time specified in those instructions. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Airbus requested that we revise paragraph (m)(1)(iii) of the proposed AD. Airbus stated the wording is similar to paragraph (9) of the MCAI except that the important wording “in accordance with Airbus approved instructions that identify the repair as technically equivalent to the accomplishment of Airbus SB A320-53-1240 or SB A320-53-1263” is omitted.
We disagree with the commenter's request. The intent of paragraph (m)(1)(iii) of this AD is to obtain corrective actions from the manufacturer that are approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). These approved instructions will provide an equivalent level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1029, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated April 29, 2002. The service information describes procedures for repairing cracking.
Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 01, dated April 4, 2016; and A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, which describe procedures for modifying the pressure panel above the left and right longitudinal beams, by cold working the attachment holes under the longitudinal beam at FR 36 for airplanes on which no cracking was found. Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 01, dated April 4, 2016 also includes related investigative action (
Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016; and A320-53-1263, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendix 02, dated December 6, 2017, which describe procedures for modifying the pressure panel above the left and right longitudinal beams, including related investigative actions (
Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016. The service information describes procedures for a special detailed inspection (rotating probe) for cracking of the fastener holes on the pressure panel between FR 35 and FR 36 under the longitudinal beam and repair of any crack.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 737 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary modifications that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these modifications:
We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition repairs specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective May 3, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2004-03-07, Amendment 39-13451 (69 FR 5907, February 9, 2004) (“AD 2004-03-07”).
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, except for airplanes on which Airbus Modification 151574 was embodied in production.
(1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by fatigue tests which revealed cracking around the fasteners attaching the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at frame (FR) 36, adjacent to the longitudinal beams on the left and right sides of the airplane, and by the discovery of additional cracks under the longitudinal beams at locations that are not included in the inspection area required by AD 2004-03-07. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking around the fasteners attaching the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at the FR 36 adjacent to the longitudinal beams, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and possible rapid decompression of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of AD 2004-03-07, with no changes.
(1) For Model A320-211, -212, and -231 series airplanes having serial numbers 0002 through 0107 inclusive, except those airplanes on which Airbus Modification 21202/K1432 has been incorporated in production, or on which Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1029, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated April 29, 2002, has been incorporated in service: Prior to the accumulation of 30,000 total flight cycles, do a rotating probe inspection on airplanes with a center fuel tank, or a detailed inspection on airplanes without a center fuel tank, to detect cracking around the fasteners that attach the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at FR 36, adjacent to the longitudinal beams on the left and right sides of the airplane, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1030, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 21, 2002.
(2) If no crack is detected by the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, repeat the applicable inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles for airplanes without a center fuel tank, and at intervals not to exceed 18,000 flight cycles for airplanes with a center fuel tank.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraphs (c) and (d) of AD 2004-03-07, with specific delegation approval language.
(1) If any crack is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, before further flight, repair the affected structure by accomplishing all applicable actions in accordance with paragraphs 3.B. through 3.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1030, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 21, 2002. Repeat the applicable inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles for airplanes without a center fuel tank, and at intervals not to exceed 18,000 flight cycles for airplanes with a center fuel tank. For any area where cracking is repaired, the repair constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection of that area.
Note 1 to paragraph (h)(1) of this AD: Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1030 references Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1029, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated April 29, 2002, as an additional source of service information for certain repairs.
(2) If Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1030, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 21, 2002, specifies to contact the manufacturer for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p)(2) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (e) of AD 2004-03-07, with revised compliance language, to provide optional terminating action for paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD. For Model A320-211, -212, and -231 series airplanes having serial numbers 0002 through 0107 inclusive, except those airplanes on which Airbus Modification 21202/K1432 has been incorporated in production, or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1029, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated April 29, 2002, has been incorporated in service: Modification, before the effective date of this AD, of the structure around the fasteners that attach the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at FR 36, adjacent to the longitudinal beams on the left and right sides of the airplane, by accomplishing all applicable actions in accordance with paragraphs 3.A. through 3.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1029, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated April 29, 2002, constitutes terminating action for the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
For all airplanes, except for airplanes identified in paragraph (l) of this AD: At the applicable time specified in table 1 to paragraph (j) of this AD, do a special detailed inspection for cracking of the fastener holes
(1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no cracking is found, or cracking is found that is within the limits specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016: Before further flight, modify the pressure panel above the left and right longitudinal beams, including doing all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017; or Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 02, excluding
(2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, any cracking is found that exceeds the limits specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016: Before further flight, repair any cracking in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016. Where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), before further flight, request approval of repair instructions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p)(2) of this AD, and accomplish the repair accordingly within the compliance time specified in those instructions. If no compliance time is defined in the repair instructions, accomplish the repair before further flight.
For Model A319 and Model A320 series airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1193 have been embodied and the airplane has accumulated 33,000 flight cycles or 66,000 flight hours or more since the airplane's first flight on the effective date of this AD: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, contact the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA) for approved repair instructions and within the compliance time specified in those instructions, accomplish the repair accordingly. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. If no compliance time is defined in the repair instructions, accomplish the repair before the next flight.
(1) Modification of an airplane as specified in paragraph (m)(1)(i), (m)(1)(ii), or (m)(1)(iii) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD for that airplane only.
(i) Modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
(ii) Modification of an airplane prior to the effective date of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 01, dated April 4, 2016; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016; as applicable.
(iii) Modification of an airplane using instructions obtained in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p)(2) of this AD.
(2) Repair of an airplane as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD for that airplane, unless specified otherwise in the repair instructions approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
Although Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD does not include that requirement.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before March 15, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-03-07) using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1030, dated January 5, 2000; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1029, dated January 5, 2000.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, dated March 19, 2015.
(3) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (o)(3)(i) through (o)(3)(iv) of this AD, for that airplane only.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, dated March 19, 2015.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 01, dated April 4, 2016.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, dated March 19, 2015.
(iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016.
(4) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of this AD if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, dated March 19, 2015; or Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, dated March 19, 2015.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0206, dated October 13, 2016; corrected October 14, 2016; for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3223; fax 206-231-3398.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (r)(5) and (r)(6) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on May 3, 2018.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1029, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated April 29, 2002.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 01, dated April 4, 2016.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017.
(iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016.
(v) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendix 02, dated December 6, 2017.
(vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on March 15, 2004 (69 FR 5907, February 9, 2004).
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1030, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 21, 2002.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model A109E, A109S, AW109SP, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters. This AD requires inspecting the main rotor blade (MRB) tip cap for disbonding. This AD is prompted by a report of the in-flight loss of an MRB tip cap. The actions of this AD are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective April 13, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of April 13, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by May 29, 2018.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at
Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued AD No. 2017-0176-E, dated September 14, 2017, to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo S.p.A. (previously Agusta) Model A109E, A109LUH, A109S, AW109SP, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters. EASA advises of an in-flight loss of an MRB tip cap on an AW109SP helicopter where the pilot was able to safely land the helicopter. EASA further advises that an investigation determined the cause as incorrect bonding procedures used between specific dates and identified the affected MRBs by part number and serial number. According to EASA, this condition could result in loss of an MRB tip cap, increased pilot workload, and reduced control of the helicopter. To address this unsafe condition, the EASA AD requires repetitive inspections of the MRB tip caps and replacing certain part-numbered MRBs.
The FAA is in the process of updating Agusta's name change to Leonardo Helicopters on its type certificate. Because this name change is not yet effective, this AD specifies Agusta.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.
Leonardo Helicopters has issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 109EP-157 for Model A109E helicopters, EASB No. 109S-077 for Model A109S helicopters, and EASB No. 109SP-116 for Model AW109SP helicopters, all dated September 8, 2017. Leonardo Helicopters has also issued EASB No. 119-085, Revision A, dated September 11, 2017, for Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters. This service information identifies certain part-numbered and serial-numbered MRBs for applicability and describes procedures for tap inspecting the tip cap for disbonding.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
For helicopters with an MRB part number 709-0104-01-111 with serial number 1307, 1320, 1346, 1365, 1372, 1380, 1414, 1426, 1436, 1475, or 1485 installed, this AD requires, within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 5 hours TIS, tap inspecting the MRB tip cap for disbonding and, if there is disbonding, removing the MRB from service before further flight. If there is no disbonding on any of the inspections, this AD requires removing the MRB from service within 25 hours TIS. After the effective date of this AD, this AD prohibits installing these serial-numbered MRBs on any helicopter.
For all other helicopters, this AD requires, within 25 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 25 hours TIS, tap inspecting the MRB tip cap for disbonding. If there is any disbonding, this AD requires removing the MRB from service before further flight. The repetitive inspections required for these MRBs would no longer be required after the MRB accumulates 400 hours TIS.
The EASA AD applies to Model A109LUH helicopters, while this AD does not as that model helicopter is not type-certificated in the U.S. The EASA AD requires that you contact Leonardo Helicopters, and this AD does not.
We estimate that this AD affects 130 helicopters of U.S. Registry.
At an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, we estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Tap inspecting the MRB tip caps will require 1 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of $85 and a cost of $11,050 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. If required, replacing one MRB will require 4 work-hours and required parts will cost $89,179, for a cost per helicopter of $89,519.
According to Leonardo Helicopters' service information, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by Leonardo Helicopters. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the corrective actions required by this AD must be accomplished within 5 hours TIS and 25 hours TIS.
Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reasons stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:
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);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Agusta S.p.A. Model A109E, A109S, AW109SP, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters, certificated in any category:
(1) With a main rotor blade (MRB) part number (P/N) 709-0104-01-111 with a serial number (S/N) 1307, 1320, 1346, 1365, 1372, 1380, 1414, 1426, 1436, 1475, or 1485;
(2) With an MRB with a P/N and S/N listed in Table 1 to paragraph (a)(2) of this AD, with 400 or fewer hours time-in-service (TIS) since first installation on a helicopter; and
(3) With an MRB P/N 709-0104-01-101 with a S/N K101 or DA38586004-1, or P/N 709-0104-01-111 with a S/N P451, P460, Q553, Q557, Q587, Q695, Q832, R2080, R2212 or V699, with 400 or fewer hours TIS since maintenance on the tip cap by Finmecannica between January 1, 2016, and March 31, 2017.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as disbonding of an MRB tip cap. This condition could result in loss of the MRB tip cap, severe vibrations, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective April 13, 2018.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) For helicopters listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this AD:
(i) Within 5 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 5 hours TIS, using a tap hammer or equivalent, tap inspect each MRB tip cap for disbonding in the area depicted in Figure 1 of Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) EASB No. 109S-077, dated September 8, 2017; EASB No. 109SP-116, dated September 8, 2017; or EASB No. 119-085, Revision A, dated September 11, 2017; as applicable for your model helicopter. If there is any disbonding, before further flight, remove the MRB from service.
(ii) Within 25 hours TIS, remove the MRB from service.
(2) For helicopters listed in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this AD, within 25 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 25 hours TIS, using a tap hammer or equivalent, tap inspect each MRB tip cap for disbonding in the area depicted in Figure 1 of Leonardo Helicopters EASB No. 109EP-157, dated September 8, 2017; EASB No. 109S-077, dated September 8, 2017; EASB No. 109SP-116, dated September 8, 2017; or EASB No. 119-085, Revision A, dated September 11, 2017; as applicable for your model helicopter. If there is any disbonding, before further flight, replace the MRB.
(3) After the effective date of this AD, do not install an MRB P/N 709-0104-01-111 with a S/N 1307, 1320, 1346, 1365, 1372, 1380, 1414, 1426, 1436, 1475, or 1485 on any helicopter.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2017-0176-E, dated September 14, 2017. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6210 Main Rotor Blades.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 109EP-157, dated September 8, 2017.
(ii) Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 109S-077, dated September 8, 2017.
(iii) Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 109SP-116, dated September 8, 2017.
(iv) Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 119-085, Revision A, dated September 11, 2017.
(3) For Leonardo Helicopters service information identified in this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking found in a certain fuselage frame, which severed the inner chord and web. This AD requires inspecting the fuselage frame for existing repairs, repetitive inspections, and applicable repairs. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 3, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 3, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone: 562-797-1717; internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Chandra Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5239; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Aviation Partners Boeing concurs with the content of the NPRM.
Boeing asked that we clarify the service information exceptions in paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD by noting that Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017, is subject to this exception only if applicable (if winglets are installed on the airplane). Boeing also stated that paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD should put the required compliance time “after the effective date of this AD” in quotations to designate the content being substituted for the quoted service information compliance time statements.
We agree with the commenter's request. We have separated the exceptions for the referenced service information for clarification. We have removed the reference to the APB Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017, from paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. We have also added paragraph (h)(3) to this AD to specify the exception for the APB service bulletin. Paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this AD specify exceptions to the referenced service information instructions, and are intended to be used to determine compliance, relative to the effective date of this AD instead of the issue date of the service information. We have also included the requested quotations in paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this AD.
United Airlines (UAL) asked that the actions identified in Figures 5 and 6, Note (a), of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, be clarified. UAL stated that while Figures 5 and 6 correctly depict the required inspection areas, the task associated with circle action “2” for each figure specifies a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection, which cannot be done around the fasteners common to the inner chord strap. UAL asked that this discrepancy be addressed in the AD in order to avoid the need for approval of requests for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC).
We agree with the commenter's request, for the reason provided. We have added paragraph (h)(4) to the exceptions in this AD to clarify that an HFEC inspection of the two fasteners located below the lower edge of the intercostal strap at the locations specified in Figures 5 and 6, Note (a), of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, is not required by this AD.
Delta Airlines (DAL) asked that we clarify the language used in paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD. DAL stated
We agree with the commenter's request to include the word “date” in the phrase “after the original issue of this service bulletin” as corrected in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, because it was inadvertently omitted in the proposed AD. The same language is included in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD.
DAL asked that a new paragraph be added to paragraph (h) of this AD to clarify using the phrase “at the original issue date of this service bulletin” to determine airplane configuration, and to provide credit for inspections done before the effective date of the AD. DAL added that these changes would avoid the need for operators to request AMOCs.
We agree to clarify. We have revised paragraph (h)(2) of this AD and included similar language in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD to clarify that the exceptions apply to both compliance times and airplane configurations. In addition, paragraph (f) of this AD requires compliance with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Therefore, paragraph (f) of this AD already gives credit for inspections done before the effective date of this AD.
FedEx Express (FedEx) and VT Mobile Aerospace Engineering (VT MAE) asked that we revise the proposed AD to specify the inspections, methods, and compliance times given in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, but under a different group designation for the FedEx fleet of Model 757-200 airplanes. The commenters stated that these airplanes were converted by VT MAE supplemental type certificate (STC) ST03562AT to a configuration similar to that of Model 757-200SF airplanes (identified as Groups 2 and 5), and that FedEx's fleet is therefore no longer configured as passenger airplanes. FedEx stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, identifies the FedEx Model 757-200 fleet as Groups 1 and 4, and that the inspection areas defined for these groups have been modified in accordance with the STC and are no longer applicable.
We agree with the commenters' requests. The VT MAE STC modification to the STA 1640 frame is identical to the modification of Boeing 757-200 special freighter airplanes; the inspections specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, as listed under different airplane groups should be used for the FedEx fleet. We have added paragraph (g)(3) to this AD to clarify the requirements for those airplanes.
Boeing asserted that AD 2006-11-11, Amendment 39-14615 (71 FR 30278; May 26, 2006) (“AD 2006-11-11”), would affect the actions of the proposed AD and asked that we add that AD to paragraph (b) of this AD (“Affected ADs”). Boeing added that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, was approved as an AMOC to AD 2006-11-11 for the inspections of the inboard chord and inboard chord strap in the area around stringer 14, which is common to part of 53-60-15 listed in Section 9 of the Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) document.
We acknowledge the commenter's rationale for including AD 2006-11-11 in paragraph (b) of this AD. However, paragraph (b), “Affected ADs,” is intended to include other affected ADs, but not all related ADs. It is primarily used to reference superseded ADs and other ADs that are terminated, in whole or in part, by requirements in a given AD. Therefore, we have made no change to this AD in this regard.
FedEx asked that repetitive inspections of a repair done for a crack finding be required only based on the original equipment manufacturer/STC holder/FAA requirements for that repair. FedEx also asked that the repetitive inspections be terminated for the portion of the inspection area covered by the repair.
We do not agree with the commenter's requests. This AD requires repairing cracks using a method approved by the FAA or Boeing Organization Designation Authorization (ODA), and any relief or required follow-on actions will be included in those approved instructions. Therefore, we have made no change to this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016. This service information describes procedures for an inspection of the fuselage frame for existing frame repairs, repetitive high frequency eddy current and low frequency eddy current inspections for cracking in specified areas with no existing frame repair, and repair of any cracking.
We also reviewed APB Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017. This service information provides compliance times for accomplishing the procedures identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, for airplanes on which APB blended or scimitar blended winglets are installed.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 606 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that enables us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repair specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective May 3, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53; Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking found in the fuselage frame at station (STA) 1640, which severed the inner chord and web. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the fuselage frame at STA 1640, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For all airplanes except those identified in paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of this AD: Do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016; except as provided by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(4) of this AD. Do the actions at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, except as provided by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.
(2) For airplanes on which Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017, blended or scimitar blended winglets are installed in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate ST01518SE: Do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of APB Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016; except as provided by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(4) of this AD. Do the actions at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of APB Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017, except as provided by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD.
(3) For airplanes that have been converted from passenger to freighter configuration in accordance with VT Mobile Aerospace Engineering (VT MAE) Supplemental Type Certificate ST03562AT: Do all applicable actions identified as “RC” in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016; except as provided by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(4) of this AD. Do the actions at the
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, specifies contacting Boeing for instructions, and specifies that action as RC: This AD requires using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(2) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, uses the phrase “the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires using “the effective date of this AD.”
(3) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where APB Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017, uses the phrase “the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires using “the effective date of this AD.”
(4) Where Figures 5 and 6, Step 2, Note (a), of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, specify a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for any crack in the fuselage frame inner chord forward bend radius and around the fasteners, between the two fasteners above and below the edges of the intercostal strap, this AD does not require inspecting around the two fasteners located below the lower edge of the intercostal strap at stringer 13.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Chandra Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5239; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017.
(ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone: 562-797-1717; internet:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Honda Aircraft Company LLC Model HA-420 airplanes. This AD requires incorporating a temporary revision into the airplane flight manual and replacing faulty power brake valves upon condition. This AD was prompted by reports of unannunciated asymmetric braking during ground operations and landing deceleration. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 13, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 13, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by May 14, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Honda Aircraft Company LLC, 6430 Ballinger Road, Greensboro, North Carolina 27410; telephone (336) 662-0246; internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Samuel Kovitch, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5570; fax: (404) 474-5605; email:
We received reports of unannunciated asymmetric braking during landing deceleration on several Honda Aircraft Company LLC Model HA-420 airplanes. Investigation revealed that the power brake valve (PBV) housing design drawing dimension for a bore diameter, which serves as an O-ring gland outer diameter, is oversized from Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) specification guidelines for O-ring gland dimensions. The oversized bore allows back-up ring extrusion damage during normal operating hydraulic pressure in the valve, O-ring deformation/damage, and internal leakage of hydraulic pressure within the PBV from the master cylinder brake lines. The damage to the back-up ring and O-ring worsens during operation and causes the internal leakage rate of the PBV brake master cylinder lines to increase over time. This condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the PBV, which could cause degraded braking performance and reduced directional control during ground operations and landing deceleration. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We reviewed Honda Aircraft Company Temporary Revision TR 01.1, dated February 16, 2018, to the Honda Aircraft Company HA-420 Airplane Flight Manual and Service Bulletin SB-420-32-001, dated January 8, 2018. Temporary Revision TR 01.1, dated February 16, 2018, to the HA-420 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) describes procedures for performing pilot checks of the braking system during ground operations before every flight and before every landing and includes instructions for corrective actions if any indication of a leaking PBV is found. Service Bulletin SB-420-32-001, dated January 8, 2018, describes procedures for replacing a defective PBV with an improved design PBV. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires inserting a temporary revision into the AFM, which may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the airplane records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1)-(4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439. This AD also requires replacing the installed PBV, P/N HJ1-13243-101-005 or P/N HJ1-13243-101-007, with an improved PBV, P/N HJ1-13243-101-009, if a defective PBV is detected during the required pilot checks as specified in the temporary revision. In addition, this AD provides an optional terminating action for the temporary revision into the AFM by replacing the installed PBV with the improved PBV, P/N HJ1-13243-101-009.
We consider this AD interim action. We are currently considering requiring replacement of the installed PBV, P/N HJ1-13243-101-005 or P/N HJ1-13243-101-007, with an improved part, which will constitute terminating action for the temporary revision to the AFM. However, the planned compliance time for the replacement of the PBV would allow enough time to provide notice and opportunity for prior comment on the merit of the replacement.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because failure of the PBV could cause degraded braking performance and reduced directional control during ground operations and landing deceleration. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 72 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the pilot check of the braking system during ground operations before every flight and before every landing. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these replacements:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective April 13, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Honda Aircraft Company LLC Model HA-420 airplanes, serial numbers 42000011 through 4200089, that:
(1) have power brake valve, part number (P/N) HJ1-13243-101-005 or HJ1-13243-101-007, installed; and
(2) are certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by reports of unannunciated asymmetric braking during ground operations and landing deceleration. We are issuing this AD to detect failure of the power brake valve. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in degraded braking performance and reduced directional control during ground operations and landing deceleration.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before further flight after April 13, 2018 (the effective date of this AD) insert Honda Aircraft Company Temporary Revision TR 01.1, dated February 16, 2018, into the Honda Aircraft Company (Honda) HA-420 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) (the temporary revision). This insertion and the steps therein may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the airplane records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1)-(4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
As of and any time after the effective date of this AD, if the PBV fails any of the pilot checks specified in the temporary revision,
(1) Instead of inserting the temporary revision or at any time after inserting the temporary revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, you may replace the installed PBV, P/N HJ1-13243-101-005 or P/N HJ1-13243-101-007, with the improved design PBV, P/N HJ1-13243-101-009. The replacement must be done using the Accomplishment Instructions in Honda Service Bulletin SB-420-32-001, dated January 8, 2018. Before further flight after installing P/N HJ1-13243-101-009, remove the temporary revision from the Honda HA-420 AFM.
(2) If you choose to follow the temporary revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD instead of the optional replacement in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, the on-condition replacement required by paragraph (h) of this AD is still required before further flight.
Although Honda Service Bulletin SB-420-32-001, dated January 8, 2018, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action.
Special flight permits for this AD are prohibited.
(1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with this AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Samuel Kovitch, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5570; fax: (404) 474-5605; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 510(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Honda Aircraft Company Temporary Revision TR 01.1, dated February 16, 2018, to the Honda Aircraft Company HA-420 Airplane Flight Manual.
(ii) Honda Aircraft Company Service Bulletin SB-420-32-001, dated January 8, 2018.
(3) For Honda Aircraft Company LLC service information identified in this AD, contact Honda Aircraft Company LLC, 6430 Ballinger Road, Greensboro, North Carolina 27410; telephone (336) 662-0246; internet:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.
(5) You may view the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends and removes multiple VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways in northcentral United States as part of the FAA's Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) efforts to safely improve the overall efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS) and due to the decommissioning of the Tiverton, OH, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigation aid. This action also incorporates NAV CANADA's amendment to one of the airways that crosses into Canada's airspace.
Effective date 0901, May 24, 2018. 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 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, the FAA initiated a project for decommissioning the Tiverton, OH, VOR/DME due to the land-lease for the navigation aid expiring and not being renewed. With the planned decommissioning of the Tiverton VOR/DME, several of the Federal airways proposed for amendment in the NPRM were impacted and required additional amendment. Additionally, NAV CANADA amended one of the Federal airways proposed for amendment in the NPRM that crosses into Canada's airspace. That NAV CANADA amendment required the FAA to adjust the proposed amendment to the airway. Lastly, the FAA reviewed the airway amendments proposed in the NPRM and the Cleveland/Detroit Metroplex project redesign and determined the two activities were in fact independent of each other and not connected. The airway amendments proposed in the NPRM support the FAA's NextGen efforts to safely improve the overall efficiency of the NAS.
Since several airway amendments proposed in the NPRM required further amendment due to the decommissioning of Tiverton VOR/DME and NAV CANADA's amendment to one of the airways, and the NPRM characterization required clarification that the airway amendments proposed in the NPRM in fact supported the FAA's NextGen efforts independent from the FAA's Cleveland/Detroit Metroplex project activities, the FAA determined it was necessary to supplement the proposal and reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment.
The FAA therefore published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) in the
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) contended that, for those VOR NAVAIDs that are to be decommissioned, and for those airways that are correspondingly removed, the FAA should create an RNAV waypoint at the previous NAVAID location and retain all fixes and intersections along that route by amending their definition to that of an RNAV waypoint. Their concern was that with the removal of much of the route structure and their defining fixes, there would be a gap in how pilots could navigate through the area and how they communicate their planned route of flight to air traffic control unless a waypoint system remained.
As addressed in the NPRM, and supported in AOPA's comment, the FAA is retaining the current fixes contained within the airspace area affected by this action and converting them into RNAV waypoints that will remain in place to assist pilots and air traffic controllers already familiar with them, for navigation purposes. Additionally, the FAA is establishing a waypoint within the immediate vicinity of the Tiverton VOR/DME location (60 feet) to further assist pilots navigating through the airspace affected by the Tiverton VOR/DME being decommissioned.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The amendment to V-14 is revised to remove the airway segment between the Flag City, OH, VORTAC and the Erie, PA, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Erie, PA, VORTAC and Dunkirk, NY, VOR/DME that was proposed to be removed, and the airway segment between the Dunkirk, NY, VOR/DME and Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME that was proposed to be retained, were removed in a separate rulemaking action (16-AEA-11) published in the
The amendment to V-464 is revised to remove the airway in its entirety. The airway segment between the Aylmer, ON, Canada, VOR/DME and Geneseo, NY, VOR/DME that was proposed to be retained, was removed in a separate rulemaking action (16-AEA-11) published in the
The amendment to V-522 remains to remove the airway in its entirety. However, the airway was amended in a separate rulemaking action (16-AEA-11) published in the
Lastly, minor editorial corrections have been made to a few of the airway descriptions for standardization. These corrections include removing the word “via” when used between the first and second airway points listed and changing punctuation (commas to semi-colons) between airway points contained in the descriptions. With the exception of the above noted changes and minor editorial corrections, this rule is the same as that published in the NPRM and SNPRM.
The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify VOR Federal airways V-2, V-5, V-6, V-8, V-10, V-11, V-14, V-26, V-30, V-38, V-43, V-45, V-47, V-59, V-75, V-84, V-92, V-96, V-103, V-116, V-126, V-133, V-170, V-188, V-210, V-221, V-232, V-233, V-450, V-493, and V-542. Additionally, this action removes VOR Federal airways V-40, V-98, V-176, V-297, V-353, V-383, V-396, V-406, V-416, V-418, V-426, V-435, V-443, V-464, V-467, V-486, V-
V-418: V-418 extends between the Salem, MI, VORTAC and Jamestown, NY, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. V-418 is removed in its entirety.
V-426: V-426 extends between the Carleton, MI, VORTAC and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME. V-426 is removed in its entirety.
V-435: V-435 extends between the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME. V-435 is removed in its entirety.
V-443: V-443 extends between the intersection of the Newcomerstown, OH, VOR/DME 099° and Bellaire, OH, VOR/DME 044° radials (WISKE fix) and the Aylmer, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. V-443 is removed in its entirety.
V-450: V-450 extends between the Escanaba, MI, VOR/DME and London, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the Flint, MI, VORTAC and London, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.
V-464: V-464 extends between the Salem, MI, VORTAC and Aylmer, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. V-464 is removed in its entirety.
V-467: V-467 extends between the Richmond, IN, VORTAC and Detroit, MI, VOR/DME. V-467 is removed in its entirety.
V-486: V-486 extends between the intersection of the Akron, OH, VOR/DME 316° and Chardon, OH, VOR/DME 260° radials (LEBRN fix) and the Jamestown, NY, VOR/DME. V-486 is removed in its entirety.
V-493: V-493 extends between the Livingston, TN, VORTAC and Carleton, MI, VORTAC; and between the Menominee, MI, VOR/DME and Rhinelander, WI, VORTAC. This rule removes the airway segment between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and Carleton, MI, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.
V-522: V-522 extends between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and Erie, PA, VORTAC. V-522 is removed in its entirety.
V-523: V-523 extends between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and Erie, PA, VORTAC. V-523 is removed in its entirety.
V-525: V-525 extends between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME. V-525 is removed in its entirety.
V-542: V-542 extends between the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC and Lebanon, NH, VORTAC. This rule removes the airway segment between the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC and Tidioute, PA, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.
V-584: V-584 extends between the Waterville, OH, VOR/DME and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME. V-584 is removed in its entirety.
All radials in the route descriptions are stated in True degrees.
VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published 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. 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 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 amending and removing multiple VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways in northcentral United States qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its agency-specific implementing regulations in FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” regarding categorical exclusions for procedural actions at paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from full environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points. Therefore, this airspace action is not expected to result in any significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined that 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.
From Seattle, WA; Ellensburg, WA; Moses Lake, WA; Spokane, WA; Mullan Pass, ID; Missoula, MT; Helena, MT; INT Helena 119° and Livingston, MT, 322° radials; Livingston; Billings, MT; Miles City, MT; 24 miles, 90 miles, 55 MSL, Dickinson, ND; 10 miles, 60 miles, 38 MSL, Bismarck, ND; 14 miles, 62 miles, 34 MSL, Jamestown, ND; Fargo, ND; Alexandria, MN; Gopher, MN; Nodine, MN; Lone Rock, WI; Madison, WI; Badger, WI; Muskegon, MI; to Lansing, MI. From Buffalo, NY; Rochester, NY; Syracuse, NY; Utica, NY; Albany, NY; INT Albany 084° and Gardner, MA, 284° radials; to Gardner.
From Pecan, GA; Vienna, GA; Dublin, GA; Athens, GA; INT Athens 340° and Electric City, SC, 274° radials; INT Electric City 274° and Choo Choo, GA, 127° radials; Choo Choo; Bowling Green, KY; New Hope, KY; Louisville, KY; Cincinnati, OH; to Appleton, OH.
From Oakland, CA; INT Oakland 039° and Sacramento, CA, 212° radials; Sacramento; Squaw Valley, CA; Mustang, NV; Lovelock, NV; Battle Mountain, NV; INT Battle Mountain 062° and Wells, NV, 256° radials; Wells; 5 miles, 40 miles, 98 MSL, 85 MSL, Lucin, UT; 43 miles, 85 MSL, Ogden, UT; 11 miles, 50 miles, 105 MSL, Fort Bridger, WY; Rock Springs, WY; 20 miles, 39 miles 95 MSL, Cherokee, WY; 39 miles, 27 miles 95 MSL, Medicine Bow, WY; INT Medicine Bow 106° and Sidney, NE, 291° radials; Sidney; North Platte, NE; Grand Island, NE; Omaha, NE; Des Moines, IA; Iowa City, IA; Davenport, IA; INT Davenport 087° and DuPage, IL, 255° radials; to DuPage. From INT Chicago Heights, IL, 358° and Gipper, MI, 271° radials; Gipper; to INT Gipper 092° and Litchfield, MI, 196° radials. From Clarion, PA; Philipsburg, PA; Selinsgrove, PA; Allentown, PA; Solberg, NJ; INT Solberg 107° and Yardley, PA, 068° radials; INT Yardley 068° and La Guardia, NY, 213° radials; to La Guardia.
From INT Seal Beach, CA, 266° and Ventura, CA, 144° radials; Seal Beach; Paradise, CA; 35 miles, 7 miles wide (3 miles SE and 4 miles NW of centerline) Hector, CA; Goffs, CA; INT Goffs 033° and Morman Mesa, NV, 196° radials; Morman Mesa; Bryce Canyon, UT; Hanksville, UT; Grand Junction, CO; Rifle, CO; Kremmling, CO; Mile High, CO; Akron, CO; Hayes Center, NE; Grand Island, NE; Omaha, NE; Des Moines, IA; Iowa City, IA; Moline, IL; Joliet, IL; Chicago Heights, IL; Goshen, IN; to Flag City, OH. From Briggs, OH; Bellaire, OH; INT Bellaire 107° and Grantsville, MD, 285° radials; Grantsville; Martinsburg, WV; to Washington, DC. The portion outside the United States has no upper limit.
From Pueblo, CO; 18 miles, 48 miles, 60 MSL, Lamar, CO; Garden City, KS; Dodge City, KS; Hutchinson, KS; Emporia, KS; INT Emporia 063°and Napoleon, MO, 243° radials; Napoleon; Kirksville, MO; Burlington, IA; Bradford, IL; to INT Bradford 058° and Joliet, IL, 287° radials. From INT Chicago Heights, IL, 358° and Gipper, MI, 271° radials; Gipper; to Litchfield, MI. From Youngstown, OH; INT Youngstown 116° and Revloc, PA, 300° radials; Revloc; INT Revloc 107° and Lancaster, PA, 280° radials; to Lancaster.
From Brookley, AL; Greene County, MS; INT Greene County 315° and Magnolia, MS, 133° radials; Magnolia; Sidon, MS; Holly Springs, MS; Dyersburg, TN; Cunningham, KY; Pocket City, IN; Brickyard, IN; Marion, IN; Fort Wayne, IN; to INT Fort Wayne 038° and Waterville, OH, 273° radials.
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; to Flag City, OH. 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 Blue Mesa, CO; Montrose, CO; 13 miles, 112 MSL, 131 MSL; Grand Junction, CO; Meeker, CO; Cherokee, WY; Muddy Mountain, WY; 14 miles 12 AGL, 37 miles 75 MSL, 84 miles 90 MSL, 17 miles 12 AGL; Rapid City, SD; Philip, SD; Pierre, SD; Huron, SD; Redwood Falls, MN; Farmington, MN; Eau Claire, WI; Waussau, WI; Green Bay, WI; INT Green Bay 116° and White Cloud, MI, 302° radials; White Cloud; to Lansing, MI.
From Badger, WI; INT Badger 102° and Pullman, MI, 303° radials; Pullman; to Litchfield, MI. From Clarion, PA; Philipsburg, PA; Selinsgrove, PA; East Texas, PA; INT East Texas 095° and Solberg, NJ, 264° radials; to Solberg.
From Moline, IL; INT Moline 082° and Peotone, IL, 281° radials; Peotone; Fort Wayne, IN; to INT Fort Wayne 091° and Rosewood, OH, 334° radials. From Appleton, OH; Zanesville, OH; Parkersburg, WV; Elkins, WV; Gordonsville, VA; Richmond, VA; Harcum, VA; to Cape Charles, VA.
From Youngstown, OH; to Erie, PA.
From New Bern, NC; Kinston, NC; Raleigh-Durham, NC; INT Raleigh-Durham 275° and Greensboro, NC, 105° radials; Greensboro; INT Greensboro 334° and Pulaski, VA, 147° radials; Pulaski; Bluefield, WV; Charleston, WV; Henderson, WV; to Appleton, OH. From Saginaw, MI; Alpena, MI; to Sault Ste Marie, MI.
From Pine Bluff, AR; Gilmore, AR; Dyersburg, TN; Cunningham, KY; to Pocket City, IN. From Cincinnati, KY; Rosewood, OH; to Flag City, OH.
From Pulaski, VA; Beckley, WV; Parkersburg, WV; to Newcomerstown, OH.
From Morgantown, WV; Bellaire, OH; to Briggs, OH.
From Northbrook, IL; Pullman, MI; to Lansing, MI. From Buffalo, NY; Geneseo, NY; INT Geneseo 091° and Syracuse, NY, 240° radials; to Syracuse.
From Chicago Heights, IL; to Goshen, IN. From Newcomerstown, OH; Bellaire, OH; INT Bellaire 107° and Grantsville, MD, 285° radials; Grantsville; INT Grantsville 124° and Armel, VA, 292° radials; to Armel.
From Brickyard, IN; Kokomo, IN; Fort Wayne, IN; to INT Fort Wayne 071° and Flag City, OH, 289° radials.
From Chesterfield, SC; Greensboro, NC; Roanoke, VA; Elkins, WV; Clarksburg, WV; Bellaire, OH; INT Bellaire 327° and Akron, OH, 181° radials; to Akron.
From Erie, PA; Bradford, PA; Stonyfork, PA; INT Stonyfork 098° and Wilkes-Barre, PA, 310° radials; Wilkes-Barre; INT Wilkes-Barre 084° and Sparta, NJ, 300° radials; to Sparta.
From INT Peotone, IL, 053° and Knox, IN, 297° radials; INT Knox 297° and Goshen, IN, 270° radials; Goshen; to INT Goshen 092° and Fort Wayne, IN, 016° radials. From Erie, PA; Bradford, PA; to Stonyfork, PA.
From INT Charlotte, NC, 305° and Barretts Mountain, NC, 197° radials; Barretts Mountain; Charleston, WV; to Zanesville, OH. From Saginaw, MI; Traverse City, MI; Escanaba, MI; Sawyer, MI; Houghton, MI; Thunder Bay, ON, Canada; International Falls, MN; to Red Lake, ON, Canada. The airspace within Canada is excluded.
From Devils Lake, ND; INT Devils Lake 187° and Jamestown, ND, 337° radials; Jamestown; Aberdeen, SD; Sioux Falls, SD; Worthington, MN; Fairmont, MN; Rochester, MN; Nodine, MN; Dells, WI; INT Dells 097° and Badger, WI, 304° radials; Badger; INT Badger 121° and Pullman, MI, 282° radials; Pullman; to Salem, MI. From Bradford, PA; Slate Run, PA; Selinsgrove, PA; Ravine, PA; INT Ravine 125° and Modena, PA, 318° radials; Modena; Dupont, DE; INT Dupont 223° and Andrews, MD, 060° radials; to INT Andrews 060° and Baltimore, MD, 165° radials. The airspace within R-5802 is excluded when active.
From Tidioute, PA; Slate Run, PA; Williamsport, PA; Wilkes-Barre, PA; INT Wilkes-Barre 084° and Sparta, NJ, 300° radials; Sparta; INT Sparta 082° and Carmel, NY, 243° radials; Carmel; INT Carmel 078° and Groton, CT, 276° radials; to Groton.
From Los Angeles, CA; INT Los Angeles 083° and Pomona, CA, 240° radials; Pomona; INT Daggett, CA, 229° and Hector, CA, 263° radials; Hector; Goffs, CA; 13 miles, 23 miles 71 MSL, 85 MSL, Peach Springs, AZ; Grand Canyon, AZ; Tuba City, AZ; 10 miles 90 MSL, 91 miles 105 MSL, Rattlesnake, NM; Alamosa, CO; INT Alamosa 074° and Lamar, CO, 250° radials; 40 miles, 51 miles, 65 MSL, Lamar; 13 miles, 79 miles, 55 MSL, Liberal,
From Bible Grove, IL; Hoosier, IN; Shelbyville, IN; Muncie, IN; Fort Wayne, IN; to INT Fort Wayne 016° and Goshen, IN, 092° radials.
From Keating, PA; Milton, PA; INT Milton 099° and Solberg, NJ, 299° radials; Solberg; INT Solberg 137° and Colts Neck, NJ, 263° radials; to Colts Neck.
From Spinner, IL; INT Spinner 061° and Roberts, IL, 233° radials; Roberts; Knox, IN; Goshen, IN; to Litchfield, MI. From Mount Pleasant, MI; INT Mount Pleasant 351° and Gaylord, MI, 207° radials; Gaylord; to Pellston, MI.
From Escanaba, MI; Menominee, MI; Green Bay, WI; Muskegon, MI; INT Muskegon 094° and Flint, MI, 280° radials; to Flint.
From Livingston, TN; Lexington, KY; York, KY; INT York 030° and Appleton, OH, 183° radials; to Appleton. From Menominee, MI; to Rhinelander, WI.
From Tidioute, PA; Bradford, PA; INT Bradford 078° and Elmira, NY, 252° radials; Elmira; Binghampton, NY; Rockdale, NY; Albany, NY; Cambridge, NY; INT Cambridge 063° and Lebanon, NH, 214° radials; to Lebanon.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; technical amendment.
Currently, FAA regulations require all pilots operating aircraft to or from College Park Airport, Potomac Airfield or Washington Executive/Hyde Field Airport to file instrument flight rules (IFR), DC Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ), or DC Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) flight plans with the Washington Hub Flight Service Station (FSS). The FAA is transferring the responsibility for processing flight plans within the DC FRZ from the Washington Hub FSS to the Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). This document revises the regulations by updating the organization responsible for processing the flight plans and by updating the flight plans required for flight operations in the DC FRZ.
Effective on March 29, 2018.
Scott Rosenbloom, Airspace and Rules, AJV-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3783; email
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
Section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act requires that agencies publish a rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.
This document revises § 93.343(a) of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) by updating the organization responsible for processing IFR and FRZ flight plans from/to College Park, Potomac Airfield, and Washington Executive/Hyde Field airports. This revision will not impose any additional restrictions on the persons affected by these regulations. Furthermore, any additional delay in revising the regulations would be contrary to the public interest because it would create confusion among pilots operating in the DC SFRA including the DC FRZ. Accordingly, the FAA finds that (i) public comment on this change prior to promulgation is unnecessary and contrary to public interest, and (ii) good cause exists to make this rule effective in less than 30 days.
Currently, § 93.343(a) requires pilots to file IFR, DC FRZ, or DC SFRA flight plans with the Washington Hub FSS for each departure and arrival from/to College Park, Potomac Airfield, and Washington Executive/Hyde Field Airports, whether or not the aircraft makes an immediate stop.
An objective of the Administrator's Flight Service National Airspace System (NAS) Efficient Streamlined Services Initiative is to realign activities through more efficient delivery of services. As part of this initiative, the FAA is
Also as a result of the transition, the FAA is removing from §§ 93.341(d) and 93.343(a)(2) the references to the DC SFRA flight plan. Both regulations govern flight operations within the DC FRZ, which require a DC FRZ flight plan. Because a single entity was responsible for processing both DC SFRA and DC FRZ flight plans, the FAA has effectively construed any request for a DC SFRA flight plan to/from a location within the DC FRZ as a DC FRZ flight plan. Once the responsibilities for processing DC SFRA and DC FRZ flight plans are divided between two entities, however, the FAA will no longer be able to re-characterize a DC SFRA flight plan as a DC FRZ flight plan. The FAA is, therefore, removing the references to the DC SFRA from §§ 93.341(d) and 93.343(a)(2) to make clear that a pilot must file either an IFR or DC FRZ flight plan when operating to or from the DC FRZ.
Furthermore, the FAA notes that it has communicated with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) about a corresponding technical amendment that must be made to 49 CFR 1562.3(g)(1) to include the new organization responsible for processing IFR and DC FRZ flight plans.
In this technical amendment, the FAA is revising § 93.343(a)(2) and (3) by removing the references to the Washington Hub FSS. In their place, the FAA is inserting references to the Washington ARTCC, which is the new organization responsible for processing the flight plans. Furthermore, the FAA is revising §§ 93.341(d) and 93.343(a)(2) by removing the references to the DC SFRA flight plan.
Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (air), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44715, 44719, 46301.
(d) Before departing from an airport within the DC FRZ, or before entering the DC FRZ, all aircraft, except DOD, law enforcement, and lifeguard or air ambulance aircraft operating under an FAA/TSA airspace authorization must file and activate an IFR or a DC FRZ flight plan and transmit a discrete transponder code assigned by an Air Traffic Control facility. Aircraft must transmit the discrete transponder code at all times while in the DC FRZ or DC SFRA.
(a) * * *
(2) Before departing, the pilot files an IFR or DC FRZ flight plan with the Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center for each departure and arrival from/to College Park, Potomac Airfield, and Washington Executive/Hyde Field airports, whether or not the aircraft makes an intermediate stop;
(3) When filing a flight plan with the Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center, the pilot identifies himself or herself by providing the assigned pilot identification code. The Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center will accept the flight plan only after verifying the code; and
Issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and (g) and 40103 in Washington, DC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective March 29, 2018. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;(2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective March 29, 2018. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 29, 2018.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420)Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore— (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979) ; and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; technical amendment.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is amending its good guidance practices regulation to inform the public on how to electronically submit a draft of a proposed guidance to the Agency. This technical amendment is nonsubstantive.
This rule is effective March 29, 2018.
Megan Velez, Office of Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 4254, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9301.
FDA is amending 21 CFR 10.115(f)(3), good guidance regulations, by adding language on how the public can electronically submit drafts of proposed guidance documents to participate in the development and issuance of guidance documents. The amendment provides an option for submitting the draft of a proposed guidance to the Agency electronically through
Publication of this document constitutes final action on the change under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). This technical amendment is nonsubstantive. FDA therefore, for good cause, has determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). Further, this rule places no burden on affected parties for which such parties would need a reasonable time to prepare for the effective date of the rule. Accordingly, FDA, for good cause, has determined
Administrative practice and procedure, News media.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 10 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 551-558, 701-706; 15 U.S.C. 1451-1461; 21 U.S.C. 141-149, 321-397, 467f, 679, 821, 1034; 28 U.S.C. 2112; 42 U.S.C. 201, 262, 263b, 264.
(f) * * *
(3) * * * If you wish to submit the draft of a proposed guidance document electronically, submit it through
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 212-3966.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Communications Commission.
Final action; requirements and procedures.
In this document, the Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force, with the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, adopt specific parameters and procedures to implement the Mobility Fund Phase II challenge process. This document describes the steps the Federal Communications Commission will use to establish a map of areas presumptively eligible for MF-II support from the newly collected, standardized 4G Long Term Evolution coverage data and proposes specific parameters for the data that challengers and respondents will submit as part of the challenge process, as well as a process for validating challenges.
The challenge window will open March 29, 2018, and will remain open until August 27, 2018.
Submit waivers by email to
For general questions about the challenge process and the USAC portal, email
This is a summary of the Public Notice (
1. In the
2. In the
3. The Bureaus adopt the proposed methodology for generating the initial map of areas presumptively eligible for MF-II support,
4. To generate a map of unsubsidized qualified 4G LTE coverage for each provider, Commission staff: (1) Removes any subsidized areas from the provider's coverage map; (2) removes any water-only areas; (3) overlays a uniform grid with cells of one square kilometer (1 km by 1 km) on the provider's coverage map; and (4) removes grid cells with coverage of less than the minimum area that could be covered by a single speed test measurement when buffered. The term “water-only area” is defined as a water-only census block (that is, a census block for which the entire area is categorized by the U.S. Census Bureau as water).
5. Using the maps that result from steps 1-4 of this process, staff then generates the map of presumptively eligible areas for each state (or state equivalent) by: (5) Merging the maps of unsubsidized coverage for all providers; (6) removing the merged unsubsidized coverage generated in step 5 (the ineligible areas) from the state's boundary to produce the eligible areas; and (7) removing any water-only areas from the eligible areas. Since the Bureaus waived the deadline for mobile wireless providers in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to submit information regarding 4G LTE coverage, the map of presumptively eligible areas does not include Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
6. The Bureaus define a uniform grid with cells of equal area (1 km by 1 km) across the continental United States, and separate uniform grids with cells of equal area (1 km by 1 km) for overseas territories and Hawaii. These grids are defined using an “equal area” map projection so that the same number of speed tests will be required to challenge the cell regardless of the location of the grid cell. The USAC portal system will use the uniform grid system to validate and process data submitted during the challenge process.
7. Commission staff is making available to the public the resulting map of presumptively eligible areas (overlaid with the uniform grid) for each state or state equivalent. The maps of unsubsidized coverage for specific providers will only be made available to a challenger through USAC's online challenge portal (the USAC portal) after the challenger agrees to keep such maps confidential.
8. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to make public the map of areas presumptively eligible for MF-II support no earlier than four weeks after
9. The Bureaus are providing 30 days' notice of the opening of the USAC portal and commencement of the challenge window.
10. Under the challenge process framework adopted by the Commission, a challenger must use the USAC portal to access the confidential provider-specific information that is pertinent to a challenge, as well as to submit its challenge, including all supporting evidence and required certifications. A challenger must log into the USAC portal using the account created pursuant to the procedures in the
11. The Bureaus remind parties participating in the challenge process that it is each party's responsibility to ensure the security of its computer systems, user IDs, and passwords, and to ensure that only authorized persons access, download, or upload data into the challenge process portal on the party's behalf. The Commission assumes no responsibility or liability for these matters. To the extent a technical or security issue arises with the USAC portal, Commission staff will take all appropriate measures to resolve such issues quickly and equitably. Should an issue arise that is outside the USAC portal or attributable to a challenge process participant—including, but not limited to, a participant's hardware, software, or internet access problem—and which prevents the participant from accessing provider-specific data or submitting a challenge prior to the close of the challenge window, the Commission shall have no obligation to resolve or remediate such an issue on behalf of the participant.
12. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to make available in a downloadable format through the USAC portal the provider-specific data underlying the map of presumptively eligible areas. Among other geographic data, a challenger will be able to access the following data in shapefile format on a state-by-state basis: (a) The boundaries of the state (or state equivalent) overlaid with the uniform grid; (b) the confidential coverage maps submitted by providers for the one-time 4G LTE data collection; and (c) the map of initial eligible areas. In addition, as proposed, challengers will be able to access, for each state, the confidential provider-specific data on the list of pre-approved handsets and the clutter information submitted for the one-time 4G LTE data collection. These data will be available for download in a tabular comma-separated value (CSV) format. A challenger will not have access to confidential provider-specific information unless and until it agrees to treat the data as confidential. Specifically, a challenger must agree to only use confidential provider-specific information for the purpose of submitting an MF-II challenge in the USAC portal before a challenger may download these data.
13. In the
14. When collecting speed data, a challenger must use at least one of the three handsets identified by each provider whose coverage is the subject of the specific challenge. A challenger must purchase an appropriate service plan from each unsubsidized service provider in the challenged area. The Commission explained in the
15. The Commission decided in the
16. The density of submitted speed points will be validated as part of a multi-step geospatial-data-processing approach. Consistent with the Commission's decision in the
17. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to use kilometers instead of miles to be consistent with the de minimis challenge size adopted by the Commission, as well as to be consistent with the units used for the “equal area” map projection that we will use when processing geospatial data. Consistent with the Commission's direction to adopt a maximum distance value, the Bureaus adopt the proposal that speed test measurements must be no more than one-half of one kilometer apart from one another. As a result, the buffer radius will equal one-quarter of one kilometer. The Bureaus also adopt the proposal to require a challenger to submit data for at least one speed test within the challengeable area of a grid cell in order to challenge an area within the grid cell. The requirement that measurements be taken no more than one-half of one kilometer apart from one another serves as an upper bound (
18. Under the challenge process framework that the Commission adopted, all ineligible areas may be challenged and challengers have the option to conduct speed tests that cover the areas they wish to challenge. Similarly, responding providers have the option to submit speed tests that demonstrate their coverage. These options will not be diminished or otherwise modified by the relative accessibility of an area.
19. In addition to the general requirements for speed tests, the Commission directed the Bureaus to implement any additional parameters to ensure that speed tests accurately reflect the consumer experience in the challenged area. Consistent with this direction, the Bureaus adopt the proposal to require a challenger to submit all speed test measurements collected during the relevant time frame, including those that show speeds greater than or equal to 5 Mbps. While a challenger is able to delete speed tests from the USAC portal, this function should only be used to correct errors in submissions or add information to previous submissions. The Commission will have the ability to review all submitted data, including deleted submissions and speed test data points that show speeds equal to or greater than 5 Mbps.
20. In addition, the Bureaus adopt the proposal to require a challenger to provide data that is commonly collected by speed test software and speed test apps. Specifically, a challenger must provide: Signal strength and latency; the service provider's identity; the make and model of the device used (which must be from that provider's list of pre-approved handsets); the international mobile equipment identity (IMEI) of the tested device; the method of the test (
21. The Bureaus also adopt a requirement that a challenger report information about the server used for speed and latency testing. Specifically, a challenger is required to submit the identity and location of the server used for speed and latency testing.
22. The complete list of data required for a challenge may be found in Appendix D.
23. The Bureaus adopt the proposal that a challenger must submit speed test data in CSV format matching the respective file specifications. A challenger is required to submit a CSV file that contains entries for each speed test run by the challenger to provide evidence in support of its challenge. A challenger can create this file using a template provided in the USAC portal.
24. The Bureaus require a challenger to report information about the server used for speed and latency testing. As a result, the Bureaus have modified the speed test data template proposed in the
25. Additional details about the file formats required for challengers may be found in Appendix D.
26. The Bureaus adopt and explain the detailed procedures for implementing system validation of evidence submitted by a challenger, as directed by the Commission in the
27. In the second step of the system validation process, the USAC system will analyze each speed test record to ensure it meets all standard parameters, other than the maximum distance and substantial coverage requirement. Consistent with the Bureau's proposal, a challenger must submit speed test data in a standard format on a state-by-state basis. If the challenge speed test data meet all standard parameters, the USAC system, as proposed, will determine the set of grid cells in which at least one counted speed test is contained (the challenged grid cells) and will proceed to the third step of the validation process.
28. In step three, the USAC system creates a buffer (
29. In the last step of the validation process, the USAC system determines whether the buffered area of all counted speed tests covers at least 75 percent of the challengeable area in a grid cell. The system will merge the unmeasured area of all providers in a grid cell to determine the aggregated unmeasured area where the challenger has not submitted sufficient speed test evidence for every provider. If the calculated size of the aggregated unmeasured area in the grid cell is greater than 25 percent of the total challengeable area of the grid cell (
30. The Commission decided in the
31. A challenger must certify its challenge(s) before the challenge window closes in order for the challenge to proceed. Through the USAC portal, a challenger will be able to electronically certify its counted speed test measurements on a grid cell by grid cell basis, since the system will consider each challenged grid cell as a separate challenge, or to certify some or all of its challenged grid cells on an aggregated basis. To certify a challenged grid cell, an authorized representative of the challenger must: (1) Provide the name and title of the certifying engineer or government official who substantiated the speed test data; and (2) certify under penalty of perjury that: (a) The qualified engineer or government official has examined the information submitted; and (b) the qualified engineer or government official has certified that all data and statements contained in the submission were generated in accordance with the parameters specified by the Commission and are true, accurate, and complete to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief. The Bureaus will not require a challenger to submit an executed Challenge Data Certification form when it certifies a challenge, though the Bureaus reserve the right to request a copy of the executed form. The Bureaus caution challengers that they will not be legally capable of making the required challenge certification in the USAC portal unless a qualified engineer or government official has substantiated the challenge speed test data by executing the Challenge Data Certification form.
32. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to allow a challenger to certify a presumptively unsuccessful challenge in a grid cell that fails validation solely because the challenger did not include speed test measurements of sufficient density for all providers. This will allow the system to consider all certified challenges in a particular grid cell across all challengers at the close of the challenge window, even if the individual challenges would fail the density requirement on their own.
33. During the challenge window, each challenger will be able to review its certified challenges on a grid cell by grid cell basis and may modify data submitted in support of a challenge after certifying (
34. Following the close of the challenge window, the USAC portal system will process the data submitted by challengers. The type of processing that occurs after the challenge window closes is different from the automatic validation processing that takes place
35. Once opened, the response window will close 30 days later. Although a challenged party will have an opportunity to submit additional data via the USAC portal in response to a certified challenge for the entire duration of the response window, challenged parties are encouraged to file in advance of the deadline. A challenged party will not have an opportunity to submit additional data for the Commission's consideration after the response window closes.
36. A challenged provider must use the USAC portal if it chooses to: (1) access and review the data submitted by the challenger with respect to a challenge within the provider's service area; and/or (2) submit additional data/information to oppose the challenge (
37. The Bureaus again remind parties participating in the challenge process that it is each party's responsibility to ensure the security of its computer systems, user IDs, and passwords, and to ensure that only authorized persons access, download, or upload data into the challenge process portal on the party's behalf. The Commission assumes no responsibility or liability for these matters. To the extent a technical or security issue arises with the USAC portal, Commission staff will take all appropriate measures to resolve such issues quickly and equitably. Should an issue arise that is outside the USAC portal or attributable to a challenge process participant—including, but not limited to, a participant's hardware, software, or internet access problem—and which prevents the participant from accessing challenge information or submitting response data prior to the close of the response window, the Commission shall have no obligation to resolve or remediate such an issue on behalf of the participant.
38. Each challenged provider will be able to access and download through the USAC portal all speed test data associated with certified challenges on that provider's network. Specifically, after the USAC system finishes processing challenger data, a challenged party will be able to view and download the counted speed test data associated with a certified challenge that disputes the challenged party's coverage,
39. A challenged party is not required to respond to a challenge within its service area. If a challenged provider chooses to respond to a challenge, the Commission will accept as response data certain technical information that is probative regarding the validity of a challenger's speed tests, including speed test data, information regarding speed reductions that affected specific challenger speed tests, and other device-specific data collected from transmitter monitoring software. If a challenged party submits its own speed test data, the data must conform to the same standards and requirements adopted for the challengers, except for the recency of the submitted data. Parties submitting technical data other than speed tests, including data from transmitter monitoring software, are required to include “geolocated, device-specific throughput measurements and other device-specific information (rather than generalized key performance indicator statistics for a cell-site).” Only data collected after the publication of the initial eligibility map and within six months of the scheduled close of the response window will be accepted from challenged parties. Response data must be reliable and credible to be useful during the adjudication process. Any evidence submitted by a challenged party in response to a challenge must be substantiated by the certification of a qualified engineer or official under penalty of perjury.
40. Consistent with the Commission's decision in the
41. While data submitted by a challenged party will not be subject to the identical system validation process used for challenger speed test data, the system will process any submitted speed data using a similar approach. The USAC system will analyze each speed test record to ensure it meets all standard parameters and apply a buffer with a fixed radius to each counted speed measurement.
42. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to allow a challenged party to submit data identifying a particular device that a challenger used to conduct its speed tests as having been subjected to reduced speeds, along with the precise date and time the speed reductions were in effect on the challenger's device (speed reduction data). As the Commission explained in the
43. The Bureaus acknowledge that a provider may reduce data speed for various reasons, and expect that evidence of user-specific speed reductions will be more probative and given more weight during adjudication than evidence of common network practices affecting all subscribers independent of the service plan used. Speed reduction data will be most probative of the validity of challenger speed tests when those data show that specific test results were caused by the challenger's chosen rate plan or the challenger's data usage in the relevant billing period. While the Bureaus will not require a challenger and challenged party to coordinate before speed test data are recorded, interested parties will not be prohibited from coordinating with one another regarding speed tests if they choose to do so.
44. Under the MF-II challenge process framework adopted by the Commission, a challenged party may submit device-specific data collected from transmitter monitoring software in responding to a challenge. As stated in the
45. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to require that measurements from submitted transmitter monitoring software data conform to the standard parameters and requirements adopted by the Commission for speed test data submitted by a challenged party. The Bureaus will require that such measurements reflect device usage between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (midnight) local time and be collected after the publication of the initial eligibility map and within six months of the scheduled close of the response window. The Bureaus will not require challenged parties to submit all transmitter monitoring software data collected over the relevant time period due to the potential massive volume of data that could be collected over six months. The complete file specifications for respondent transmitter monitoring software data is detailed in Appendix D. The Bureaus caution that triangulated data with large inaccuracies may not be precise enough to constitute device-specific geolocated measurements because an engineer would not be able to certify to the accuracy of a particular speed test occurring at a particular location.
46. The Bureaus adopt the proposal that challenged parties submit speed test data in CSV format matching the respective file specifications. Challenged parties are required to submit a CSV file that contains entries for each speed test run by the challenged party to provide evidence in support of its response. A challenged party can create this file using a template provided in the USAC portal. The Bureaus will also require that data from transmitter monitoring software be submitted using this same template. A challenged party may leave the device IMEI and device ID fields blank when submitting data from transmitter monitoring software.
47. The Bureaus also adopt the proposal to require challenged parties that file speed reduction data to file the data in CSV format matching the respective file specifications. This file can be created using a template provided in the USAC portal. The Bureaus will permit challenged parties to leave the device download speed data field blank if that provider's plan does not reduce speeds to a fixed value. In order to be useful when evaluating challenges, the Bureaus conclude that the data captured in the speed reduction data template must reflect when a particular device was known to have actually experienced reduced speeds.
48. The Bureaus expect that speed reduction data would need to show that a specific speed test result was affected by a speed reduction—not merely that the challenger was eligible for (
49. The Bureaus' decision to require that response speed test data, transmitter monitoring software data, and speed reduction data be submitted in a certain format is consistent with the Commission's direction that the Bureaus implement “any additional requirements that may be necessary or appropriate for data submitted by a challenged party in response to a challenge.” To the extent response data requires further explanation that does not fit into the templates, a challenged party may additionally provide a descriptive narrative in a text box
50. Additional details about the attributes and the file formats that we will require for respondents may be found in Appendix D.
51. The Commission decided in the
52. Only those responses that have been certified by the close of the response window will be considered during the adjudication phase. A challenged party will be able to electronically certify its submitted response data for each challenged grid cell via the USAC portal. To certify a response, an authorized representative of the challenged party must: (1) Provide the name and title of the certifying engineer that substantiated the data; and (2) certify under penalty of perjury that: (a) The qualified engineer has examined the information submitted; and (b) the qualified engineer has certified that all data and statements contained in the submission were generated in accordance with the parameters specified by the Commission and are true, accurate, and complete to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief.
53. During the response window, a challenged party will also be able to review, modify, and delete any certified response data it no longer wishes to submit, and will be required to re-certify any responses for which it submits additional or modified data or deletes data; however, any new or modified data must also be certified by a qualified engineer. A challenged party will not have an opportunity to amend submitted data, submit additional data, or certify any response after the response window has closed.
54. As the Commission determined in the
55. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to make available to challengers and respondents data about their challenges and responses through the USAC portal after Commission staff have adjudicated all challenges and responses. In particular, the Bureaus will provide to each challenger or respondent for each of the grid cells associated with their certified challenges or certified responses, respectively: (a) The outcome of the adjudication; (b) the evidence submitted and certified by all challengers; and (c) the evidence submitted and certified by all respondents. Additionally, the Bureaus will make public on the Commission's website, concurrent with the publication of the final eligibility map, the outcome of the adjudication for each challenged cell and the non-confidential components of the data submitted by challengers and respondents.
56. The Commission will send a copy of this Public Notice to Congress and the Government Accountability Office, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.
57. The
58. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission prepared Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFAs) in connection with the
59. The
60. More specifically, the
61. Finally, the challenge procedures established in the
62. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the proposed procedures and policies presented in the Supplemental IRFA.
63. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule(s) as a result of those comments.
64. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed procedures in this proceeding.
65. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
66. FRFAs were incorporated into the
67. The data, information, and document collection required by the
68. If a challenged party chooses to submit its own speed test data in response to a challenge, the data must conform to the additional parameters that are required for challengers, except for the requirement to identify the service provider. A challenged party may also submit data identifying a particular device that a challenger used to conduct its speed tests as having been subjected to reduced speeds, along with the precise date and time the speed reductions were in effect on the challenger's device. If a challenged party chooses to submit data collected from transmitter monitoring software, the data should include geolocated, device-specific throughput measurements or other device-specific information (rather than generalized key performance indicator statistics for a cell-site). Measurements from submitted transmitter monitoring software data must conform to the standard parameters and requirements for speed test data submitted by a challenged party, and must include: The latitude and longitude to at least five decimals of the measured device; the date and time of the measurement; and signal strength, latency, and recorded speeds. The Bureaus also clarify that such geolocated data be accurate to within 7.8 meters of the actual device location 95 percent of the time.
69. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its
70. The challenge procedures established in the
71. The Commission will send a copy of the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues regulations to implement management measures described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). This final rule revises the recreational fishing year and modifies the recreational fixed closed season for greater amberjack in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The purposes of this final rule and the framework action are to constrain recreational harvest to assist in ending overfishing, and to rebuild the greater amberjack stock in the Gulf, while achieving optimum yield of the stock in the Gulf.
This final rule is effective April 30, 2018.
Electronic copies of the framework action, which includes an environmental assessment, a regulatory impact review, and a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at
Kelli O'Donnell, NMFS SERO, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes greater amberjack, is managed under the FMP. The Council prepared the FMP, and NMFS implements the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Steven Act) through regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
On January 26, 2018, NMFS published a proposed rule for the framework action and requested public comment (83 FR 3670). The proposed rule and the framework action outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the management measures described in the framework action and implemented by this final rule is provided below.
This final rule revises the recreational fishing year and the recreational fixed closed season for greater amberjack in the Gulf.
This final rule revises the Gulf greater amberjack recreational fishing year to be August 1 through July 31. The current Gulf recreational fishing year for greater amberjack is January 1 through December 31 and was established in the original FMP (49 FR 39548; October 9, 1984). The change implemented through this final rule allows for greater amberjack recreational harvest to occur later in the year and provides an opportunity to harvest greater amberjack when harvest of many other reef fish species is prohibited due to in-season closures as a result of harvest limits. By starting the fishing year in August, when fishing effort is less, NMFS and the Council expect enough recreational quota remaining to allow for harvest during May of the following calendar year.
Consistent with the change in the fishing year, this final rule revises the years associated with the greater amberjack recreational annual catch limits (ACLs) and quotas. Currently, the recreational ACLs and quotas are defined by the calendar year, which is also the fishing year. With the change to the recreational fishing year, the recreational ACLs and quotas apply across calendar years. Therefore, this final rule assigns the recently implemented 2018 ACL and quota to the remainder of the August 1, 2017, through July 31, 2018, recreational fishing year. The 2019 recreational ACL and quota will correspond to the 2018-2019 recreational fishing year, and the recreational ACL and quota for 2020 and beyond will correspond to all subsequent fishing years.
NMFS recently published a final rule that changed the greater amberjack recreational closed season from June through July each year to January through June (82 FR 61485; December 28, 2017) to allow the Council time to further modify the closed season to create two separate recreational fishing seasons.
This final rule modifies the recreational fixed closed season for greater amberjack to be from January 1 through April 30, June 1 through July 31, and November 1 through December 31, each year. This means that recreational harvest would be allowed in May and from August through October each calendar year unless an in-season closure is necessary to constrain harvest to the recreational quota. Because this final rule also changes the recreational fishing year, NMFS expects any in-season quota closure to occur later in the fall or during May of the following year. However, because NMFS expects the recreational fixed closed season to reduce recreational landings NMFS also expects this change to reduce the likelihood of an in-season closure and landings exceeding the recreational ACL. This final rule is also expected to protect greater amberjack during peak spawning months in the majority of the Gulf (March through April), thereby contributing to rebuilding the greater amberjack stock by the end of the designated time period in 2027.
NMFS received a total of 46 comments on the proposed rule for the framework action from individual fishers and two for-hire fishing vessel associations. Several commenters supported the proposed measures for Gulf greater amberjack. Other comments stated that changes to fishing regulations cause confusion, and suggested a tag system to measure harvest of greater amberjack, but those assertions were outside the scope of the proposed rule and therefore are not addressed here.
Specific comments related to the framework action and the proposed rule are grouped by topic and summarized below, followed by NMFS' respective responses.
In addition, changing the fishing year to begin on August 1 provides access to greater amberjack later in the calendar year, which is a period when the harvest of other targeted species (
The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined that this final rule is consistent with the framework action, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this final rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this final rule.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) during the proposed rule stage that this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments from the public or the SBA's Chief Counsel for Advocacy were received regarding the certification, and NMFS has not received any new information that would affect its determination. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Fisheries, Fishing, Greater amberjack, Gulf, Recreational, Reef fish.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(h)
(c)
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii)
(B) For the 2018-2019 fishing year—902,185 lb (409,224 kg).
(C) For the 2019-2020 fishing year and subsequent fishing years—1,086,985 lb (493,048 kg).
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) The applicable recreational ACL for greater amberjack, in round weight, is 862,860 lb (391,387 kg) for the 2017-2018 fishing year, 1,086,970 lb (493,041 kg) for the 2018-2019 fishing year, and 1,309,620 lb (594,034 kg) for 2019-2020 fishing year and subsequent fishing years.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
This final rule authorizes the use of midwater long-leader gear for recreational fishing in waters seaward of a boundary line approximating the 40 fathoms depth contour off the coast of Oregon. Both charter and private vessels are authorized to use midwater long-leader gear seaward of the 40 fathom seasonal depth closure, while being monitored with the existing Oregon Ocean Recreational Boat Sampling (ORBS) program. The use of midwater long-leader gear is intended to limit bycatch of overfished and rebuilding rockfish species, such as bottom-dwelling yelloweye rockfish, while still allowing for the catch of abundant midwater species such as yellowtail and widow rockfish. The season will occur between April and September, months currently subject to depth restrictions.
Effective April 1, 2018.
Christopher Biegel, phone: 503-231-6291, fax: 503-872-2737, or email:
This final rule is accessible via the internet at the Office of the Federal Register website at
Since 2004, NMFS has restricted Oregon recreational groundfish fisheries to shallow depths (<20-40 fm) during peak effort to reduce interactions with
To increase recreational fishing opportunities in these ports and relieve pressure from nearshore reefs, NMFS issued exempted fishing permits (EFPs) to the Oregon Recreational Fishing Alliance and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) from 2009-2011 to test the viability of long-leader gear. The long-leader gear tested under this EFP test fishing program and authorized for use by this rule has one line with no more than three hooks, a sinker at the bottom, at least 30 feet (9.14 m) between the sinker and the lowest hook, and a non-compressible float above the hooks. This gear limits interaction with deeper water groundfish species that inhabit areas close to the seafloor by suspending the hooks well above the seafloor. In 2005, based in part on favorable EFP test fishing results using midwater long-leader gear on Oregon sport charter fishing vessels, the Council requested that NMFS implement regulations authorizing a midwater long-leader fishery in the Federal waters off the Oregon coast.
This final rule authorizes midwater long-leader recreational groundfish fishing seaward of a line approximating the 40 fathom depth curve exclusively off the coast of Oregon (42°00′ North latitude [N lat.] to 46°18′ N lat.) from April 1 to September 30. NMFS expects this gear configuration will allow recreational anglers to target abundant and healthy midwater species while avoiding or minimizing interactions with overfished rockfish species. When deploying this gear, anglers are authorized to use artificial lures or flies less than or equal to 5 inches (12.7 cm) in length. However, anglers may not use natural bait, or lures or flies greater than 5 inches (12.7 cm) in length, as was the case under the terms and conditions of the EFP. This final rule retains this prohibition on live bait, which was originally part of the EFP test fishing program to limit impacts to canary rockfish that were overfished at that time, because canary has only recently been declared rebuilt and it is prudent to take actions that are precautionary and limit initial impacts on newly rebuilt species. If desired, NMFS and the Council could work towards removing the prohibition in the future.
Under the action, anglers are also prohibited from possessing lingcod. All other existing state and Federal groundfish regulations, such as bag limits and rockfish conservation areas, remain in effect. ODFW will monitor this fishery through its existing Ocean Recreational Boat Survey. The Council approved language in the definition of long-leader gear that included a prohibition on “large lures.” However, the Council did not define this term. After consultation with ODFW, this final rule defines “large lure” as
NMFS published a proposed rule for this action on December 12, 2017 (82 FR 60170). We received 67 comments on the proposed rule. We received public comments from 3 recreational fishing organizations, 2 boat owners, 6 charter operators, 1 tackle shop, 3 EFP participants, 32 recreational anglers, and 17 private citizens. These comments are discussed below.
We adjusted the proposed rule's regulatory text defining lure size to make it clearer and to assist in enforcement. The text “
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1854(b)(1)(A), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
This final rule does not contain policies with federalism or “takings” implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.
Because this rule relieves a restriction, it is not subject to the 30-day delayed effectiveness provision of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)). This final rule allows recreational anglers to target groundfish using midwater long-leader gear, from April 1 to September 30, in waters seaward of a boundary line approximating the 40 fathoms depth contour off the coast of Oregon. These months were previously subject to depth restrictions. Therefore, NMFS is setting the effective date for this rule as April 1, 2018, to match the start of the fishing season and allow recreational anglers the opportunity to use long-leader gear for the duration of the 2018 fishing season.
Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 604, requires federal agencies to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for each final rule. A FRFA was prepared and incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) and includes a summary of the analyses completed to support the action are included below. A statement of the need for, and the objectives of, this action is contained in the proposed rule and the preamble to this final rule, and is not repeated here. NMFS also prepared a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for this action. A copy of the RIR/FRFA is available from NMFS (see the Electronic Access section of this preamble). A summary of the FRFA, per the requirements of RFA section 604 follows.
There were no issues raised about the IRFA in the public comments; therefore no changes were made with regard to issues discussed in the IRFA.
For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
The SBA defines a small business as one that is:
This final rule impacts recreational fish harvesting entities engaged in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery. An estimated 104 recreational charter entities targeted groundfish in Oregon in 2014. Each of these vessels had an estimated average revenue of $35,743 from groundfish, from a total annual average revenue of $116,453, with other significant revenue earned in the salmon, tuna/albacore, and shellfish fisheries.
In 2015 there were 106,504 angler trips in the Oregon recreational groundfish fisheries. This accounted for $14,225,329 in trip-related expenses (excludes durable goods) and 327 jobs in the state of Oregon.
Many charter operations in Oregon earn a majority of their revenue from salmon fishing, however given the natural variability of the salmon fishery year to year, there is a potential for more commercial charter operations to turn to groundfish if the salmon fishery declines.
There are no new reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with this rule.
The economic impact of the measures in this rule are discussed in section 3.4 of the final Environmental Assessment (EA) (see the Electronic Access section of this preamble) and are not repeated here. This rule is expected to give recreational charter entities in Oregon increased flexibility to pursue groundfish fishing opportunities, which is expected to provide positive economic impacts. The rule does not limit any existing activity or impose any mandatory new costs on the fleet, so the overall benefit to small entities is expected to be slightly positive, as some or most vessels may not choose to participate in the midwater fishery due to increased fuel costs from the distance required to travel, and because of midwater gear requirements.
The EA analyzed three alternatives in addition to a no action alternative. The preferred alternative (Alternative 1) allows private and charter recreational vessels use long-leader gear seaward of the 40 fm depth curve from April to September. The other two alternatives would have allowed the same vessels to use long-leader gear seaward of the 40 fm depth curve from July to September (Alternative 2) or in the month of August (Alternative 3). All of the action alternatives are expected to result in minor beneficial economic impacts, with the preferred alternative providing the largest window of time for the recreational harvest to occur, and thus providing the greatest likely economic benefits. As all of the alternatives would provide positive benefits, there were no alternatives rejected that would have mitigated adverse effects on small entities.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, NMFS will send a small entity compliance guide to interested parties via the groundfish email list server. In addition, copies of this final rule and guides (
Fisheries, Fishing, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(B)
(iii) * * *
(B)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; modification of a closure.
NMFS is opening directed fishing for northern rockfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI). This action is necessary to fully use the 2018 total allowable catch (TAC) of northern rockfish in the BSAI.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 26, 2018, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2018. Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., April 10, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
Pursuant to the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018), NMFS closed directed fishing for northern rockfish under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii).
As of March 21, 2018, NMFS has determined that approximately 4,800 metric tons of northern rockfish initial TAC remains unharvested in the BSAI. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the 2018 TAC of northern rockfish in the BSAI, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is opening directed fishing for northern rockfish in the BSAI. This will enhance the socioeconomic well-being of harvesters in this area. The Administrator, Alaska Region (Regional Administrator) considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) The current catch of northern rockfish in the BSAI and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels in participating in this fishery.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and § 679.25(c)(1)(ii) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of northern rockfish in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 21, 2018.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for northern rockfish in the BSAI to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until April 10, 2018.
This action is required by §§ 679.20 and 679.25 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the regulations to allow the importation of fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand into the continental United States. As a condition of entry, fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand would be subject to a systems approach that would include irradiation treatment, packinghouse processing requirements, and port of entry inspection. The fruit would also be required to be imported in commercial consignments and be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of Thailand. This action would allow for the importation of fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests into the continental United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 29, 2018.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Ms. Claudia A. Ferguson, MS, Senior Regulatory Policy Coordinator, Imports, Regulations, and Manuals, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-2352.
Under the regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-82, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests.
The regulations currently do not authorize the importation of fresh pummelo fruit (
The PRA, titled “Importation of Fruit of Pummelo,
The PRA identifies 21 actionable pests that could be introduced into the United States in consignments of fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand. The pests listed in the PRA are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Based on the findings of the PRA, APHIS has determined that measures beyond standard port of entry inspection are required to mitigate the risks posed by these pests. These measures are identified in the RMD and are used as the basis for the requirements included in this proposed rule. We are therefore proposing to allow the importation of fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand into the continental United States if it is produced and
Only commercial consignments of fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand would be accepted for import into the continental United States. Produce grown commercially is less likely to be infested with plant pests than noncommercial consignments. Noncommercial consignments are more prone to infestations because the commodity is often ripe to overripe, could be of a variety with unknown susceptibility to pests, or is grown with little or no pest control. Commercial consignments, as defined in § 319.56-2, are consignments that an inspector identifies as having been imported for sale and distribution. Such identification is based on a variety of indicators, including, but not limited to: Quantity of produce, type of packing, identification of grower or packinghouse on the packaging, and documents consigning the fruits or vegetables to a wholesaler or retailer.
Under this proposed rule, fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand would be required to be treated with a minimum absorbed irradiation dose of 400 Gy in accordance with § 305.9 of the phytosanitary treatment regulations in 7 CFR part 305. This is the established generic dose for all insect pests except pupae and adults of the order Lepidoptera.
While it is true that three of the quarantine pests associated with fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand are Lepidopteran, irradiation in conjunction with other mitigations against Lepidopteran pests, can provide phytosanitary protection for several reasons:
• While the treatment is not lethal to pupae and adults of the order Lepidoptera, it is lethal to larvae. Larvae are of greatest phytosanitary concern given that they are internal feeders and may therefore be overlooked upon inspection.
• Irradiation tends to prevent normal adult emergence from the pupal stage.
• Irradiation also causes sterility in pupae and emerged adults, preventing further larval reproduction. Moreover, pupae and adult Lepidoptera are unlikely to be associated with fresh pummelo fruit.
The shipments of fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand would also have to meet all other relevant treatment requirements in part 305.
Those plant pests associated with the importation pathway for fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand that are non-Insecta (XCC,
A phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Thailand would have to accompany each consignment of fresh pummelo fruit. If the fresh pummelo fruit was irradiated in Thailand, the fresh pummelo fruit would have to be jointly inspected by APHIS and the NPPO of Thailand, and the phytosanitary certificate would have to contain additional declarations attesting to this joint inspection and to the irradiation of the fresh pummelo fruit in Thailand. If the fresh pummelo fruit will be irradiated upon arrival in the United States, these additional declarations would not be needed.
The phytosanitary certificate ensures the fresh pummelo fruit was inspected by the NPPO of Thailand, and certifies that the fresh pummelo fruit meets our requirements for export to the continental United States. Additional declarations provide assurances regarding joint inspection and proper administration of irradiation treatment.
Shipments of fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand would be subject to inspection at the port of entry. This will provide an additional layer of phytosanitary protection in order to prevent the dissemination of plant pests into the continental United States.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed rule is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under
Pummelo is a relatively minor citrus fruit for which there is limited information. There are no official statistics on the volume or value of pummelos produced or consumed in the United States. Agricultural statistics for California report that the area planted in pummelo and hybrid groves in 2016 totaled 1,587 acres. California production that year totaled 540,000 boxes, or about 19,595 metric tons, and had a farm gate value of $9.04 million. The expected volume of imports from Thailand would be the equivalent of about 1 percent of California's pummelo production. Unofficially, there are about 100 pummelo growers in California. The majority of these producers likely operate as small entities, given that this is true for producers of citrus fruit generally.
Information on pummelo production in Arizona, Florida, or Texas is not available. U.S. import and export data specific to pummelo are also not available because pummelo is grouped with grapefruit in Department of Commerce trade statistics (Harmonized Tariff Schedule 080540).
Based on the information we have, there is no reason to conclude that adoption of this proposed rule would result in any significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. However, we do not currently have all of the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, we are inviting comments on potential effects. In particular, we are interested in determining the number and kind of small entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation of this proposed rule.
This proposed rule would allow fresh pummelo fruit to be imported into the continental United States from Thailand under a systems approach. If this
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
APHIS is proposing to amend the regulations to allow the importation of fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand into the continental United States. As a condition of entry, fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand would be subject to a systems approach that would include irradiation treatment, packinghouse processing requirements, and port of entry inspection. The fruit would also be required to be imported in commercial consignments and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Thailand. This action would allow for the importation of fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests into the continental United States.
Implementing this information collection will require respondents to complete phytosanitary certificates and port of entry inspections.
We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
A copy of the information collection may be viewed on the
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we are proposing to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Fresh pummelo fruit (
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 and Model ATR72 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracking in main landing gear (MLG) universal joints (U-joints). This proposed AD would require repetitive detailed inspections of the affected U-joints for cracks, and replacement if necessary. This proposed AD would also provide an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 14, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Safran Landing Systems, Inovel Parc Sud-7, rue Général Valérie André, 78140 VELIZY-VILLACOUBLAY—FRANCE; phone: +33 (0) 1 46 29 81 00; internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3220.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0172, dated September 7, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 and Model ATR72 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Occurences were reported of finding cracked universal joints (U-joints) Part Number (P/N) D56805, P/N D56805-2, P/N D61036 and P/N D62050. Subsequent investigation identified a batch of affected U-joints which were subjected to a possible non-detected thermal abuse done during the grinding process by the U-joint manufacturer in production, or by a maintenance organization during overhaul and/or repair.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to MLG structural failure and subsequent collapse of the MLG, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, SAFRAN Landing Systems (SLS), published Service Bulletin (SB) 631-32-249 for MLGs fitted on ATR42-200, ATR42-300 and ATR42-320; SB 631-32-250 for MLGs fitted on ATR42-400 and ATR42-500; and SB 631-32-251 for MLGs fitted on ATR72 (all models), to provide inspection instructions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive detailed visual inspections (DVI) of the affected U-joints for cracks, and, depending on findings, replacement with a serviceable part [and provides an optional terminating action].
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Safran Landing Systems has issued Service Bulletin 631-32-249, Revision 1, dated June 26, 2017; Service Bulletin 631-32-250, Revision 1, dated June 26, 2017; and Service Bulletin 631-32-251, Revision 1, dated June 26, 2017. The service information describes procedures for detailed inspections of the affected U-joints for cracking, and replacement if necessary. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 62 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by May 14, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, and -500 airplanes; and Model ATR72-101, -102, -201, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in certain main landing gear (MLG) universal joints (U-joints). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in MLG U-joints, which could lead to MLG structural failure and subsequent collapse of the MLG, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane and injury to the occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For the purposes of this AD, an affected U-joint is any U-joint identified by part number (P/N) and serial number in the applicable service bulletin specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), or (g)(1)(iii) of this AD.
(i) For Model ATR42-200, -300, and -320 airplanes: Safran Landing Systems Service Bulletin 631-32-249, Revision 1, dated June 26, 2017.
(ii) For Model ATR42-500 airplanes: Safran Landing Systems Service Bulletin 631-32-250, Revision 1, dated June 26, 2017.
(iii) For Model ATR72-101, -102, -201, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes: Safran Landing Systems Service Bulletin 631-32-251, Revision 1, dated June 26, 2017.
(2) For the purposes of this AD, a serviceable part is an affected U-joint, as defined in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, released to service by Safran Landing Systems, free of defect, with the letter “V” added on the part (on the identification plate, or in the vicinity of the P/N marking); or a new (never installed) U-joint; or a U-joint repaired as specified in the applicable component maintenance manual (CMM) identified in paragraph (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), or (g)(2)(iii).
(i) For Model ATR42-200, -300, and -320 airplanes: Safran Landing Systems CMM 32-18-28, Rev. 10 or Safran Landing Systems CMM 32-18-30, Rev. 8, both dated June 2, 2017.
(ii) For Model ATR42-500 airplanes: Safran Landing Systems CMM 32-18-45, Rev. 5 or Safran Landing Systems CMM 32-18-63, Rev. 6, both dated June 2, 2017.
(iii) For Model ATR72-101, -102, -201, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes: Safran Landing Systems CMM 32-18-34, Rev. 9, dated June 2, 2017.
Within 3 months or 500 flight cycles (FC), whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 FC: Do a detailed inspection for damage or cracking of each affected U-joint, as identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), or (g)(1)(iii) of this AD.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, any damaged or cracked U-joint is found, before further flight: Replace the U-joint of the affected MLG with a serviceable part, as defined in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), or (g)(1)(iii) of this AD.
Replacement on an airplane of all affected U-joints, as identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, with serviceable parts, as defined in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD for that airplane.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, an affected U-joint, as identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, unless it is a serviceable part, as defined in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
Although the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletins identified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), and (g)(1)(iii) of this AD specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0172, dated September 7, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3220.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Safran Landing Systems, Inovel Parc Sud-7, rue Général Valérie André, 78140 VELIZY-VILLACOUBLAY—FRANCE; phone: +33 (0) 1 46 29 81 00; internet:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace designated as a surface area and remove the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time status, amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and establish Class E airspace designated as an extension to the Class E surface area at Columbus Municipal Airport, Columbus, NE. The FAA is proposing this action at the request of Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) and as the result of an FAA airspace review. Additionally, the geographic coordinates of the airport would be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before May 14, 2018.
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 (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0137; Airspace Docket No. 18-ACE-2 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11B, 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 would amend Class E airspace to support IFR operations at Columbus Municipal Airport, Columbus, NE.
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. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0137; Airspace Docket No. 18-ACE-2.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
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 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 that would:
Amend the Class E airspace designated as a surface area within a 4.2-mile radius (reduced from a 4.7-mile radius) at Columbus Municipal Airport, Columbus, NE; remove the Columbus VOR/DME and the extensions to the southeast and northwest of the airport as they are no longer needed to define this boundary; remove the NOTAM part-time language from the airspace description; and update the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
Establish Class E airspace designated as an extension to the Class E surface area at Columbus Municipal Airport within 2.4 miles each side of the Columbus VOR/DME 150° radial from the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to 7.0 miles southeast of the airport, and within 2.4 miles each side of the Columbus VOR/DME 309° radial from the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to 7.7 miles northwest of the airport; and
Amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.7-mile radius (reduced from a 7.7-mile radius) of Columbus Municipal Airport; remove the Columbus Municipal ILS Localizer, Platte Center NDB, and the associated northwest extension; amend the extension to the southeast to within 2.4 miles (increased from 1.6 miles) each side of the Columbus VOR/DME 150° (previously 157°) radial from the 6.7-mile radius to 7.0 miles (decreased from 11 miles) southeast of the airport; add an extension 2.4 miles each side of the Columbus VOR/DME 309° radial extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 7.7 miles northeast of the airport; and update the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to a request from Minneapolis ARTCC, to bring the airspace into compliance with FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace, and to support the safety and management of IFR operations at this airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, 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 proposed 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 proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
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.
Paragraph 6004. Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Request for comments; public workshop.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing an additional public workshop on medical gas regulation entitled “Medical Gas Regulation: Workshop III.” FDA has previously held two public workshops entitled “Medical Gas Regulation: Workshop I” and “Medical Gas Regulation: Workshop II.” The topic to be discussed is potential areas of Federal drug regulation that should be revised with respect to medical gases.
The public workshop will be held on May 11, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public workshop by August 9, 2018. See the
The public workshop will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, Rm. 1503 (the “Great Room”), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for public workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments may not be considered. For timely consideration, we request that electronic comments on workshop topics be submitted before or within 90 days after each workshop (
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Christine Kirk, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2465, Fax: 301-847-8440, email:
On May 5, 2017, President Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31). Section 756 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act requires FDA to issue final regulations revising Federal drug regulations with respect to medical gases. These public workshops are being held as part of FDA's implementation of the requirements of section 756.
Since the enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) (Pub. L. 112-144), FDA has engaged in multiple activities related to medical gases, including rulemaking. For example, in 2016, FDA issued the final rule “Medical Gas Containers and Closures: Current Good Manufacturing Practice Requirements” (81 FR 81685; November 18, 2016). Other activities include FDA's June 2017 revised draft guidance for industry on current good manufacturing practice for medical gases,
FDA intends to engage in additional rulemaking in this area in accordance with section 756 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017. To conduct rulemaking as efficiently as possible, FDA intends to build on the information and stakeholder input received since FDASIA's enactment. As noted in more detail below, FDA invites comments from stakeholders on specific medical gas issues that could or should be addressed in regulation.
We are holding these workshops to provide an opportunity for medical gas manufacturers and any other interested members of the public to provide input on potential areas of Federal drug regulation that should be revised with respect to medical gases.
We are asking stakeholders to comment on existing medical gas issues that, in their view, should be addressed by regulation change (rather than through other means, such as revisions to guidance or inspection practices). Commenters should include concrete and specific reasons that rulemaking is preferable to other options. Commenters' views regarding the prioritization of particular rulemaking proposals would also be helpful. As noted above, the
During Workshop I (December 2017), FDA and workshop participants discussed the anticipated scope of the medical gas rulemaking, as well as three regulations to which stakeholders have previously requested changes: Part 201 (21 CFR part 201) (labeling generally and labeling for medical air specifically), part 207 (21 CFR part 207) (registration and listing), and parts 210 and 211 (21 CFR parts 210 and 211) (current good manufacturing practice). A stakeholder presentation addressed parts 201, 210, and 211, among other things, including initial stakeholder views on the possibility of having one or more separate CFR sections for designated medical gases. FDA also heard comments on additional regulations and medical gas issues as time allowed.
During Workshop II (February 2018), FDA and workshop participants discussed parts 310, 314, and 514 (21 CFR parts 310, 314, and 514) (postmarket reporting of adverse drug experiences, including adverse reactions and medication errors) and the intersection of regulations for medical gases and regulations for medical devices and animal drugs. A stakeholder
The Agency has determined that we will hold a third workshop to hear additional comments from stakeholders regarding the issues discussed at Workshops I and II, as well as any additional topics related to medical gas regulation that stakeholders may wish to discuss, as time allows. This workshop is primarily intended to build on the discussion from the previous workshops, as well as written comments submitted to the docket.
During Workshop III (May 11, 2018), FDA intends to provide designated panel time for followup discussion of several topics raised at previous workshops, and for an open panel to discuss any additional issues related to medical gas regulation that are of interest to FDA or other workshop participants. The topics for designated panel time include further consideration of potential changes to: Part 201 (labeling); parts 210 and 211 (current good manufacturing practice); part 207 (registration and listing); and parts 310, 314, and 514 (postmarket reporting of adverse drug experiences, including adverse reactions and medication errors); including the possibility of one or more separate CFR sections for designated medical gases. Potential topics for open panel time include, but are not limited to: The certification process for designated medical gases; issues related to the filling of oxygen containers by EMS providers and health care facilities; or other topics of interest to stakeholders.
FDA will try to accommodate all persons who wish to make a presentation; however, the duration of each speaker's presentation may be limited by time constraints. FDA will notify registered presenters of their scheduled presentation times. Persons registered to speak should check in before the workshop and are encouraged to arrive early to ensure their designated order of presentation. Participants who are not present when called may not be permitted to speak at a later time. An agenda will be made available at least 3 days before the workshop at
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Justice (Department) proposes to amend the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulations to clarify that “bump fire” stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics (bump-stock-type devices) are “machineguns” as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger. With limited exceptions, primarily as to government agencies, the GCA makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the statute. The bump-stock-type devices covered by this proposed rule were not in existence prior to the GCA's effective date, and therefore would fall within the prohibition on machineguns if this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is implemented. Consequently, current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule.
Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before June 27, 2018. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after midnight Eastern Daylight Time on the last day of the comment period.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number ATF 2017R-22, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Vivian Chu, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Ave. NE, Washington DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070.
On October 1, 2017, a shooter attacked a large crowd attending an outdoor concert in Las Vegas, Nevada. By using several AR-type rifles with attached bump-stock-type devices, the shooter was able to fire several hundred rounds of ammunition in a short period of time, killing 58 people and injuring over 800. The bump-stock-type devices recovered from the hotel room from which the shooter conducted the attack included two distinct, but functionally equivalent, model variations from the same manufacturer. These devices were readily available in the commercial marketplace through online sales directly from the manufacturer, and through multiple retailers. The manufacturer of these devices is the primary manufacturer and seller of bump-stock-type devices; it has obtained multiple patents for its designs, and has rigorously enforced the patents to prevent competitors from infringing them. Consequently, at the time of the attack, very few competing bump-stock-type devices were available in the marketplace.
The devices used in Las Vegas and the other bump-stock-type devices currently available on the market all utilize essentially the same functional design. They are designed to be affixed to a semiautomatic long gun (most commonly an AR-type rifle or an AK-type rifle) in place of a standard, stationary rifle stock, for the express purpose of allowing “rapid fire” operation of the semiautomatic firearm to which they are affixed. They are configured with a sliding shoulder stock molded (or otherwise attached) to a pistol-grip/handle (or “chassis”) that includes an extension ledge (or “finger rest”) on which the shooter places the trigger finger while shooting the firearm. The devices also generally include a detachable rectangular receiver module (or “bearing interface”) that is placed in the receiver well of the device's pistol-grip/handle to assist in guiding and regulating the recoil of the firearm when fired.
These bump-stock-type devices are generally designed to operate with the shooter shouldering the stock of the device (in essentially the same manner a shooter would use an unmodified semiautomatic shoulder stock), maintaining constant forward pressure with the non-trigger hand on the barrel-shroud or fore-grip of the rifle, and maintaining the trigger finger on the device's extension ledge with constant rearward pressure. The device itself then harnesses the recoil energy of the firearm, providing the primary impetus for automatic fire.
In general, bump-stock-type devices—including those currently on the market with the characteristics described above—are designed to channel recoil energy to increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms from a single trigger pull. Specifically, they are designed to allow the shooter to maintain a continuous firing cycle after a single pull of the trigger by directing the recoil energy of the discharged rounds into the space created by the sliding stock (approximately 1.5 inches) in constrained linear rearward and forward paths. Ordinarily, to operate a semiautomatic firearm, the shooter must repeatedly pull and release the trigger to allow it to reset, so that only one shot is fired with each pull of the trigger. When a bump-stock-type device is affixed to a semiautomatic firearm, however, the device harnesses the recoil energy to slide the firearm back and forth so that the trigger automatically re-engages by “bumping” the shooter's stationary trigger finger without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. The bump-stock-type device functions as a self-acting and self-regulating force that channels the firearm's recoil energy in a continuous back-and-forth cycle that allows the shooter to attain continuous firing after a single pull of the trigger so long as the trigger finger remains stationary on the device's extension ledge (as designed). No further physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter is required.
In 2006, ATF concluded that certain bump-stock-type devices qualified as machineguns under the GCA and NFA. Specifically, ATF concluded that devices attached to semiautomatic firearms that use an internal spring to harness the force of the recoil so that the firearm shoots more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger are machineguns. Between 2008 and 2017, however, ATF also issued classification decisions concluding that other bump-stock-type devices were not machineguns, including a device submitted by the manufacturer of the bump-stock-type devices used in the Las Vegas shooting. Those decisions did not include extensive legal analysis relating to the definition of “machinegun.” Nonetheless, they indicated that semiautomatic firearms modified with these bump-stock-type devices did not fire “automatically,” and were thus not “machineguns,” because the devices did not rely on internal springs or similar mechanical parts to channel recoil energy. ATF has now determined that that conclusion does not reflect the best interpretation of the term “machinegun” under the GCA and NFA. In this proposed rule, the Department accordingly interprets the definition of “machinegun” to clarify that all bump-stock-type devices are “machineguns” under the GCA and NFA because they convert a semiautomatic firearm into a firearm that shoots automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the GCA, as amended, and the NFA, as amended.
The GCA defines “machinegun” by referring to the NFA definition,
In 1986, Congress passed the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA), Pub. L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449, which included a provision that effectively froze the number of legally transferrable machineguns to those that were registered before May 19, 1986. 18 U.S.C. 922(o). Due to the fixed universe of “pre-1986” machineguns that may be lawfully transferred by nongovernmental entities, the value of those machineguns has steadily increased over time. For example, the current average price range for pre-1986 fully automatic versions of AR-type rifles is between $20,000 and $30,000, while the price range for semiautomatic versions of these rifles is between $600 and $2,500.
This price premium on automatic weapons has spurred inventors and manufacturers to attempt to develop firearms, triggers, and other devices that permit shooters to use semiautomatic rifles to replicate automatic fire without converting these rifles into “machineguns” under the GCA and NFA. ATF began receiving classification requests for such firearms, triggers, and other devices in the period from 1988 to 1990. ATF has observed a significant increase in such requests since 2004, often in connection with rifle models that were, until 2004, defined as “semiautomatic assault weapons” and prohibited under the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(30) (commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban) (repealed effective Sept. 13, 2004). Consistent with ATF's experience, the inventor and manufacturer of the bump-stock-type devices used in the Las Vegas shooting has attributed his innovation of those products specifically to the high cost of fully automatic firearms. In a 2011 interview, he stated that he developed the original device because he “couldn't afford what [he] wanted—a fully automatic rifle—so . . . [he made] something that would work and be affordable.”
Shooters use bump-stock-type devices with semiautomatic firearms to accelerate the firearm's cyclic firing rate to mimic automatic fire. Such devices are designed principally to increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms. These devices replace a rifle's standard stock and free the weapon to slide back and forth rapidly, harnessing the energy from the firearm's recoil either through a mechanism like an internal spring or in conjunction with the shooter's maintenance of pressure (typically constant forward pressure with the non-trigger hand on the barrel-shroud or fore-grip of the rifle, and constant rearward pressure on the device's extension ledge with the shooter's trigger finger).
As noted above, ATF has regulated some of these devices as machineguns. Other bump-stock-type devices currently on the market, however, have not been regulated by ATF as machineguns under the GCA or NFA, and thus have not typically been marked with a serial number and other identification markings. Individuals therefore may purchase these devices without undergoing a background check or complying with any other federal regulations applicable to firearms.
In 2002, an inventor submitted a device known as the “Akins Accelerator” to ATF for classification. To operate the Akins Accelerator, the shooter initiated an automatic firing sequence by pulling the trigger one time, which in turn caused the rifle to recoil within the stock, permitting the trigger to lose contact with the finger and manually reset. Springs in the Akins Accelerator then forced the rifle forward, forcing the trigger against the finger, which caused the weapon to discharge the ammunition. The recoil and the spring-powered device thus caused the firearm to cycle back and forth, impacting the trigger finger, which remained rearward in a constant pull without further input by the shooter while the firearm discharged multiple shots. The device was advertised as able to fire approximately 650 rounds per minute.
ATF's classification of the Akins Accelerator focused on application of the “single function of the trigger” prong of the statutory definition of “machinegun.” In an initial assessment of the Akins Accelerator, ATF concluded that the device did not qualify as a machinegun because ATF interpreted “single function of the trigger” to mean a single
In conjunction with its reclassification of the Akins Accelerator, ATF published ATF Ruling 2006-2, “Classification of Devices Exclusively Designed to Increase the Rate of Fire of a Semiautomatic Firearm.” The Ruling explained that ATF had received requests from “several members of the firearms industry to classify devices that are exclusively designed to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm.” ATF Ruling 2006-2, at 1. After setting forth a detailed description of the components and functionality of the Akins Accelerator and devices with similar designs, ATF Ruling 2006-2 determined that the phrase “single function of the trigger” in the statutory definition of “machinegun” was best interpreted to mean a “single pull of the trigger.”
Following its reclassification of the Akins Accelerator as a machinegun, ATF determined that removal and disposal of the internal spring would render the device a non-machinegun under the statutory definition. Hence, ATF advised individuals who had purchased the Akins Accelerator that they had the option of removing and disposing of the internal spring, thereby placing the device outside the classification of machinegun and allowing the purchaser/possessor to retain the device in lieu of destroying or surrendering the device.
The inventor of the Akins Accelerator filed a complaint against the United States in May 2008, challenging the classification of the device as a machinegun as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that “[t]he interpretation by the Bureau that the phrase `single function of the trigger' means a `single pull of the trigger' is consonant with the statute and its legislative history.”
In ten letter rulings between 2008 and 2017, ATF assessed other bump-stock-type devices. Like the Akins Accelerator, these other bump-stock-type devices allowed the shooter to fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger. As discussed below, however, ATF ultimately concluded that these devices did not qualify as machineguns because, in ATF's view, they did not “automatically” shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger. ATF has also applied the “single pull of the trigger” interpretation to other trigger actuators, two-stage triggers, and other devices submitted to ATF for classification. Depending on the method of operation, some such devices were classified to be machineguns that were required to be registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.
On April 13, 2015, ATF issued a classification letter regarding a device characterized as a “positive reset trigger,” designed to be used on a semiautomatic AR-style rifle. The device consisted of a support/stock, secondary trigger, secondary trigger link, pivot toggle, shuttle link, and shuttle. ATF determined that, after a single pull of the trigger, the device utilized recoil energy generated from firing a projectile to fire a subsequent projectile. ATF noted that “a `single function of the trigger' is a single pull,” and that the device utilized a “single function of the trigger” because the shooter need not release the trigger to fire a subsequent projectile, and instead “can maintain constant pressure through a single function of the trigger.”
On October 7, 2016, ATF issued a classification letter regarding two devices described as “LV-15 Trigger Reset Devices.” The devices, which were designed to be used on an AR-type rifle, were essentially identical in design and function and were submitted by the same requestor (per the requestor, the second device included “small improvements that have come as the result of further development since the original submission”). The devices were each powered by a rechargeable battery and included the following components: a self-contained trigger mechanism with an electrical connection, a modified two-position semiautomatic AR-15 type selector lever, a rechargeable battery pack, a grip assembly/trigger guard with electrical connections, and a piston that projects forward through the lower rear portion of the trigger guard and pushes the trigger forward as the firearm cycles. ATF held that “to initiate the firing . . . a shooter must simply pull the trigger.” It explained that although the mechanism pushed the trigger forward, “the shooter never releases the trigger. Consistent with [the requestor's] explanation, ATF demonstrated that the device fired multiple projectiles with a “single function of the trigger” because a single pull was all that was required to initiate and maintain a firing sequence.
Prior ATF rulings concerning bump-stock-type devices have not provided substantial legal analysis regarding the meaning of the term “automatically” as it is used in the GCA and NFA. Moreover, ATF's prior rulings concerning such devices have applied different understandings of the term “automatically.” ATF Ruling 2006-2 concluded that devices like the Akins Accelerator initiated an “automatic” firing cycle because, once initiated by a single pull of the trigger, “the automatic firing cycle continues until the finger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted.” ATF Ruling 2006-2, at 1. ATF letter rulings between 2008 and 2017, however, concluded that bump-stock-type devices that enable a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single function of the trigger by harnessing a combination of the recoil and the maintenance of pressure by the shooter do not fire “automatically.” Some of these rulings concluded that such devices were not machineguns because they did not “initiate[] an automatic firing cycle that continues until either the finger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted,” without further defining the term “automatically.”
Following the mass shooting in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017, ATF has received correspondence from members of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives, as well as nongovernmental organizations, requesting that ATF examine its past classifications and determine whether bump-stock-type devices currently on the market constitute machineguns under the statutory definition.
In response, on December 26, 2017, as an initial step in the process of promulgating a federal regulation interpreting the definition of “machinegun” with respect to bump-stock-type devices, ATF published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the
On February 20, 2018, President Trump issued a memorandum to Attorney General Sessions concerning “bump fire” stocks and similar devices. 83 FR 7949. The memorandum noted that the Department of Justice had already “started the process of promulgating a Federal regulation interpreting the definition of `machinegun' under Federal law to clarify whether certain bump stock type devices should be illegal.”
Consistent with its authority to “`reconsider and rectify'” potential classification errors,
ATF has now determined, based on its interpretation of the relevant statutory language, that these bump-stock-type devices, which harness recoil energy in conjunction with the shooter's maintenance of pressure, turn legal semiautomatic firearms into machineguns. Specifically, ATF has determined that these devices initiate an “automatic[]” firing cycle sequence “by a single function of the trigger” because the device is the primary impetus for a firing sequence that fires more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger. 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). ATF's classifications of bump-stock-devices between 2008 and 2017 did not include extensive legal analysis of these terms in concluding that the bump-stock-type devices at issue were not “machineguns.” The statutory definition of machinegun includes bump-stock-type devices—irrespective of whether the devices harness recoil energy using a mechanism like an internal spring or in conjunction with the shooter's maintenance of pressure—because these devices enable a semiautomatic firearm to fire “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”
Based on ATF's initial review of the comments it received on the ANPRM, the vast majority of comments concern the legal authority to regulate bump-stock-type devices. Some of those comments opined that the Department has the power to regulate bump-stock-type devices. Most, however, contended that the Department lacks such authority, either because only Congress has the authority to regulate bump-stock-type devices or because the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution precludes any federal regulation of such devices.
The Department disagrees. Congress has granted the Attorney General authority to issue rules to administer the GCA and NFA, and the Attorney General has delegated to ATF the authority to administer and enforce those statutes and implementing regulations.
Numerous persons commented that bump-stock-type devices do not fall under the statutory definition of “machinegun because, when attached, they do not change the mechanical functioning of a semiautomatic firearm, and still require a separate trigger pull for each fired round.” They noted that bump firing is a technique, and pointed to many other ways in which a shooter
The Department disagrees. The relevant statutory question is whether a particular device causes a firearm to “shoot * * * automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). Bump firing and other techniques for increasing the rate of fire do not satisfy this definition because they do not produce an automatic firing sequence with a single pull of the trigger. Instead, bump firing without an assistive device requires the shooter to exert pressure with the trigger finger to re-engage the trigger for each round fired. The bump-stock-type devices described above, however, satisfy the definition. ATF's classification decisions between 2008 and 2017 did not reflect the best interpretation of the term “automatically” as used in the definition of “machinegun,” because those decisions focused on the lack of mechanical parts like internal springs in the bump-stock-type devices at issue. The bump-stock-type devices at issue in those rulings, however, utilized the recoil of the firearm itself to maintain an automatic firing sequence initiated by a single pull of the trigger. As with the Akins Accelerator, the bump-stock-type devices at issue cause the trigger to “bump” into the finger, so that the shooter need not pull the trigger repeatedly to expel ammunition. As stated above, ATF previously focused on the trigger itself to interpret “single function of the trigger,” but adopted a better legal and practical interpretation of “function” to encompass the shooter's activation of the trigger by, as in the case of the Akins Accelerator and other bump-stock-type devices, a single pull that causes the weapon to shoot until the ammunition is exhausted or the pressure on the trigger is removed. Because these bump-stock-type devices allow multiple rounds to be fired when the shooter maintains pressure on the extension ledge of the device, ATF has determined that bump-stock-type devices are machinegun conversion devices, and therefore qualify as machineguns under the GCA and the NFA.
Commenters also argued that banning bump-stock-type devices will not significantly impact public safety. Again, the Department disagrees. The shooting in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017, highlighted the destructive capacity of firearms equipped with bump-stock-type devices and the carnage they can inflict. The shooting also made many individuals aware that these devices exist—potentially including persons with criminal or terrorist intentions—and made their potential to threaten public safety obvious. The proposed regulation aims to ameliorate that threat.
Some commenters objected to any regulation of bump-stock-type devices because, they argued, it will decrease innovation in the firearms accessories market and result in the loss of manufacturing and associated jobs. They suggested that the Federal Government should prevent the misuse of firearms through other means, such as by enforcing existing firearms laws, preventing mentally ill persons from acquiring weapons, and enacting more stringent criminal penalties for those who commit crimes with bump-stock-type devices. However, an important step in the enforcement of existing firearms laws is ensuring that ATF's regulations correctly interpret those laws.
This proposed rulemaking will have an economic impact, see
The regulations in 27 CFR part 479 contain the procedural and substantive requirements relative to the importation, manufacturing, making, exportation, identification and registration of, and dealing in machineguns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms and weapons under the NFA. Currently, the regulatory definition of “machine gun” in 27 CFR 479.11 matches the statutory definition of “machinegun” in the NFA quoted in Part I, above. The definition includes the terms “single function of the trigger” and “automatically,” but those terms are not expressly defined in the statutory text. Those terms are best interpreted, however, to encompass firearms equipped with bump-stock-type devices. As discussed above, bump-stock-type devices like the Akins Accelerator and other devices that operate to mimic automatic fire when added to semiautomatic rifles present the same risk to public safety that Congress has already deemed unacceptable by enacting and amending the GCA (18 U.S.C. 922(o)). Therefore, the Department proposes to exercise its delegated authority to clarify its interpretations of the statutory terms “single function of the trigger,” “automatically,” and “machinegun.” Specifically, the Department proposes to amend 27 CFR 479.11 by defining the term “single function of the trigger” to mean “single pull of the trigger.” The Department further proposes to amend these regulations by defining the term “automatically” to mean “as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single pull of the trigger.” Finally, the Department proposes to clarify that the definition of a “machinegun” includes a device that allows semiautomatic firearms to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter (commonly known as bump-stock-type devices).
The interpretation of the phrase “single function of the trigger” to mean “single pull of the trigger” reflects ATF's position since 2006, and it is the best interpretation of the statute. The Supreme Court in
Interpreting the term “automatically” to mean “as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single pull of the trigger” also reflects the ordinary meaning of that term at the time of the NFA's enactment in 1934. The word “automatically” is the adverbial form of “automatic,” meaning “[h]aving a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that performs a required act at a predetermined point in an operation[.]”
Relying on these definitions, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit accordingly interpreted the term “automatically” as used in the NFA as “delineat[ing] how the discharge of multiple rounds from a weapon occurs: as the result of a self-acting mechanism” “set in motion by a single function of the trigger and . . . accomplished without manual reloading.”
Finally, it is reasonable to conclude, based on these interpretations, that the term “machinegun” includes a device that allows a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. When a shooter who has affixed a bump-stock-type device to a semiautomatic firearm pulls the trigger, that movement initiates a firing sequence that produces more than one shot. And that firing sequence is “automatic” because the device harnesses the firearm's recoil energy in a continuous back-and-forth cycle that allows the shooter to attain continuous firing after a single pull of the trigger, so long as the trigger finger remains stationary on the device's ledge (as designed). Accordingly, these devices are included under the definition of machinegun and, therefore, come within the purview of the NFA.
The GCA and its implementing regulations in 27 CFR part 478 incorporate the NFA's definition of machinegun. Accordingly, this proposed rule makes the same amendments to the definitions of “single function of the trigger,” “automatically,” and “machine gun” in 27 CFR 478.11.
The Arms Export Control Act (AECA), as amended, does not include the term “machinegun” in its key provision, 22 U.S.C. 2778. However, regulations in 27 CFR part 447 that implement the AECA include a similar definition of “machinegun,” and explain that machineguns, submachineguns, machine pistols, and fully automatic rifles fall within Category I(b) of the U.S. Munitions Import List when those defense articles are permanently imported.
The proposed rule would replace prior classifications of bump-stock-type devices, including devices that ATF previously determined were not machineguns. The rule thus would supplant any prior letter rulings with which it is inconsistent so that any bump-stock-type device described above qualifies as a machinegun. Accordingly, manufacturers, current owners, and persons wishing to purchase such devices would be subject to the restrictions imposed by the GCA and NFA.
The Department has determined that there would not be a registration period for any device that would be classified as “machinegun” as a result of this rulemaking. The NFA provides that only the manufacturer, importer, or maker of a firearm may register it.
Executive Orders 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) and 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs. This proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771
This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” that is economically significant under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed rule is intended to interpret the definition of “machinegun” within the GCA and NFA such that it includes bump-stock-type devices,
Agencies take regulatory action for various reasons. One of the reasons is to carry out Congress's policy decisions, as expressed in statutes. Here, this rulemaking aims to apply Congress's policy decision to prohibit machineguns. Another reason underpinning regulatory action is the failure of the market to compensate for negative externalities caused by commercial activity. A negative externality can be the byproduct of a transaction between two parties that is not accounted for in the transaction. This proposed rule is addressing a negative externality. The negative externality of the commercial sale of bump-stock-type devices is that they could be used for criminal purposes. This poses a public safety issue that the Department is trying to address.
Table 1 provides a summary of the affected population and anticipated costs and benefits to promulgating this rule.
The populations affected by this rule are manufacturers of bump-stock-type devices, retailers who sell them either in brick-and-mortar stores or online, and individuals who have purchased or would have wanted to purchase bump-stock-type devices. The number of entities and individuals selling or purchasing bump-stock-type devices are as follows:
Because many bump-stock-type devices—including those ATF addressed in classification letters between 2008 and 2017—have not been subject to regulation under the GCA, ATF does not keep track of manufacturers or retailers of bump-stock-type devices, nor does ATF keep track or maintain a database of individuals who have purchased bump-stock-type devices. Therefore, the affected population of manufacturers and retailers is an estimate and based on publicly available information and, with respect to retailers who are also Federal firearms licensees (FFLs), is also based on ATF's records in the Federal Firearms Licensing System.
ATF estimates that since 2010, as many as six domestic bump-stock-type device manufacturers have been in the marketplace, but due to patent infringement litigation, only two remain in the market. For the estimate of the number of retailers, ATF filtered all FFLs for a list of potential sellers. While there are approximately 80,000 FFLs currently licensed, only certain types sell firearms to the public. ATF first removed FFLs that do not sell firearms to the public. Next, since not all FFLs sell firearm accessories, ATF needed to estimate the number that do sell accessories. ATF assumed that FFLs that are likely to sell bump-stock-type devices would have online websites. ATF requests public comment on the reasonableness of the assumption that retailers of bump-stock-type devices are likely to be businesses with an online presence. ATF ran a query on the FFL database and found that of those that sell firearms to the public, 2,270 have websites. Because sellers of firearm accessories do not necessarily sell firearms, ATF also performed an online search and found an additional 11 retailers who sell firearm accessories, but not firearms. Adding these two totals together, ATF estimates that there are 2,281 retailers of bump-stock-type devices.
Because there are no records of individuals who have purchased firearm accessories, ATF does not have an estimated number of individuals who would be affected by this proposed rule. Although ATF lacks data on the number of individuals who have purchased bump-stock-type devices, ATF has some information from one manufacturer and four retailers on the volume of sales of such devices. Based on these reported amounts, ATF estimates that the number of bump-stock-type devices that were purchased during the 8-year period beginning in 2010 ranges from
There are three primary sources of costs from this rule. First, for owners of bump-stock-type devices, there will be a lost value from no longer being able to possess or use the devices. Second, there will be a lost value to manufacturers who would have manufactured and sold the devices in the future and to gun owners who would have purchased them. Finally, there is a disposal cost associated with the need to destroy the devices or render them inactive.
As reported by public comments, individuals purchase bump-stock-type devices so that they can simulate automatic firing on a semiautomatic firearm. Commenters noted a variety of purposes for which bump-stock-type devices have been advertised and used, including for recreation and fun, assisting persons with mobility issues in firing quickly, self-defense, killing invasive pig species, and target practice (although, as some commenters observed, bump-stock-type devices impede firing accuracy). If the proposed rule became effective, bump-stock-type devices would be considered machineguns under the NFA and could not be lawfully possessed because the GCA prohibits persons from possessing a machinegun unless it was lawfully possessed before the effective date of the statute. Bump-stock-type devices currently possessed by individuals would have to be destroyed or turned in upon implementation of the regulation.
The lost value from no longer being able to use or purchase bump-stock-type devices will depend on the volume of sales in the market and the value that consumers place on the devices. ATF has limited information about the market for bump-stock-type devices. One commenter estimated that more than 400,000 bump-stock-type devices may have been sold. Based on publicly available information, ATF estimates that in the first two years that bump-stock-type devices were in the market, approximately 35,000 were sold per year.
ATF first developed an estimate of the number of bump-stock-type devices in the marketplace, based on information on retail sales provided in response to the ANPRM. One retailer stated that it sold an average of 4,000 to 5,000 bump-stock-type devices per year.
The number of large retailers is a known number. As stated in the Affected Population section above, based on ATF's internal database and online research, the remaining number of retailers is 2,270. For the purposes of this RA, ATF assumed that one-third of the remaining retailer population are midrange retailers, and the remaining 1,511 are small retailers. Using these assumed numbers of retailers and annual sales by size of retailer, ATF estimated annual sales of about 75,000 [(4 * 4,400) + (755 * 60) + (1,511 * 8)].
ATF next developed an estimate of the number of bump-stock-type devices in the United States based on information about the numbers of bump-stock-type devices manufactured. Based on publicly available information, ATF estimates that approximately 35,000 bump-stock-type devices were sold in 2010.
The high estimate is ATF's primary estimate because ATF knows that there was an increase in production starting in 2012. In 2012, there were other manufacturers who entered the market, and the first manufacturer increased production at some point thereafter. Furthermore, the primary estimate includes information provided by retailers as a more comprehensive outlook on the overall production numbers. For the purposes of this analysis, ATF assumes that both the increase in production and the market entry of other manufacturers all occurred in 2012. Table 2 provides the breakdown of production for the low estimate, public comment estimate, and primary estimate.
In other words, the number of bump-stock-type devices held by the public could range from about 280,000 to about 520,000.
ATF does not know the production cost of bump-stock-type devices, but for the purposes of this RA, ATF uses the retail sales amounts as a proxy for the total value of these devices. For devices that have already been sold, there are two countervailing effects that affect the value of the devices. There may have been some depreciation of the devices since they were originally purchased, resulting in a value somewhat reduced from the retail price. On the other hand, some consumers would have been willing to pay more than the retail price for a bump-stock-type device, and for these individuals the devices would have a higher valuation than the retail price. Both of these effects are difficult to estimate, and here ATF assumes that the retail sales price is a reasonable proxy for the value of the devices.
The primary manufacturer of bump-stock-type devices sells them at a price of $179.95 to $425.95.
ATF estimates that the total, undiscounted amount spent on bump-stock-type devices was $96.2 million. While the retail prices of these bump-stock-type devices remained constant over the eight years of sales, these purchases occurred over time; therefore, ATF presents the discounted value at 3% and 7% in Table 4 to account for the present value of these purchases.
Because these purchases occurred in the past, ATF's discount years start at -5 and increase to 0 to account for the Executive Order 13771 standard that costs be presented in 2016 dollars. With these assumptions, ATF estimates that the annualized, discounted amount spent on bump-stock-type devices was $14.5 million and $18.3 million at 3% and 7%, respectively.
Based on the same discounting formula, ATF estimates that the total undiscounted cost for the low estimate would be $56.1 million, and the total discounted values would be $60.2 million and $66.3 million at 3% and 7%, respectively. The annualized values for the low estimates of total number of bump-stock-type devices sold are $8.6 million and $11.1 million at 3% and 7%, respectively. For the 400,000-unit estimate provided by the public commenter, the total undiscounted amount would be $76.2 million, and the total discounted values would be $80.9 million and $87.8 million at 3% and 7%, respectively. The annualized values for the 400,000-unit sales estimate are $11.5 million and $14.7 million at 3% and 7%, respectively.
ATF has estimated the lost production and lost sales that would occur in the 10 years after the implementation of this proposed rule, should this proposed rule take effect. In order to do this, ATF needed to predict the number of devices that would be sold in the future in the absence of a rule. Such a prediction should take account of recent expected changes in the demand for and supply of bump-stock-type devices. For example, based on a survey, half of the known, large former retailers of bump-stock-type devices no longer sell bump-stock-type devices as a result of the Las Vegas shooting, nor do they intend to sell them in the future. Moreover, while ATF has estimated the number of bump-stock-type devices manufactured since 2010, ATF is without sufficient information to estimate the number of individuals who were interested in acquiring bump-stock-type devices prior to the Las Vegas shooting but would no longer want them due to the shooting.
Another recent change affecting individuals' future purchases of bump-stock-type devices is that certain States have already banned such devices. These States are California, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington. The effect of States' bans on individuals' future purchases of bump-stock-type devices should not be attributed to this proposed rule since these reductions in purchases would happen with or without the rule. However, ATF was unable to quantify the impact of States' bans and thus was unable to account for the future effects of these bans in the estimate of the effects of the proposed rule.
Based on previously mentioned comments from large retailers, ATF expects that, in the absence of this rule, some retailers would not sell bump-stock-type devices in the future. In order to estimate the expected future reduction in demand for bump-stock-type devices as a result of the Las Vegas shooting, ATF assumes that the reduction of sales by large retailers that has already occurred would be a reasonable estimate of the future reduction of sales overall that would occur in the absence of the rule. ATF estimates that there are four large retailers of bump-stock-type devices, of which two have stated that they would no longer sell bump-stock-type devices regardless of this proposed rule. For the purposes of this regulatory analysis, it is estimated that each of the two large retailers sell 4,400 bump-stock-type devices annually. Removing the effects of these two large retailers from the future market reduces ATF's primary estimate of 74,988 in past annual production to an estimate of 66,484 (75,284 − 8,800) in annual sales that would occur in the future in the absence of a rule. Table 5 provides the estimated breakdown of lost production and sales forgone should this rule become final.
Based on these estimates, ATF estimates that the undiscounted value of forgone future sales over 10 years would be $200.1 million, undiscounted, or $24.3 million and $23.5 million, annualized and discounted at 3% and 7%.
This proposed rule would require the destruction of existing bump-stock-type devices. The cost of disposal would have several components. For individuals who own bump-stock-type devices, there would be a cost for the time and effort to destroy the devices or ensure that they are destroyed by another party. For retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers, there would be a cost of the time and effort to destroy or ensure the destruction of any devices held in inventory. Based on the response from public comments, it is not clear if there would also be a cost from the lost value of that inventory.
Individuals who have purchased bump-stock-type devices prior to the implementation of this rule would have the option of destroying the devices themselves, turning the devices in to the nearest ATF office for destruction by ATF or, subject to compliance with U.S. Mail regulations and the policies of commercial shipment services, sending the devices to ATF through the U.S. Mail or other commercial delivery service. Options for destroying the devices may include melting, crushing, or shredding in a manner that renders the device incapable of ready restoration. Since the majority of bump-stock-type devices are made of plastic material, individuals wishing to destroy the devices themselves could simply use a hammer to break apart the devices and throw the pieces away. Other destruction options that ATF has historically accepted include torch cutting or sawing the device in a manner that removes at least
If a possessor chooses to turn in the device to the local ATF office, the cost to the public to destroy the device would be the cost to drive to the nearest ATF office, the cost of sending through the U.S. Mail, or the cost of sending via private shipper. For the purposes of this regulatory analysis, ATF assumes that most individuals disposing of their existing bump-stock-type devices would destroy these devices themselves rather than turn them into the nearest ATF office through personal delivery, mail, or private shipper.
Should this rule take effect, public comments suggest that unsellable inventory could be worth approximately $35,000 per large retailer. One public commenter, assumed to be a large retailer, stated that its gross sales were $140,000. Another public commenter assumed to be a midrange retailer had gross sales of $18,000. No known sales were reported for a small retailer. Based on the proportion of sales among the large, midrange, and small retailers, ATF estimates that the amount in existing inventory for a midrange retailer would be $4,500 and, for a small retailer, $74.
The retailer, assumed to be large, also commented that the opportunity cost of time needed to destroy existing inventory would be approximately $700. ATF's subject matter experts estimate that a retailer could use a maintenance crew to destroy existing inventory. To determine the hourly time needed to destroy existing inventory, ATF used the $700 reported amount, divided by the loaded wage rate of a building cleaning worker. ATF subject matter experts also suggest that existing packers would be used for a midrange retailer and the minimum wage would be used for a small retailer. The loaded rate of 1.43 was used to account for fringe benefits.
Based on the estimated wages and reported opportunity cost of time, ATF estimates that it would take a large retailer 32.8 hours, a midrange retailer 0.45 hours, and a small retailer 0.25 hours to destroy existing inventory. Table 7 provides the per-retailer estimated opportunity cost of time.
As stated earlier, ATF estimates that there are 519,927 bump-stock-type devices already purchased by the public. Based on the opportunity cost of time per bump-stock-type device, and the estimated opportunity cost of time per retailer, ATF provides the cost to destroy all existing bump-stock-type devices in Table 8.
ATF estimates that it would cost a total of $1.8 million to destroy all existing bump-stock-type devices.
We treat all costs of disposal of existing devices owned by individuals or held in inventory by retailers or manufacturers as if they occur in 2018. Therefore, the costs of the rule in 2018 would include the total undiscounted value of existing stock of bump-stock-type devices in Table 4 ($96.2 million), the year 2018 loss of future production from Table 5 ($20.0 million), and the total cost of disposal from Table 8 ($1.8 million). Overall, ATF estimates that the total cost of this proposed rule would be $297.2 million over a 10-year period of future analysis. This cost includes the first-year cost to destroy all existing bump-stock-type devices, including unsellable inventory and opportunity cost of time. Table 9 provides the 10-year cost of this proposed rule.
As stated in the paragraph above, the total undiscounted cost is $297.2 million, and the discounted costs would be $36.8 million and $36.3 million annualized at 3% and 7% respectively.
Government costs are estimated as
ATF did not calculate any cost savings for this proposed rule.
As reported by public comments, this proposed rule would affect the criminal use of bump-stock-type devices in mass shootings, such as the Las Vegas shooting incident.
The purpose of this rule is to amend ATF regulations to clarify that bump-stock-type devices are “machineguns” as defined by the NFA and GCA. Banning bump-stock-type devices could reduce casualties in an incident involving a weapon fitted with a bump-stock-type device, as well as assist first responders when responding to incidents, because it prevents shooters from using a device that allows them to shoot a semiautomatic firearm automatically.
Alternative 1—No change alternative. This alternative would leave the regulations in place as they currently stand. Since there would be no changes to regulations, there would be no cost, savings, or benefits to this alternative.
Alternative 2—Patronizing a shooting range. Individuals wishing to experience the shooting of a “full-auto” firearm could go to a shooting range that provides access to lawfully registered “pre-1986” machineguns to customers, where the firearm remains on the premises and under the control of the shooting range. ATF does not have the information to determine which, where, or how many gun ranges provide such a service and is therefore not able to quantify this alternative.
Alternative 3—Opportunity alternatives. Based on public comments, individuals wishing to replicate the effects of bump-stock-type devices could also use rubber bands, belt loops, or otherwise train their trigger finger to fire more rapidly. To the extent that individuals are capable of doing so, this would be their alternative to using bump-stock-type devices.
No other feasible alternatives were identified, and thus none were considered.
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the Attorney General has determined that this regulation does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform).
ATF performed an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the impacts on small businesses and other entities from the NPRM. Based on the information from this analysis, ATF found:
• It is estimated that of the two remaining manufacturers, at least one manufacturer only produces bump-stock-type devices and therefore could completely go out of business;
• There are 2,281 retailers, of which most are estimated to be small;
• There are no relevant government entities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” Public Law 96-354, 2(b), 94 Stat. 1164 (1980).
Under the RFA, the agency is required to consider if this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have such an impact. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
Under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 603(b)-(c)), the regulatory flexibility analysis must provide and/or address:
• A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered;
• A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule;
• A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
• A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record;
• An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule; and
• Descriptions of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
The RFA covers a wide range of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. 5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(6). ATF determined that the rule affects a variety of large and small businesses (see the “Description of the Potential Number of Small Entities” section below). Based on the requirements above, ATF prepared the following regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact on small entities from the rule.
Agencies take regulatory action for various reasons. One of the reasons is to carry out Congress's policy decisions, as expressed in statutes. Here, this rulemaking aims to apply Congress's policy decision to prohibit machineguns. Another reason underpinning regulatory action is the failure of the market to compensate for negative externalities caused by commercial activity. A negative externality can be the byproduct of a transaction between two parties that is not accounted for in the transaction. This proposed rule is addressing a negative externality. The negative externality of the commercial sale of bump-stock-type devices is that it could be used for criminal purposes. This poses a public safety issue, which the Department is trying to address.
The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the GCA, as amended, and the NFA, as amended.
This rule would affect primarily manufacturers of bump-stock-type devices, FFLs that sell bump-stock-type devices, and other small retailers of firearm accessories that have invested in the bump-stock-type device industry. Based on publicly available information, there are two manufacturers affected. Of the known retailers, the large retailers do not intend to continue selling bump-stock-type devices. There may be some small retailers that would intend to continue selling these devices should this proposed rule not go into effect and would thus be affected by this proposed rule. Based on the information from this analysis, ATF found:
• There are 2,270 retailers who are likely to be small entities;
• There are no government jurisdictions affected by this proposed rule; and
• There are no nonprofits found in the data.
There are no reporting or recordkeeping requirements for this proposed rule. The only relevant compliance requirement consists of disposing of all existing inventory of bump-stock-type devices for small entities that carry them. There would not be any professional skills necessary to record or report in this proposed rulemaking.
This proposed rule does not duplicate or conflict with other Federal rules.
Alternatives were considered in this proposed rule. Alternatives include making no regulatory changes. ATF rejected this alternative because it does not address the public safety concerns raised by bump-stock-type devices, and would not be consistent with ATF's interpretation of the statutory term “machinegun.” There were no other regulatory alternatives to this proposal that ATF has been able to identify that would accomplish the intent of this proposed rule.
This rule is a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48.
This final rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
ATF requests comments on the proposed rule from all interested persons. ATF specifically requests comments on the scope of this proposed rule and the definition of “machinegun.” ATF also requests comments on the costs and benefits of the proposed rule and on the appropriate methodology and data for calculating those costs and benefits. Further, ATF requests public comment on the reasonableness of the assumption that retailers of bump-stock-type devices are likely to be businesses with an online presence. In addition, ATF specifically requests comments regarding how ATF should address bump-stock-type devices that private parties currently possess, and the appropriate means of implementing a final rule.
All comments must reference the docket number ATF 2017R-22, be legible, and include the commenter's complete first and last name and full mailing address. ATF will not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet these requirements or comments containing profanity. In addition, if ATF cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.
ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before the closing date, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before the closing date. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments.
ATF will make all comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, available for public viewing at ATF and on the internet as part of the eRulemaking initiative, and subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Commenters who do not want their name or other personal identifying information posted on the internet should submit comments by mail or facsimile, along with a separate cover sheet containing their personal identifying information. Both the cover sheet and comment must reference this docket number (ATF 2017R-22). Information contained in the cover sheet will not appear on the internet. ATF will not redact personal identifying information that appears within the comment, and it will appear on the internet.
The commenter should not include material that he or she considers inappropriate for disclosure to the public. Any person submitting a comment shall specifically designate that portion (if any) of the comment that contains material that is confidential under law (
Confidential information will be included in the rulemaking record but will not be disclosed to the public. Any comments containing material that is not confidential under law may be disclosed to the public. In any event, the name of the person submitting a comment is not exempt from disclosure.
Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method). Hand-delivered comments will not be accepted.
•
•
•
(1) Be legible and appear in minimum 12-point font size (.17 inches);
(2) Be on 8
(3) Be signed and contain the commenter's complete first and last name and full mailing address; and
(4) Be no more than five pages long.
Any interested person who desires an opportunity to comment orally at a public hearing should submit his or her request, in writing, to the Director of ATF within the 90-day comment period. The Director, however, reserves the right to determine, in light of all circumstances, whether a public hearing is necessary.
Copies of this notice and the comments received will be available at
Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Chemicals, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, Seizures and forfeitures.
Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement officers, Military personnel, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Seizures and forfeitures, Transportation.
Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Excise taxes, Exports, Imports, Military personnel, Penalties, Reporting and
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, 27 CFR parts 447, 478, and 479 are proposed to be amended as follows:
22 U.S.C. 2778, E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129 (Mar. 8, 2013).
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 921-931.
* * * For purposes of this definition, the term “automatically” as it modifies “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,” means functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and “single function of the trigger” means a single pull of the trigger. The term “machine gun” includes bump-stock-type devices,
26 U.S.C. 7805.
* * * For purposes of this definition, the term “automatically” as it modifies “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,” means functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and “single function of the trigger” means a single pull of the trigger. The term “machine gun” includes bump-stock-type devices,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, under the Clean Air Act (CAA), revisions to Ohio's state implementation plan (SIP) as requested by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) on March 10, 2017, and supplemented on July 18, 2017. The revisions to Ohio's SIP implement certain EPA regulations for particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers (PM
Comments must be received on or before April 30, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0164 at
Charmagne Ackerman, Environmental Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-0448,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
On March 10, 2017, OEPA submitted to EPA revisions to Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) chapter 3745-31-01. The revisions were made to implement the “Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements.” Subsequently, on July 18, 2017, OEPA submitted to EPA a letter clarifying the March 10, 2017 submittal. OEPA clarified that limited portions of OAC 3745-31-01 should be included as a SIP revision. The revisions to OAC 3745-31-01, specifically, subparagraph (LLL) (6), paragraph (NNN), paragraph (WWWW), paragraph (NNNNN), paragraph (VVVVV), and subparagraph (LLLLLL) (2) (ee) will make the rule consistent with 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 52.21.
On August 24, 2016, EPA published the “Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements” (PM
OEPA provided a modeling analysis for both VOC and NH
In particular, EPA's regulations provide that a state choosing to submit an NNSR precursor demonstration should evaluate the sensitivity of PM
For NNSR permitting purposes, OEPA conducted sensitivity analyses to examine potential increases in emissions through a model simulation that evaluates the effect on PM
OEPA and the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) used the 2011 and 2021 comprehensive modeling inventories and platforms for this analysis. OEPA and LADCO initially ran a baseline model to predict the PM
Consistent with EPA's regulation and draft guidance, OEPA and LADCO have performed sensitivity analyses of potential increases in emissions through a model simulation that evaluates the effect on PM
For the NH
In addition to the modeled emissions increases based on historical growth at sources, LADCO and OEPA performed an additional NH
For the VOC analysis, OEPA added 1,486 TPY of VOC emissions at 3 existing source locations where VOC emissions increases potentially could occur in the nonattainment area. Compared to the 2011 inventory, this represents a 75% increase in VOC emissions from existing stationary sources (Electric Generating Units (EGU) and non-EGU). Compared to the 2021 projected inventory, this represents an 80% increase in stationary source emissions. For the NH
OEPA found that the addition of the NH
While the increase is slightly above the recommended contribution threshold, EPA believes that it is reasonable to conclude that NH
Based on the results of the modeling demonstration and the additional factors described in this section, EPA is proposing to determine that emissions increases of either VOC or NH
EPA is proposing approval of the SIP revision submittal. Ohio's SIP revisions comply with regulations EPA designed to address the PM
EPA is proposing approval of revisions to OAC 3745-31-01, specifically subparagraph (LLL)(6), paragraph (NNN), paragraph (WWWW), paragraph (NNNNN), paragraph (VVVVV), and subparagraph (LLLLLL)(2)(ee). EPA finds that the revisions are consistent with Federal requirements.
In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to Ohio Administrative Code 3745-31-01 including subparagraph (LLL)(6), paragraph (NNN), paragraph (WWWW), paragraph (NNNNN), paragraph (VVVVV), and subparagraph (LLLLLL)(2)(ee), effective on March 20, 2017 . EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Request for information.
The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “the Agency”) is seeking public comment on any aspect of the use of isobutanol in gasoline. Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC (“Butamax”), a manufacturer of isobutanol, has submitted an application pursuant to the regulations titled “Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives” for the registration of isobutanol as a gasoline additive at up to 16 volume percent. Butamax has submitted information that would likely satisfy the applicable registration requirements. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to register a fuel or fuel additive once all the applicable registration requirements have been met by the manufacturer. Due to the potential for the widespread introduction of isobutanol into commerce, we are taking steps to make the public aware of the likelihood of this registration. We are seeking public comment regarding any issues we should take into consideration for this registration and any supplemental actions we should consider under the Clean Air Act to further protect public health and welfare.
Comments must be received on or before April 30, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0131, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
James W. Caldwell, Environmental Engineer, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code 6405A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; Telephone: (202) 343-9303; Fax: (202) 343-2802; Email address:
The EPA is seeking public comment on any aspect of the use of isobutanol in gasoline. Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC (“Butamax”), a manufacturer of isobutanol, has submitted an application pursuant to the regulations at 40 CFR part 79, Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives, for the registration of isobutanol, an alcohol, as a gasoline additive at up to 16 volume percent. Our review of the information Butamax has submitted leads us to believe that Butamax would likely satisfy the applicable registration requirements under 40 CFR part 79 (discussed in more detail below). Section 211(b) of the Clean Air Act (Clean Air Act, CAA or the Act) requires the EPA to register a fuel or fuel additive once all the applicable registration requirements have been met by the manufacturer. While the EPA does not have any specific concerns, due to the potential for the widespread introduction of isobutanol into commerce, we are taking steps to make the public aware of the likelihood of this registration and are seeking public comment regarding any issues we should take into consideration for this registration and/or any potential supplemental actions we should consider under the Clean Air Act to further protect public health and welfare.
Section 211(a) of the Act authorizes the Administrator to designate fuels and fuel additives (F/FAs) by regulations and, once designated, to register suchF/FAs prior to introduction into commerce. To date, the Administrator has designated on-highway motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline additives and on-highway motor vehicle diesel and diesel additives for registration. The EPA codified the registration requirements under Sections 211(b) and 211(e) of the Act at 40 CFR part 79. Registration requirements at 40 CFR part 79 include emissions speciation testing and a literature search of the associated emissions (Tier 1 testing) and animal testing of exposure to emissions for purposes of determining health effects (Tier 2 testing). Manufacturers with less than $50 million in total annual sales are considered small businesses, as specified in the regulations at 40 CFR 79.58(d). In certain cases, a small
In addition, §§ 79.11(i) and 79.21(h) respectively require that fuel and fuel additive manufacturers demonstrate that their fuels and fuel additives are substantially similar to those used in emissions certification or have a waiver as part of 40 CFR part 79 registration.
The Tier 1 registration regulations at 40 CFR 79.52 require a characterization of the emission products that are generated by evaporation and combustion of a gasoline with, if applicable, an oxygenated additive such as isobutanol. Combustion testing must be conducted with and without after-treatment of exhaust emissions. A literature search for information on the potential toxicological environmental, and other public welfare effects is required for emission products, except that it is not required for those emission products that are the same as the emission products for baseline gasoline (represented in testing by a gasoline with no oxygenates such as ethanol or isobutanol). This is because a test group organized by the American Petroleum Institute (API) has tested baseline gasoline and also conducted the literature search for its emission products. The results of this testing and literature search were reported in the 1997 API baseline gasoline Tier 1 literature review.
The regulations at 40 CFR 79.53 specify the requisite health effects testing for compliance with Tier 2 as well as provisions for a manufacturer that opts to rely on existing health effects test data to satisfy these testing requirements. Additionally, the flexibility to modify Tier 2 requirements and to require Alternative Tier 2 testing can be found at 40 CFR 79.58(c). In 1998, EPA opted to modify the standard Tier 2 testing requirements for gasoline and various oxygenated gasoline blends and issued Alternative Tier 2 testing requirements to the API “Section 211(b) Research Group.” This was based on the EPA's determination that alternative test procedures would yield more useful data than standard Tier 2 testing. The primary difference between the testing for baseline gasoline and various oxygenated gasoline blends, under the Alternative Tier 2 and standard Tier 2 testing requirements, was that the Alternative Tier 2 testing focused on identifying and evaluating potential adverse health effects of evaporative emissions. It did not include examination of combustion emissions. At the time, the EPA explained the rationale for focusing on evaporative emissions and why the combustion emission studies would likely not produce meaningful information as being due to methodological complications caused by carbon monoxide (
The regulations at 40 CFR 79.54 provide for additional testing under Tier 3 provisions if the Tier 1 and Alternative Tier 2 data or other data obtained by the Agency indicates that such testing is warranted. The EPA has yet to initiate a Tier 3 process for any fuel or fuel additive. If the EPA were to require Tier 3 testing, we would develop the testing protocol and requirements through a public process.
Section 211(f)(1) of the Act makes it unlawful for any manufacturer of any fuel or fuel additive to first introduce into commerce, or to increase the concentration in use of, any fuel or fuel additive for use by any person in motor vehicles manufactured after model year 1974 which is not substantially similar to any fuel or fuel additive utilized in the certification of any model year 1975, or subsequent model year, vehicle or engine under Section 206 of the Act. The EPA last issued an interpretive rule on the phrase “substantially similar” at 73 FR 22281 (April 25, 2008). Generally speaking, this interpretive rule describes the types of unleaded gasoline that are considered “substantially similar” to the unleaded gasoline utilized in the EPA's emissions certification program by placing limits on a gasoline's chemical composition and its physical properties, including the amount of alcohols and ethers (oxygenates) that may be added to gasoline. Gasoline and diesel fuels that are found to be “substantially similar” to the EPA's certification fuels may be registered and introduced into commerce. The current “substantially similar” interpretive rule for unleaded gasoline allows oxygen content up to 2.7 percent oxygen by weight for certain ethers and alcohols, which equates to approximately 12 volume percent isobutanol.
Section 211(f)(4) of the Act provides that upon application of any fuel or fuel additive manufacturer, the Administrator may waive the prohibitions of CAA section 211(f)(1) if the Administrator determines that the applicant has established that such fuel or fuel additive, or a specified concentration thereof, will not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control device or system (over the useful life of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle in which such device or system is used) to achieve compliance by the vehicle or engine with the emission standards to which it has been certified pursuant to Sections 206 and 213(a) of the Act. In other words, the Administrator may grant a waiver for a prohibited fuel or fuel additive if the applicant can demonstrate that the new fuel or fuel additive will not cause or contribute to engines, vehicles or equipment failing to meet their emissions standards over their useful lives. The statute requires that the Administrator shall take final action to grant or deny the application, after public notice and comment, within 270 days of receipt of the application.
In addition, the regulations at §§ 79.11(i) and 79.21(h) require that fuel and fuel additive manufacturers must demonstrate that their fuels and fuel additives, respectively, are substantially similar or have a waiver as described in section 211(f) of the Act.
Section 211(c)(1) of the Act allows the Administrator, by regulation, to “control or prohibit the manufacture, introduction into commerce, offering for sale, or sale of any fuel or fuel additive for use in a motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle (A) if, in the judgment of the Administrator, any fuel or fuel additive or any emission product of such fuel or fuel additive causes, or contributes, to air pollution or water pollution (including any degradation in the quality of groundwater) that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health or welfare, or (B) if emission products of such fuel or fuel additive will impair to a significant degree the performance of any emission control device or system which is in general use, or which the Administrator
Isobutanol is a flammable colorless liquid that is used as a gasoline additive and as an industrial solvent. Isobutanol is composed of the chemical elements hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon and it can be made from petroleum or renewable biomass, such as corn, grasses, agricultural waste and other renewable sources. It can be used in internal combustion engines as an additive to gasoline and is registered under the 40 CFR part 79 as a gasoline additive for manufacturers that are exempt from the Tier 1 and Alternative Tier 2 testing. A blend level of 16 percent for a non-exempt manufacturer would require a new registration that would include meeting Tier 1 and Alternative Tier 2 health effects testing requirements and a waiver under CAA section 211(f)(4). Biobutanol is the common name for isobutanol made from renewable sources.
There has been an increased interest in the use of biobutanol as a direct result of the requirements for increased use of renewable fuel volumes, adopted in the Energy Information and Security Act of 2007. These provisions require an increase in the use of renewable fuels, with 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be used in the U.S. by 2022. Parties required to meet these standards are interested in cost effective and practical ways to satisfy the standards and meet the performance needs of the vehicles and engines. Biobutanol is one potentially attractive option because of its higher energy density, lower blending vapor pressure, and lower heat of vaporization in comparison to other alcohols such as ethanol.
As previously discussed, regulations at 40 CFR 79.58(d) specify that a company with total annual sales of less than $50 million is a small business and is exempt in certain instances from applicable testing requirements. The EPA has registered isobutanol as a fuel additive for companies that qualified under this provision.
Fuel and fuel additive manufacturers with total annual sales of $50 million or greater do not qualify as small businesses, are prohibited from registering the use of isobutanol produced by small businesses, and instead must comply with all applicable registration requirements, including health effects testing. Gasoline manufacturers typically have sales greater than $50 million per year and would need to register isobutanol as an additive to their gasoline if they wanted to use it. Therefore, a gasoline manufacturer cannot rely on the registration of a small additive manufacturer as a means of complying with the 40 CFR part 79 registration requirements. Additionally, because no gasoline manufacturer has completed the 40 CFR part 79 registration requirements, including required health effects testing for isobutanol, the agency has yet to grant a registration request of isobutanol as an additive to gasoline by a gasoline manufacturer. This has resulted in limiting isobutanol to blending at terminals by parties that are not gasoline manufacturers. See the definition of fuel manufacturer at 40 CFR 79.2(d). For this reason, among others, isobutanol has yet to be introduced into commerce in any significant volume.
Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC (Butamax) has applied for registration of the use of up to 16 percent by volume isobutanol as a fuel additive in motor-vehicle gasoline.
Second, a manufacturer must conduct Tier 1 and either Tier 2 or Alternative Tier 2 health-effects testing, unless the manufacturer is exempt under the small-business provisions specified at 40 CFR 79.58(d). Butamax does not qualify as a small business and is not exempt from these testing requirements. Additionally, the regulations at 40 CFR 79.53(b) allow a manufacturer to rely on existing health effects test data that would provide “reasonably comparable” information in lieu of conducting health effects testing “regarding the carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, neurotoxicity, teratogenicity, reproductive/fertility measures, and general toxicity effects of the emissions for a fuel or additive” for registration. The Agency's current review leads it to believe that Butamax will likely meet the requisite health effects testing requirements for isobutanol at 16 percent through its submittal of information on testing for the health effects end points identified under Alternative Tier 2 testing procedures for oxygenates.
The OCTAMIX waiver evaluated a number of 1980s gasoline-fueled vehicles on the effects of gasoline-alcohol mixtures (applicable to isobutanol at up to 16 percent by volume) on those vehicles emissions controls. Since then, studies have been conducted to evaluate the potential effects of isobutanol on gasoline-fueled vehicles, engines, and fuel dispensing and storage equipment. Recent testing on the use of gasoline-isobutanol blended fuels illustrates that isobutanol-blended fuels generally do not significantly affect oxides of nitrogen (NO
In a test of isobutanol exposure impacts on fueling infrastructure materials, the observed swell for elastomers for exposures to 16 percent and 24 percent gasoline blends were similar to but slightly less than the oxygen equivalent ethanol fuels of E10 and E17. Samples of metals commonly found in fuel storage and dispensing systems were immersed in 16 percent and 24 percent isobutanol blends at60 °C for 28 days. In all cases, the annualized corrosion rates for isobutanol based on weight loss were negligible.
Finally, in a 50-hour field emissions test of 175 horsepower and 215 horsepower boating engines, 16.1 volume percent isobutanol (blended to 93 octane) showed similar total HC+NO
The Agency believes that based on the referenced studies on the potential effects of isobutanol on gasoline-fueled vehicles and engines and its engineering judgement, that modern motor vehicles and engines should continue to meet emissions standards and suffer no issues with driveability or operability on gasoline-isobutanol blended fuels up to 16 volume percent. However, even though the information cited above concerning regulated emissions, retail fuel dispensing and storage equipment materials, and marine engines suggests that isobutanol blended into gasoline should not pose any significant issues, the narrowness of the size and scope of these studies does not address all potential effects isobutanol may have on gasoline-fueled vehicles and engines. Therefore, the Agency seeks comment on whether there is available information on other areas that should be addressed for gasoline-isobutanol blended fuels up to 16 volume percent. The Agency could use information gleaned from this public comment process to determine whether further controls might be necessary (potentially via rulemaking under section 211(c) of the Act) to help ensure the smooth introduction of isobutanol into the gasoline market or to help determine whether the Agency should impose certain conditions on the registration of isobutanol as a gasoline additive through 40 CFR part 79.
The EPA will register isobutanol for Butamax in accordance with the regulations at 40 CFR part 79 once applicable requirements are met. Butamax has submitted the required information, including: (1) The speciation of exhaust and evaporative emissions for gasoline with 16 percent isobutanol (Tier 1 testing), (2) a literature search for health information on the Tier 1 emissions found for that blend that were not found in the Tier 1 testing of gasoline without any oxygenate, and (3) the results of the Alternative Tier 2 health-effects testing for that blend (animal exposure to evaporative emissions). Butamax has also submitted information to demonstrate that it can comply with the requirements of the OCTAMIX waiver, which allows the blending of isobutanol into gasoline at up to 3.7 percent oxygen by weight, or 16 percent isobutanol by volume.
The EPA seeks comments and any information and data on the use of isobutanol in gasoline, including, but not limited to: (1) The need for additional health-effects testing under the Tier 3 provisions in the regulations, and (2) the need for additional regulatory controls for 16 percent isobutanol in gasoline, beyond those for gasoline at 40 CFR parts 79 and 80, under the authority of CAA section 211(c).
Federal Communications Commission.
Petitions for Reconsideration.
Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by Rick Chessen, on behalf of NCTA—The Internet & Television Association (“NCTA”) and Michael Nilsson, on behalf of American Television Alliance (ATVA).
Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before April 13, 2018. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before April 23, 2018.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Evan Baranoff, Media Bureau, Policy Division, at: (202) 418-2120; email:
This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3088, released March 22, 2018. The full text of the Petition is available for viewing and
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Request for information; correction.
This request for information notice replaces the version published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 7, 2018. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number PHMSA-2018-0001 via any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Matthew Nickels, Senior Regulations Officer (PHH-10), U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone 202-366-0464,
The transportation sector is undergoing a potentially revolutionary period, as tasks traditionally performed by humans only are increasingly being done, whether in testing or in actual integration, by automated technologies. Most prominently, “Automated Driving Systems” (ADS) have shown the capacity to drive and operate motor vehicles, including commercial motor vehicles, as safely and efficiently as humans, if not more so. Similar technological developments are also occurring in rail. Additionally, PHMSA acknowledges that ongoing advances in aviation and maritime technology could also affect the transportation of hazardous materials and plans to address these issues in future notices, as necessary.
DOT, including PHMSA, strongly encourages the safe development, testing, and integration of automated technologies, including the potential for these technologies to be used in hazardous materials transportation. Although an exciting and important innovation in transportation history, the emergence of surface automated vehicles and the technologies that support them may create unique and unforeseen challenges for hazardous materials transportation. The safe transportation of hazardous materials remains PHMSA's top priority, and as the development, testing, and integration of surface automated vehicles into our transportation system continues, PHMSA recognizes the need to work with State and modal partners to ensure the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) framework sufficiently takes into account these new technological innovations.
The purpose of this request for information is to obtain public comment on how the development of automated technologies may impact the HMR, and on the information PHMSA should consider when determining how to best ensure the HMR adequately account for surface automated vehicles.
This request for information notice replaces the version published in the
PHMSA is an operating administration within DOT established in 2004 by the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act (Pub. L. 108-426). PHMSA's mission is to protect people and the environment by advancing the safe transportation of energy and other hazardous materials that are essential to our daily lives. To achieve this mission, PHMSA establishes national policy, sets and enforces standards, educates, and conducts research to prevent hazardous materials incidents. PHMSA collaborates closely with other Federal agencies, operating administrations, and transportation modes, in addition to coordinating with State and local governments and authorities to ensure the safe movement of hazardous materials by highway and rail in or around local communities.
Federal hazardous materials law authorizes the Secretary to “prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.” 49 U.S.C. 5103(b)(1). The Secretary has delegated this authority to PHMSA in 49 CFR 1.97(b). The HMR are designed to achieve three primary goals: (1) Help ensure that hazardous materials are packaged and handled safely and securely during transportation; (2) provide effective communication to transportation workers and emergency responders of the hazards of the materials being transported; and (3) minimize the consequences of an accident or incident should one occur. The hazardous materials regulatory system is a risk management system that is prevention-oriented and focused on identifying safety or security hazards and reducing the probability and consequences of a hazardous material release.
Under the HMR, hazardous materials are categorized into hazard classes and packing groups based on analysis of and experience with the risks they present during transportation. The HMR: (1) Specify appropriate packaging and handling requirements for hazardous materials based on this classification and require a shipper to communicate the material's hazards through the use of shipping papers, package marking and labeling, and vehicle placarding; (2) require shippers to provide emergency response information applicable to the specific hazard or hazards of the material being transported; and (3) mandate training requirements for persons who prepare hazardous materials for shipment or transport hazardous materials in commerce. The HMR also include operational requirements applicable to each mode of transportation, further necessitating that hazardous materials standards and regulations be coordinated in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.
As such, PHMSA—in continued collaboration with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration—seeks information regarding the design, development, and potential use of automated transportation systems to safely transport hazardous materials by surface mode in compliance with the HMR, and to identify requirements within the HMR which may impede the integration of this technology.
PHMSA safely incorporates technological innovation through its special permit (SP) program. SPs set forth alternative requirements—or a variance—to the requirements in the HMR in a manner that achieves an equivalent level of safety to that required under the regulations, or if a required safety level does not exist, that is consistent with the public interest. PHMSA's Approvals and Permits Division is responsible for the issuance of DOT SPs. Specifically, SPs are issued by PHMSA under 49 CFR part 107, subpart B.
The HMR often provide performance-based standards and, as such, provide the regulated community with some flexibility in meeting safety requirements. Even so, not every transportation situation can be anticipated and covered under the regulations. The hazardous materials community is at the cutting edge of development of new materials, technologies, and innovative ways of moving hazardous materials. Innovation strengthens our economy, and new technologies and operational techniques may enhance safety. Thus, SPs provide a mechanism for testing and using new technologies, promoting increased transportation efficiency and productivity, and ensuring global competitiveness without compromising safety. SPs enable the hazardous materials industry to safely, quickly, and effectively integrate new products and technologies into production and the transportation stream.
PHMSA requests information related to the development and potential use of surface automated vehicles and the technologies that support them in hazardous materials transportation by highway or rail. For additional background on ADS for motor vehicles, PHMSA notes that DOT and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released guidance in the
The SAE definitions divide vehicles into levels based on “who does what, when.” Generally:
• At SAE Level 0, the driver does everything.
• At SAE Level 1, an automated system on the vehicle can
• At SAE Level 2, an automated system on the vehicle can
• At SAE Level 3, an automated system can both actually conduct some parts of the driving task and monitor the driving environment
• At SAE Level 4, an automated system can conduct the driving task and monitor the driving environment, and the driver need not take back control, but the automated system can operate only in certain environments and under certain conditions.
• At SAE Level 5, the automated system can perform all driving tasks, under all conditions that a driver could perform them.
PHMSA requests comments on the implications of the development,
Specifically, PHMSA asks:
1. What are the safety, regulatory, and policy implications of the design, testing, and integration of surface automated vehicles on the requirements in the HMR? Please include any potential solutions PHMSA should consider.
2. What are potential regulatory incompatibilities between the HMR and a future surface transportation system that incorporates automated vehicles? Specific HMR areas could include but are not limited to:
3. Are there specific HMR requirements that would need modifications to become performance-based standards that can accommodate an automated vehicle operating in a surface transportation system?
4. What automated surface transportation technologies are under development that are expected to be relevant to the safe transport of hazardous materials, and how might they be used in a surface transportation system?
5. Under what circumstances do freight operators envision the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce using surface automated vehicles within the next 10 years?
6. What issues do automated technologies raise in hazardous materials surface transportation that are not present for human drivers or operators that PHMSA should address?
7. How might potential changes to the HMR for integration of surface automated vehicle technologies impact current requirements for human drivers or operators (
8. Do HMR requirements that relate to the operation of surface automated vehicles carrying hazardous materials present different challenges than those that relate to ancillary tasks, such as inspections and packaging requirements?
9. How will the behavioral responses of road and railway users change with the integration of surface automated vehicle technologies? What will the reaction be to automated vehicles or rail cars with markings denoting the presence of hazardous materials?
10. What solutions could PHMSA consider to address potential future regulatory incompatibilities between the HMR and surface automated vehicle technologies?
11. What should PHMSA consider when reviewing applications for special permits seeking regulatory flexibility to allow for the transport of hazardous materials using automated technologies for surface modes?
12. When considering long-term solutions to challenges the HMR may present to the development, testing, and integration of surface automated vehicles, what information and other factors should PHMSA consider?
13. What should PHMSA consider when developing future policy, guidance, and regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials in surface transportation systems?
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comment.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is considering amending regulations governing the utilization of purse seine vessel capacity limits associated with the Regional Vessel Register of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) is intended to provide notice to the public of our planning efforts and request comment that will assist in identifying revised administrative processes to improve the efficient utilization and management of capacity limits. This information will help inform our evaluation of what, if any, regulatory amendments are necessary and advisable.
Comments must be submitted in writing by April 30, 2018.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0030, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Daniel Studt, NMFS West Coast Region, 562-980-4073.
The United States is a member of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), which was established under the 1949 Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. In 2003, the IATTC adopted the Convention for the Strengthening of the IATTC Established by the 1949
The IATTC consists of 21 Members and five Cooperating Non-Members and facilitates the conservation and management of highly migratory species of fish in the IATTC Convention Area (Convention Area), as well as conducting scientific research on these species. The Convention Area is defined as the waters of the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) within the area bounded by the west coast of the Americas, the 50° N latitude, the 150° W longitude, and the 50° S latitude.
As a Party to the Antigua Convention and a member of the IATTC, the United States is legally bound to implement certain decisions of the IATTC. The Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 951
In June 2000, the IATTC adopted Resolution C-00-06: Resolution on a Regional Vessel Register. This Resolution has been amended, including most recently through adoption of Resolution C-14-01, which requires that Members submit a list of all vessels authorized to fish in the EPO to be listed on a Regional Vessel Register (Register). Purse seine vessels are further categorized on the Register as either “active” or “inactive and sunk” (inactive). Recognizing concerns of excess fishing capacity, the IATTC in 2002 adopted Resolution C-02-03: Resolution on the Capacity of the Tuna Fleet Operating in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (Revised). The Resolution established a vessel capacity limit of 158,000 cubic meters for all purse seine vessels authorized by the IATTC to fish for tuna species in the EPO. The Resolution further specified that each Member and Cooperating Non-Member was allocated a purse seine vessel capacity limit by the IATTC based on historical fishing levels in the EPO, the level of tuna stocks, and other relevant factors. Pursuant to C-02-03, the United States was allocated a purse seine capacity limit of 31,866 cubic meters (m
Since 1971, the number of large (greater than 400 short tons (st) or 362.8 metric tons (mt) carrying capacity) U.S. purse seine vessels fishing for tuna in the EPO has decreased from over 155 to an average of 10 active and inactive large U.S purse seine vessels over the past five years, utilizing an average of roughly 18,209 m
In the last few years, changing operating conditions in the WCPO and an increase in the costs assessed to U.S. purse seiners for fishing under the SPTT has led to an increased number of large purse seine vessels seeking to be added to the IATTC Register. In 2016, 17 of the 37 purse seiners authorized to fish in the WCPO also fished in the EPO, which means they either utilized capacity on the Active Register or fished under the single-trip option exemption. Additionally, since 2014, small (less than or equal to 400 st or 362.8 mt carrying capacity) coastal purse seiners have had increased opportunities for catching tuna locally, leading to a growing number of small purse seine vessels utilizing active capacity on the Register. Over the last 5 years, an average of 17 small U.S. purse seine vessels have utilized 1,945 m
This combination of interest by large and small purse seine vessel has led to the U.S. capacity on the Register to become fully allocated in recent years, such that no additional vessels could be added to the Register. The total capacity of requested vessels have exceeded the available capacity and NMFS anticipates this trend may continue. Thus, NMFS seeks to re-examine the administrative processes associated with the Register to ensure that capacity is being utilized to the full extent possible in the most effective way for both large and small purse seine vessels.
NMFS has implemented regulations governing U.S. purse seine vessels on the Register at 50 CFR 300.22(b). These regulations include the process for how vessel owners or managing owners request a purse seine vessel be added to the Register, including when and how to submit such a request; when and how to obtain the appropriate vessel and operator permits; pay the vessel assessment fee; and how vessels permitted and authorized under an alternative international tuna purse seine fisheries management regime in the Pacific Ocean may utilize a one-trip option into the EPO while being exempted from the requirement to be included on the Register. The regulations also address processes for removing a vessel from the Register and for replacing those vessels, and establishes criteria to deem requests for active status as “frivolous” for vessels that occupy U.S. capacity on the Register but do not actually fish in a given year. Furthermore, the regulations lay out the prioritization of requests following a specified hierarchy.
Requests for active status are prioritized according to the hierarchy listed at 50 CFR 300.22(b)(4)(i)(C). In general, the requests are prioritized in the following order: Vessels that were listed as active on the Register in the previous year, vessels that were listed as inactive on the Register in the previous year, vessels not listed on the Register in the previous year prioritized on a first-come, first-serve basis, and vessels which were previously listed on the Register as active in a given year but have been determined to have made a frivolous request.
Requests for active status are considered “frivolous” if, for a vessel categorized as active in a given calendar year, less than 20 percent of the vessel's
The frivolous request provisions apply only to large purse seine vessels. These provisions are intended to prevent large purse seine vessel owners who do not have intent to fish in the Convention Area from requesting listing on the Register and occupying assigned capacity that may otherwise be utilized by active fishing vessels. Small purse seine vessels are not subject to the frivolous request provisions because owners of small vessels tend to have difficulty anticipating whether unassociated schools of tuna will migrate within the range of the vessels off the U.S. West Coast during the summer months in the upcoming year. Frivolous requests criteria may need to be reexamined to ensure full utilization of the U.S. capacity limit.
Additionally, there is no time limit for how long a vessel may remain on the Register as inactive, provided the vessel owner or managing owner requests this status every year and pays the associated vessel assessment. Since 2015, a single large purse seine vessel has been on the Register as inactive, occupying 1,523 m
Lastly, NMFS intends to issue a technical correction to existing U.S. regulations to correct the regulatory carrying capacity to match that on record with the IATTC. A vessel which historically fished in the EPO prior to 2002, and whose carrying capacity was used in the initial capacity calculations for allotment to the United States, had its blueprints re-examined by the IATTC and was found to have had an additional 91 m
For additional information on current regulations pertaining to the Register and procedures for purse seine vessels to be authorized to fish for tuna and tuna-like species in the EPO, please see the compliance guide located at
NMFS is soliciting comments from the public to help determine what, if any, regulatory amendments could make management of U.S. tuna purse seine vessels on the IATTC Regional Vessel Register more effective. Comments may include suggestions to improve the procedure for making requests to add vessels to the Register, for the identification of “frivolous requests for active status” and management of such requests, or how the hierarchy of prioritization of requests should be structured to allow for capacity to be utilized to the full extent possible in the most effective way. NMFS will fully consider all relevant information and comments received, and if necessary, issue proposed regulatory amendments for further consideration.
Tuna Conventions Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability.
We are advising the public that we are making available for review and comment a revised version of the Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) Herd Certification Program Standards. The CWD Program Standards provide guidance on how to meet CWD Herd Certification Program and interstate movement requirements. We are taking this action to address concerns of State and industry participants about the existing standards.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 30, 2018.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Tracy Nichols, Staff Officer, Cervid Health Team, Surveillance, Preparedness, and Response Services, VS, APHIS, USDA, 2150 Centre Avenue, Bldg. B, Fort Collins, CO 80526; (970) 494-7380.
Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy of cervids (members of Cervidae, the deer family). Species currently known to be susceptible to CWD include elk, mule deer, moose, white-tailed deer, sika deer, muntjac, reindeer, and black-tailed deer.
In 2014, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) implemented the National CWD Herd Certification Program (HCP), a voluntary Federal-State-industry cooperative program administered by APHIS and implemented by participating States. Currently, 28 States participate in the program. States and herd owners choosing to participate must comply with the provisions of 9 CFR parts 55 and 81 (referred to below as the regulations), which include requirements for animal identification, interstate movement, fencing, recordkeeping, herd inspections and inventories, animal mortality testing, and response to any findings of CWD-exposed, -suspect, or -positive herds. APHIS monitors the approved State HCPs to ensure consistency with Federal standards by means of annual State reporting. With each year of successful surveillance, participating herds will advance in status. After 5 years with no evidence of CWD, APHIS will certify the herd as being low risk for CWD. Only captive cervids from enrolled herds certified as low risk for CWD may move interstate.
The CWD Program Standards provide detailed guidance on how to meet the regulatory requirements referred to above. An annual review of the Program Standards is conducted by APHIS in collaboration with State agencies and industry representatives.
In response to concerns expressed by industry and State partners about the existing CWD Program Standards, published in 2014, we convened a working group in 2016 to review the document. Based on the group's discussions, as well as recommendations from an internal review, we determined that the Program Standards needed to undergo a number of revisions.
We are advising the public that we have prepared a revised version of the CWD Program Standards. The proposed revisions include the following:
• Revising the goal statement to focus on reducing the risk of interstate transmission of CWD.
• Clarifying that the Program Standards include detailed descriptions of suggested methods approved by the APHIS Administrator to meet the regulatory requirements.
• Making definitions of terms in the Program Standards consistent with the official definitions in the regulations.
• Describing APHIS' intent to amend the regulations to define susceptible species based on scientific evidence of natural infection or experimental infections through natural routes and adding the genera
• Providing support for implementing antemortem immunohistochemistry testing of rectal anal mucosa associated lymphoid tissue (RAMALT) and medial retropharyngeal lymph node (MRPLN) biopsies conducted as a whole-herd test concurrently with genotyping at Prion Protein Gene (PRNP) codon 96 in white-tailed deer in traceback, traceforward, and CWD-exposed herds and for disease management in CWD-positive herds.
• Providing support for initiating pilot projects using RAMALT and MRPLN biopsies conducted concurrently with genotyping at PRNP codon 132 in elk in traceback, traceforward, and CWD-exposed herds and for disease management in CWD-positive herds to inform decisions about testing protocols.
• Clarifying the definitions and processes for performing epidemiological investigations.
• Replacing Appendix VI with a worksheet that States must submit for all positive herds enrolled in the HCP as part of their annual HCP report. Additionally, for any herd for which Federal indemnity is to be paid, a preliminary and final worksheet must have been completed as part of the herd plan by a State representative.
• Describing the factors that APHIS will consider when making decisions
• Clarifying the consequences of poor quality and missing post-mortem surveillance samples on herd status, as well as describing options States may consider as substitutions for these samples.
• Making the Program Standards language consistent with that of the regulations by requiring CWD testing of all mortalities from certified herds, including at slaughter and on hunt facilities when animals remain under the same ownership.
• Streamlining the description of fencing characteristics considered necessary to prevent ingress and egress of cervids for HCP-enrolled herds.
• Eliminating Appendix II: Fencing Requirements and References, and making these scientific references available upon request.
• Moving Part B, Section 5: Sanitary Precautions and Biosecurity Practices for Herd Plans and Depopulations to an appendix, and simplifying recommendations for premises decontamination.
• Updating and streamlining Appendix IV: Guidelines for Environmental Contamination.
• Consolidating the discussion of carcass disposal options in the main body of the Program Standards and deleting Appendix V: Carcass Disposal.
The revised Program Standards may be viewed on the
After reviewing any comments we receive on the proposed updates, we will publish a second notice in the
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Indiana Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold public meetings on: Monday April 16th at 4 p.m. Eastern time; Wednesday May 9 at 3 p.m. Eastern time; and Monday May 21 at 4 p.m. Eastern time. The purpose of these meetings is to prepare to release a public report on voting rights in the state.
The meetings will be held on:
• Monday April 16, 2018 at 4 pm Eastern time;
• Wednesday May 9, 2018 at 3 pm Eastern time; and
• Monday May 21, 2018 at 4 pm Eastern time.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. These meetings are available to the public through the above listed toll free number. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meetings. An open comment period will be provided during each meeting to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at
Records generated from these meetings may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Oregon Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting via web conference on Tuesday, April 3, 2018, from 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m. PST for the purpose of hearing public testimony on human trafficking issues in the state.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 3, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. PST.
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the above listed toll-free number (audio only) and web access link (visual only). Please use both the call-in number and the web access link in order to follow the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Ohio Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold public meetings on Friday, April 13, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. EDT;
The meetings will be held on:
Public call information: Dial: 877-719-9795, Conference ID: 1067599.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to these discussions. The meetings are available to the public through the toll-free call-in number listed above. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meetings. An open comment period will be provided during each meeting to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at
Records generated from these meetings may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Records of the meetings will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Oregon Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting via web conference on Tuesday, April 17, 2018, from 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m. PST for the purpose of hearing public testimony on human trafficking issues in the state.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 17, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. PST.
Public call information: (Audio only) Dial: 888-708-5689, Conference ID: 1169274.
Web access information: (Visual only) The online portion of the meeting may be accessed through the following link:
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the above listed toll-free number (audio only) and web access link (visual only). Please use both the call-in number and the web access link in order to follow the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to reorganize FTZ 30 under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone, and to an ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would terminate authority for Site 2 if not activated within five years from the month of approval.
PBR, Inc. d/b/a/SKAPS Industries (SKAPS) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Athens, Georgia. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 9, 2018.
SKAPS' facility is located within Site 29 of FTZ 26. The facility currently has authority to produce non-woven geotextile fabric using polypropylene staple fiber (PPSF) for a five-year period (until August 23, 2018) subject to a restriction requiring admission of all foreign-status PPSF to the zone under privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41). SKAPS' current notification would extend that restricted authority indefinitely.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt SKAPS from customs duty payments on the foreign-status material used in its export production of non-woven geotextiles (duty-free). SKAPS would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status material which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The material sourced from abroad is PPSF (duty rate 4.3%), which will be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41), thereby precluding inverted tariff benefits.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is May 8, 2018.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Juanita Chen at
On November 21, 2017, the Tri-Cities Airport Authority, grantee of FTZ 204, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Eastman Chemical Company, within Site 12, in Kingsport, Tennessee.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to reorganize FTZ 241 to expand the service area and to expand Subzone 241A under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.
On November 15, 2017, Kubota North America Corporation submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 26P, in Jefferson and Gainesville, Georgia.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On November 20, 2017, Dallas Airmotive, Inc submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 39—Site 1, at DFW Airport, Texas.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to reorganize FTZ 124 to expand the service area under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.
The Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC) will meet April 17, 2018, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW, Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on implementation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and provides for continuing review to update the EAR as needed.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 25 participants on
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on March 23, 2018, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § § 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) continues to find that Perfiles LM, S.A. de C.V. (Perfiles) is the successor-in-interest to Perfiles y Herrajes LM, S.A. de C.V. (Perfiles y Herrajes) for purposes of determining antidumping duty cash deposits and liabilities.
Applicable March 29, 2018.
Madeline Heeren, 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) 482-9179.
On November 13, 2017, Commerce initiated this CCR and published the notice of expedited preliminary results, determining that Perfiles is the successor-in-interest to Perfiles y Herrajes.
The merchandise subject to this order is certain welded carbon-quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4 mm.
The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically, the term carbon-quality includes products in which none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium.
The description of carbon-quality is intended to identify carbon-quality products within the scope. The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to this order is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
For the reasons stated in the
We are issuing this determination and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that PT Cheil Jedang Indonesia (CJI), an exporter of monosodium glutamate (MSG) from Indonesia, did not sell MSG at less than fair value during the period of review (POR) November 1, 2015, through October 31, 2016.
Applicable March 29, 2018.
Caitlin Monks or Joseph Traw, AD/CVD
This review covers one exporter of the subject merchandise, CJI. On December 4, 2017, Commerce published the
The merchandise covered by this order is monosodium glutamate (MSG), whether or not blended or in solution with other products. Specifically, MSG that has been blended or is in solution with other product(s) is included in this order when the resulting mix contains 15 percent or more of MSG by dry weight. Products with which MSG may be blended include, but are not limited to, salts, sugars, starches, maltodextrins, and various seasonings. Further, MSG is included in this order regardless of physical form (including, but not limited to, in monohydrate or anhydrous form, or as substrates, solutions, dry powders of any particle size, or unfinished forms such as MSG slurry), end-use application, or packaging.
MSG in monohydrate form has a molecular formula of C5H8NO4Na -H2O, a Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) registry number of 6106-04-3, and a Unique Ingredient Identifier (UNII) number of W81N5U6R6U. MSG in anhydrous form has a molecular formula of C5H8NO4 Na, a CAS registry number of l42-47-2, and a UNII number of C3C196L9FG.
Merchandise covered by this order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 2922.42.10.00. Merchandise covered by this order may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 2922.42.50.00, 2103.90.72.00, 2103.90.74.00, 2103.90.78.00, 2103.90.80.00, and 2103.90.90.91. These tariff classifications, CAS registry numbers, and UNII numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
All issues raised in the sole case brief filed in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Based on our analysis of the comment received, we made changes to our normal value and margin calculations for CJI. A complete discussion of these changes can be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. These changes did not affect Commerce's determination that sales of subject merchandise by CJI were not made at prices less than normal value during the POR.
Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for entries of subject merchandise that were produced and/or exported by the following company during the POR:
Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b). CJI's weighted-average dumping margin in these final results is zero percent. Therefore, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. Commerce intends to issue the appropriate assessment instructions for CJI to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results.
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for CJI will be the weighted-average dumping margin listed above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and, (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be the all others rate for this proceeding, 6.19 percent, as established in the less-than-fair-value investigation.
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
This notice also 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
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
These final results are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Brenda E. Waters, 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.
On March 5, 2018, Commerce published its opportunity to request an administrative review of antidumping and countervailing duty orders and incorrectly listed the case number for the countervailing duty order on Amorphous Silica Fabric from the People's Republic of China.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Center (SEFSC), 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149 (Responsible Party: Theophilus Brainerd, Ph.D.), has applied in due form for a permit to take loggerhead (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before April 30, 2018.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Amy Hapeman or Erin Markin, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The SEFSC requests a ten-year permit to study sea turtles in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea including international waters. The objectives of the research are to assess sea turtle populations for anthropogenic threats, abundance estimates, and population structure and mixing rates. Animals for study would be directly captured by hand, hoop net, pound net, seine, cast net, tangle net, or trawl or obtained for study from another legal source such as bycatch in a commercial fishery. Researchers would be authorized to examine, mark, image, collect morphometrics, collect a suite of biological samples, and attach transmitters to live sea turtles before release. A subset of these animals may also undergo hearing trials or laparoscopy and internal tissue sampling when transported and temporarily held in a facility before release. The SEFSC requests a small number of unintentional mortalities,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Advisory Panel will hold a public meeting.
The meeting will be held on Friday, April 13, 2018, from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m.
The meeting will be held via internet Webinar. Detailed connection details are available at
Christopher M. Moore Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The purpose of the meeting is to develop a fishery performance report by the Council's Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Advisory Panel. The intent of this report is to facilitate structured input from the Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Advisory Panel members to the Council and its Scientific and Statistical Committee. Advisors will also receive an update on the clam dredge access framework under development by the New England Fishery Management Council.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office (302) 526-5251 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Supplemental notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS).
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has been preparing an amendment to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan, known as the “Comprehensive Summer Flounder Amendment,” to modify aspects of the fishery management plan related to summer flounder commercial and recreational management. To avoid delaying the amendment while waiting for updated recreational information, the Council is now splitting several issues within this original action, including fishery management plan goals and objectives, commercial allocation, commercial moratorium permits, and commercial framework provisions into a separate action that will continue to be developed as an EIS. The Council is taking comments on this modified action, which is now being referred to as the “Summer Flounder Commercial Issues Amendment.” Following completion of this “Commercial Issues” amendment, the Council may then develop at least one future action relating to recreational fishery issues and commercial/recreational allocation to incorporate updated recreational fishery data when it becomes available later this year. The purpose of this notification is to alert and seek comment from the public about the Council's consideration of splitting this amendment, by delaying some issues to be pursued via later actions.
Written comments must be received on or before April 30, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
On September 16, 2014, an NOI was published in the
The primary driver of this proposed split is the ongoing revisions to recreational data by the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), which are expected to substantially change the current understanding of recreational catch and landings. Due to these changes, the Council and Commission chose to delay development of any issues that would rely heavily on recreational data, including quota allocation between the commercial and recreational sectors, as well as recreational management measures and strategies. If this action
The purpose of this revised amendment is to consider revisions to the current qualification criteria for Federal moratorium permit holders, the current allocation of commercial quota, and the current list of frameworkable items in the FMP (
The Council and Commission intend to initiate a separate action or actions once revised MRIP data become available. This future action is expected to consider revisions to the allocation between the commercial and recreational sectors for summer flounder, as well as several recreational fishery issues. General categories of recreational issues previously identified for evaluation include: Recreational process, conservation equivalency framework, and recreational allocations; recreational sector separation (for-hire and/or private mode); alternative recreational strategies (allow for alternatives to minimum size, bag limit, and season restrictions;
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a five-day meeting to consider actions affecting the Gulf of Mexico fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The meeting will be held on Monday, April 16 through Friday, April 20, 2018.
The meeting will take place at the Marriott Courtyard hotel, located at 1600 E. Beach Boulevard, Gulfport, MS 39501; telephone: (228) 864-4310.
Douglas Gregory, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.
The meeting will begin in a Closed Session of the Full Council all day to hold applicant interviews, select the 2017 Law Enforcement Officer of the Year, and to select members to the Shrimp and Reef Fish Advisory Panels.
The Coral Committee will meet briefly to review a public hearing draft for Coral Amendment 9. The Shrimp Committee will review updated stock assessments, biological review of the Texas closure, and receive a summary from the Shrimp Advisory Panel Meeting. The Mackerel Committee will review and discuss the South Atlantic Council's Amendment 31: Atlantic Cobia Management. The Administrative/Budget Committee will review the grant expenditures, and anticipated budget activities and funding. The Sustainable Fisheries Committee will review a revised policy statement on the use of descending tools and venting devices and a 5-year review on inclusion/exclusion of species and species groupings in fishery management plans; and hold a discussion on historical captain permits. After lunch, the Reef Fish Management Committee will review the Reef Fish Landings; receive an update on state management of recreational Red Snapper Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs); review a public hearing draft for Joint Reef Fish Amendment 48 and Red Drum Amendment 4—Status Determination Criteria and Optimum Yield; and discuss the State Management Program for Recreational Red Snapper.
The Reef Fish Management Committee will reconvene and receive a presentation on recreational data challenges and potential South Atlantic Council responses; discuss the Commercial Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQ) Programs; and, review an options paper on framework action Greater Amberjack Recreational Bag Limits, Seasonal Quotas and Commercial Trip Limits. After lunch, the Committee will review the decision tools and amendments for Amendment 42—Reef Fish Management for Headboat Survey and Amendment 41—Allocation-based Management for Federally Permitted Charters Vessels; and, receive a summary from the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) meeting.
The Full Council will reconvene with a Call to Order, Announcements, and Introductions; Adoption of Agenda and Approval of Minutes. The Council will receive a presentation from Mississippi Law Enforcement; a summary from the Law Enforcement Technical Committee meeting; a regulatory review; and, a presentation on Highly Migratory Species on Shortfin Mako. The Council will review Exempted Fishing Permit (EFPs) Applications and public comments on EFP applications, if any. After lunch, the Council will receive open public testimony from 12:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. on Fishery Issues or Concerns. Anyone wishing to speak during public comment should sign in at the registration station located at the entrance to the meeting room.
After public testimony, the Full Council will receive committee reports from the Coral, Shrimp, Mackerel and Administrative/Budget Management Committees.
The Full Council will receive committee reports from Reef Fish and Sustainable Fisheries Management Committees; Announce the 2017 Law Enforcement Officer of the Year; vote on any Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) applications; and receive updates from the following supporting agencies: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission; U.S. Coast Guard; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and, the Department of State.
Lastly, the Council will discuss any Other Business items.
The timing and order in which agenda items are addressed may change as required to effectively address the issue. The latest version will be posted on the Council's file server, which can be accessed by going to the Council's website at
Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Center of Independent Experts will meet April 16 through April 18, 2018 to review the stock assessments for Bering Sea and Aleutian Island yellowfin sole, northern rock sole, and Alaska plaice.
The meeting will be held on Monday, April 16, 2018 through Wednesday, April 18, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Diana Stram, NPFMC staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
1. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the assumptions made in applying the stock assessment model including how survey indices are scaled to the populations. Specifics might include:
a. How natural mortality estimates are estimated/applied.
b. Assumptions about survey “catchability”.
c. Application of fishery and survey age-specific schedules (maturity, body mass, selectivity).
d. The application (or lack thereof) of a stock-recruitment relationship (and associated parameter estimates).
2. Evaluate the stock assessment approach used focusing specifically on how fisheries and survey data are compiled and used to assess the stock status relative to stated management objectives under the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. Elements should consider:
a. The FMP “Tier” designation.
b. Fishing rate estimation relative to overfishing definitions.
c. Stock status determinations relative to BMSY.
3. Recommend how assessment data and/or models could be improved.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) 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 procedures for the recordal of fastener insignia under the FQA are set forth in 15 CFR 280.300
This information collection was created to facilitate the public's compliance with the insignia recordal provisions of the FQA. The USPTO uses the information in this collection to record or renew insignias under the FQA and to maintain the Fastener Insignia Register, which is open to public inspection. The public may download the Fastener Insignia Register from the USPTO website at
Once submitted, the request will be publicly available in electronic format through
Further information can be obtained by:
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before April 30, 2018 to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, via email to
Department of the Air Force, U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce the Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board.
Closed to the Public Thursday 12 April 2018, 1:30 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Mountain Time (MT).
The Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center, located at 1251 Wyoming Blvd. SE, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico 87123.
Evan Buschmann, (240) 612-5503 (Voice), 703-693-5643 (Facsimile),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150. The scheduled sessions of the Air Force SAB Spring Board meeting will be closed to the public because they will discuss classified information and matters covered by Section 552b of Title 5, United States Code, subsection (c), subparagraph (1).
Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 29, 2018.
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 instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Logistics Agency, DLA Human Capital Program Development, ATTN: Tya Dammer, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6220, or email
Respondents are Foreign Nationals employed by DLA (and thereby considered members of the public). The DLA Culture/Climate Survey provides a confidential mechanism for employees to share feedback on their work environment, resulting in opportunities for DLA employees and leaders to engage in thoughtful, data-driven discussions that lead to informed action and improve the DLA collective performance.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 29, 2018.
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 instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Military Community and Family Policy, Office of Military Family Readiness, ATTN: Karen Morgan, Alexandria, VA 22350; or email:
Respondents are DoD contractors, family child care providers, family child care adult family members residing in the home, and specified volunteers who provide child care services for children under age 18. This form will be initiated by DoD staff and will be maintained in the initiating DoD offices and/or appropriate Human Resources or Security Offices.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense.
Notice of intent.
The Alaska District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) intends to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to assess the potential social, economic, and environmental impacts associated with the proposed Pebble open pit mine in wetlands, streams and Ocean near Cook Inlet. The EIS will assess potential effects of a range of alternatives.
Public scoping meetings are tentatively scheduled in Anchorage, Homer, Dillingham, King Salmon (Naknek), Iliamna (Newhalen), Nondalton, and Kokhanok (Iguigig) will occur in mid-April 2018. Information about these meetings and meeting dates will be published locally, posted at
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 6898, Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson, AK 99506-0898.
Questions about the proposed action and the Draft EIS should be referred to: Mr. Shane McCoy, Regulatory Division,
An application for a Department of the Army permit was submitted by the Pebble Limited Partnership pursuant Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) on December 22, 2017, and was advertised in a Public Notice, POA-2017-271, on January 5, 2018. The public notice is available on Alaska District's public website at:
The pipeline route would originate on the Kenai Peninsula, connecting to the existing gas pipeline infrastructure near Happy Valley. A metering station would be constructed at the off-take point and the pipeline would then follow south along the Sterling Highway for 9 miles to a gas-fired compressor station north of Anchor Point. The compressor station would feed a 94-mile subsea pipeline from the east shore of Cook Inlet to Amakdedori Port on the west shore. A second gas-fired compressor station would be located at the port site. The pipeline route would then follow a 30-mile mine access road to the south shore of Iliamna Lake, where the pipeline would enter Iliamna Lake for approximately 18 miles. The pipeline would come ashore at on the north shore of the lake, where it would follow the mine access road to the Mine Site.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 29, 2018.
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 Patricia Kilby-Robb, 202-260-2225.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
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 FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 29, 2018. 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 contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
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 Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. 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 will use the information contained in FCC/WCB-1 to cover the personally identifiable information (PII) that is required as part of the Lifeline Program (“Lifeline”).
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Commission published FCC/WCB-1 “Lifeline Program” in the
Also, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission or to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC or Administrator) be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the FCC's rules. We note that USAC must preserve the confidentiality of all data obtained from respondents; must not use the data except for purposes of administering the universal service programs; and must not disclose data in company-specific form unless directed to do so by the Commission.
On November 16, 2017, the Commission adopted the
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 of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. 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
The FCC 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 May 29, 2018. 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 below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email:
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
On December 21, 2001, the Commission released the
(a) Directed the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund (TRS Fund) administrator to continue to use the average cost per minute compensation methodology for the traditional TRS compensation rate;
(b) required TRS providers to submit certain projected TRS-related cost and demand data to the TRS Fund administrator to be used to calculate the rate; and
(c) directed the TRS Fund administrator to expand its form for providers to itemize their actual and projected costs and demand data, to include specific sections to capture speech-to-speech (STS) and video relay service (VRS) costs and minutes of use.
In 2003, the Commission released the
In 2007, the Commission released the
In 2007, the Commission also released the
(a) Adopted a new cost recovery methodology for interstate traditional TRS and interstate STS based on the Multi-state Average Rate Structure (MARS) plan, under which interstate TRS compensation rates are determined by weighted average of the states' intrastate compensation rates, and which includes for STS additional compensation approved by the Commission for STS outreach;
(b) requires STS providers to file a report annually with the TRS Fund administrator and the Commission on their specific outreach efforts directly attributable to the additional compensation approved by the Commission for STS outreach.
(c) adopted a new cost recovery methodology for interstate captioned telephone service (CTS), as well as internet Protocol captioned telephone service (IP CTS), based on the MARS plan;
(d) adopted a cost recovery methodology for internet Protocol (IP) Relay based on price caps;
(e) adopted a cost recovery methodology for VRS that adopted tiered rates based on call volume;
(f) clarified the nature and extent that certain categories of costs are compensable from the Fund; and
(g) addressed certain issues concerning the management and oversight of the Fund, including prohibiting financial incentives offered to consumers to make relay calls.
4:00 p.m. (telephonic), March 28, 2018.
Closed session.
Information covered under 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(9)(B).
Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The invention named in this notice is owned by agencies of the United States Government and is available for licensing in accordance with the U.S. Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986. Related data for 510(k) submission is available as part of the licensing package. The technology and related data are being licensed to achieve expeditious commercialization of federally funded research and development. A U.S. Provisional patent application has been filed to extend market coverage. CDC also seeks collaboration partners with interest in adapting the test for different equipment, point-of-care, or more rapid processing.
Individuals interested in this technology opportunity are invited to participate in a live question and answer webinar on April 27, 2018 at 10 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
Licensing, related data for 510(k) submission, and other information pertaining to the technology listed below, may be obtained by writing to Technology Transfer Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop D-42, Atlanta, GA 30329; Telephone (404)639-1330; or email
CDC Trioplex Real-time RT-PCR (Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction) Assay for Detection of Zika, Dengue, & Chikungunya Virus Infections CDC ref. no.: I-009-17 NIH ref. no.: E-081-2017 (See
CDC has developed the Trioplex real-time RT-PCR test to detect evidence of Zika, dengue and chikungunya virus infections, all of which are spread by mosquito bites from the same
Currently, there are no vaccines or therapeutics commercially available for Zika, dengue, or chikungunya virus infections.
Competitive advantages:
Individuals interested in this technology opportunity are invited to participate in a live question and answer webinar on April 27, 2018 at 10 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Individuals must pre-register for the session by sending an email to
After requesting the registration, participants will receive a confirmation of their registration along with access information to enter prior to the webinar. Persons interested in this technology are strongly encouraged to register for and participate in the webinar.
A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement (available under Forms at
Inventors: Jorge Munoz-Jordan, Robert Lanciotti, and Gilberto Santiago.
U.S. PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) Application No. PCT/US2017/023021: Filed March 17, 2017.
(CDC Ref. #: I-009-17; NIH Ref. #E-081-2017—See
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by May 29, 2018.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
This standard form collects identifying and contact information of the complainant, as well as, the identifying and contact information of the filed against entity (FAE). This information enables CMS to respond to the complainant and gather more information if necessary, and to contact the FAE to discuss the complaint and CMS' findings.
In addition to the identifying and contact information, the standard form collects a summary which outlines the nature of the complaint. This summary is used to determine the validity of the complaint, and to categorize the complaint as related to transactions, standards, code sets, unique identifiers, and/or operating rules. This ensures the appropriate direction of the complaint process and enables CMS to produce accurate reports regarding complaint activity.
The revision form associated with this submission adds an option for filing complaints under Unique Identifier and Operating Rules. It also requests an email address for filed against entities, if available.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a revised draft guidance for industry on generic doxycycline hyclate oral delayed-release tablets, entitled “Product-Specific Guidance for Doxycycline Hyclate.” The revised draft guidance, when finalized, will provide product-specific recommendations on, among other things, the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies to support abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for doxycycline hyclate oral delayed-release tablets.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by May 29, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comments on the draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time 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 Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Xiaoqiu Tang, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-600), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4730, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5850.
In the
As described in that guidance, FDA adopted this process to develop and disseminate product-specific guidances and to provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to consider and comment on the guidances. This notice announces the availability of a revised draft guidance for generic doxycycline hyclate oral delayed-release tablets.
FDA initially approved new drug application (NDA) 050795 for DORYX (doxycycline hyclate oral delayed-release tablets) in May 2005. In May 2009, FDA issued a draft guidance for industry on generic doxycycline hyclate oral delayed-release tablets and most recently revised that guidance in June 2015. On May 20, 2016, FDA approved a supplement to NDA 050795 for a new formulation of doxycycline hyclate delayed-release tablets in equivalent to (EQ) 60 milligram (mg) and EQ 120 mg strengths under the trade name Doryx MPC. We are now issuing another revised draft guidance for industry on doxycycline hyclate oral delayed-release tablets to include recommendations for demonstrating bioequivalence to these strengths.
In November 2016, Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd submitted a citizen petition requesting that FDA require certain in vitro dissolution criteria as part of the BE demonstration for any ANDA referencing DORYX MPC. FDA has reviewed the issues raised in this citizen petition and is responding to the citizen petition separately in the docket for that citizen petition (Docket No. FDA-2016-P-4047, available at
This revised draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The revised draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the design of BE studies to support ANDAs for doxycycline hyclate oral delayed-release tablets. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee. The general function of the committees is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held on May 22, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
College Park Marriott Hotel and Conference Center, General Vessey Ballroom, 3501 University Blvd., Hyattsville, MD 20783. The conference center's telephone number is 301-985-7300. Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA Advisory Committee meetings may be accessed at:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2018-N-0875. The docket will close on May 21, 2018. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by May 21, 2018. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before May 21, 2018. The
Comments received on or before May 8, 2018, will be provided to the committees. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA.
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 Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
Moon Hee V. Choi, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, Fax: 301-847-8533, email:
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Moon Hee V. Choi (see
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the following public workshop entitled “FY 2018 Generic Drug Regulatory Science Initiatives.” The purpose of the public workshop is to provide an overview of the status of regulatory science initiatives for generic drugs and an opportunity for public input on these initiatives. FDA is seeking this input from a variety of stakeholders—industry, academia, patient advocates, professional societies, and other interested parties—as it fulfills its commitment under the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2017 (GDUFA II) to develop an annual list of regulatory science initiatives specific to generic drugs. FDA will take the information it obtains from the public workshop into account in developing its fiscal year (FY) 2019 regulatory science initiatives.
The public workshop will be held on May 24, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public workshop by June 25, 2018. See the
The public workshop will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503, sections B and C), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Bldg. 1, where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before June 25, 2018. The
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 Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Stephanie Choi, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4736, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-7960,
In July 2012, Congress passed the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA I) (Pub. L. 112-144). GDUFA I was designed to enhance public access to safe, high-quality generic drugs and to modernize the generic drug program. To support this goal, FDA agreed in the GDUFA I commitment letter to work with industry and interested stakeholders on identifying regulatory science initiatives specific to generic drugs for each fiscal year covered by GDUFA I.
In August 2017, GDUFA I was reauthorized until September 2022 through GDUFA II (Pub. L. 115-52). In the GDUFA II commitment letter,
The purpose of the public workshop is to obtain input from industry and other interested stakeholders on the identification of generic drug regulatory science initiatives for FY 2019.
FDA is particularly interested in receiving input regarding the following three topics:
1. FY 2018 regulatory science initiatives,
2. newly approved new drug applications that may pose scientific challenges to the future development of generic products referencing those applications, and
3. regulatory science initiatives that FDA should begin to consider in FY 2019.
FDA will consider all comments made at this workshop or received through the docket (see
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public workshop must register online by April 24, 2018, midnight Eastern Time. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. Registrants will receive confirmation when they have been accepted.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Stephanie Choi (see
If you have never attended a Connect Pro event before, test your connection at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Arthritis Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee. The general function of the committees is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held on April 24 and 25, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2018-N-1015. The docket will close on April 23, 2018. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by April 23, 2018. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 23, 2018. The
Comments received on or before April 10, 2018, will be provided to the committees. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA.
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 Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
Jennifer Shepherd, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, Fax: 301-847-8533, email:
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Jennifer Shepherd (see
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act(5 U.S.C. app. 2).
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government.
Licensing information may be obtained by emailing the indicated licensing contact at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood, Office of Technology Transfer and Development Office of Technology Transfer, 31 Center Drive Room 4A29, MSC 2479, Bethesda, MD 20892-2479; telephone: 301- 402-5579. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement may be required to receive any unpublished information.
The following inventions are available for
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NICHD.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with the attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute Of Child Health And Human Development, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Open: 8:00 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Board on Medical Rehabilitation Research. The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Request for applications.
The U.S. Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee. The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee provides advice and makes recommendations on matters relating to the safe and secure marine transportation of hazardous materials insofar as they relate to matters within the United States Coast Guard's jurisdiction.
Completed applications should reach the U.S. Coast Guard on or before May 29, 2018.
Applicants should send a cover letter expressing interest in an appointment to the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee that also identifies which membership category the applicant is applying under, along with a resume detailing the applicant's experience via one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Lieutenant Jake Lobb of the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee; (202) 372-1428;
The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee is a federal advisory committee which operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.
The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee provides advice and recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security on matters relating to the safe and secure marine transportation of hazardous materials insofar as they relate to matters within the United States Coast Guard's jurisdiction.
The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee meets at least twice per year. It may also meet for extraordinary purposes. Its subcommittees may meet to consider specific problems as required.
The U.S. Coast Guard will consider applications for 8 positions that become vacant on September 16, 2018. The membership categories are: Chemical manufacturing, marine handling or transportation of chemicals, vessel design and construction, marine safety or security, and marine environmental protection. All members of the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee are Representatives. Each Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee member serves for a term of three years, and may serve no more than two consecutive three-year terms. A member appointed to fill an unexpired term may serve the remainder of that term. All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary, reimbursement of travel expenses, or other compensation from the Federal Government.
The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in selection of Committee members on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disabilities and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or any other non-merit factor. The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.
If you are interested in applying to become a member of the Committee, send your cover letter and resume to Lieutenant Jake Lobb, Alternate Designated Federal Official of the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee, via one of the transmittal methods in the
U.S. Fire Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a new information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the identification and cataloging of fire and emergency services personnel and equipment that might be available to support a catastrophic national disaster response.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 29, 2018.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Thomas Murray, Fire Program Specialist, FEMA, U.S. Fire Administration, (301) 447-1588,
Implementation of the concepts within the National Response Framework (NRF) and Response Federal Interagency Operational Plan (FIOP) is mandatory for Federal departments and agencies.
Flooding, tornadoes and hurricanes do not follow geo-political boundaries. The larger and more widespread the event, the greater the likelihood that the existing local mutual-aid systems will not meet the demands placed upon them. Fire and Emergency Services will need to draw on assistance from systems beyond their normal mutual-aid boundaries, executing regional, statewide and interstate mutual-aid systems. For example, the State Emergency Management Agency may coordinate the use of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC). Many Federal agencies who have a role in disaster response under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121
The goal of this information collection is to help facilitate a sustained response to a catastrophic event where response services are limited and the demand for them is overwhelmed. The information contained in the National Catastrophic Resource Catalog (NCRC) will provide a foundation to supplement existing mutual-aid systems and sustain a long-term response operation. The USFA staff, deployed to the National Response Coordination Center (NRCC) in Washington DC, will assess the situation and evaluate the availability of the NIMS-typed capabilities and credentialed personnel contained in the NCRC. The information will be used by NRCC personnel to coordinate the deployment of teams, persons and equipment to sustain the response operation.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Science and Technology Directorate, DHS.
Committee management; notice of open Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee (HSSTAC) will meet in-person and via webinar on Thursday, April 12, 2018. The meeting will be open to the public.
The HSSTAC meeting will take place Thursday, April 12, 2018 from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
The meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business.
Due to security requirements, screening pre-registration is required for this event. Please see the REGISTRATION section below.
1120 Vermont Ave. NW, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20005.
Michel Kareis, HSSTAC Designated Federal Official, S&T Interagency Office (IAO), STOP 0205, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, Washington, DC 20528-0205, 202-254-8778 (Office), 202-254-6176 (Fax),
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. Appendix (Pub. L. 92-463). The committee addresses areas of interest and importance to the Under Secretary for Science and Technology (S&T), such as new developments in systems engineering, cyber-security, knowledge management and how best to leverage related technologies funded by other Federal agencies and by the private sector. It also advises the Under Secretary on policies, management processes, and organizational constructs as needed.
If you plan to attend the meeting in-person, you must RSVP by April 10, 2018. To register, email
To pre-register for the webinar, please send an email to
For information on services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, please contact Michel Kareis as soon as possible listed above in the
At the end of the open session, there will be a period for oral statements. Please note that the comments period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for oral statements. To register as a speaker, contact the person listed in the
To facilitate public participation, we invite public comment on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the Agenda below. Anyone is permitted to submit comments at any time, including orally at the meeting. However, those who would like their comments reviewed by committee members prior to the meeting must submit them in written form no later than April 9, 2018. Please include the docket number (DHS-2018-0016) and submit via
•
•
•
•
The afternoon session will begin with DHS S&T highlights and subcommittee updates. Information will be provided by the Social Media Working Group for Emergency Services and Disaster Management Subcommittee (SMWGEDSC), Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Subcommittee, and Systems Engineering Authority Subcommittee. In addition, a new subcommittee on Technology Scouting and Technology Forecasting will be announced.
There will be a discussion on new topics for the SMWGDSC, including future technology and shifts in trends. The final session of the day will be on Technology Scouting and Forecasting.
A public comment period will be held at the end of the open session.
30-Day Notice of Information collection for review; Form No. I-901; Fee Remittance for Certain F, J and M Non-immigrants; OMB Control No. 1653-0034.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE) will be submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Announcement of Fiscal Year 2017 Awards.
In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this document notifies the public of Tenant Protection Voucher (TPV) funding awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 to public housing agencies (PHAs) under the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP). The purpose of this notice is to publish the names, addresses of awardees, and the amount of their non-competitive funding awards for assisting households affected by housing conversion actions, public housing relocations and replacements, moderate rehabilitation replacements, and HOPE VI voucher awards.
Milan Ozdinec, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 4204, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone (202) 402-1380 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 927-7589.
The regulations governing the HCVP are published at 24 CFR 982. The purpose of the rental assistance program is to assist eligible families to pay their rent for decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private rental market. The regulations for allocating housing assistance budget authority under Section 213(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 are published at 24 CFR part 791, subpart D.
The FY 2017 awardees announced in this notice were provided HCVP tenant protection vouchers (TPVs) funds on an as-needed, non-competitive basis,
Awards published under this notice were provided (1) to assist families living in HUD-owned properties that are being sold; (2) to assist families affected by the expiration or termination of their Section 8 Project-based and Moderate Rehabilitation contracts; (3) to assist families in properties where the owner has prepaid the HUD mortgage; (4) to assist families in projects where the Rental Supplement and Rental Assistance Payments contracts are expired (RAD—Second Component); (5) to provide relocation housing assistance
A special administrative fee of $200 per occupied unit was provided to PHAs to compensate for any extraordinary HCVP administrative costs associated with the Multifamily Housing conversion actions.
The Department awarded total new budget authority of $94,468,761 to recipients under all the above-mentioned categories for 9,218 housing choice vouchers. This budget authority includes $1,386,144 of unobligated commitments made in FY 2016. These funds were reserved by September 30, 2016, but not contracted until FY 2017, and thus have been included with obligated commitments for FY 2017.
In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the names, addresses of awardees, and their award amounts in Appendix A. The awardees are listed alphabetically by State for each type of TPV award.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
Since Fiscal Year 2014, Jobs Plus has provided competitive grants to partnerships between public housing authorities (PHAs), local workforce investment boards established under section 117 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, and other agencies and organizations that provide support to help public housing residents obtain employment and increase earnings. On March 13, 2015, HUD published a
To assure a timely response, please electronically direct requests for further information to this email address:
Jobs Plus promotes economic empowerment in low-income areas by providing funding to PHAs that develop locally-based, job-driven approaches to increase earnings and advance employment outcomes through work readiness, employer linkages, job placement, educational advancement, technology skills, and financial literacy for residents of public housing. Congress first appropriated funds for the program in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, (Pub. L. 113-76, approved January 17, 2014) (2014 Appropriations Act), and continued to appropriate funds for the program in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, (Pub. L. 113-235, approved December 16, 2014) (2015 Appropriation Act), the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, (Pub. L. 114-113, approved December 18, 2015), and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31, approved May 5, 2017). Each year, the provisions pertaining to Jobs Plus have remained substantially the same.
On March 13, 2015, HUD published a
This Notice involves administrative and fiscal requirements related to income limits and exclusions with regard to calculation of rental assistance which do not constitute a development decision affecting the physical condition of specific project areas or building sites. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this Notice is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
The statutes that have appropriated funds for the Jobs Plus program (the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Pub. L. 113-76; the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. 113-235; the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. 114-113; and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Pub. L. 115-31) provide that HUD is authorized to waive or alter the rent and income limitation requirements under sections 3 and 6 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 as necessary to implement Jobs Plus. The list of waivers and alternative requirements, as described above, follows:
There shall be no phase-in period for families participating in Jobs Plus. Upon completion of the earned income exclusion period, the tenant's rent will be calculated based on the tenant's income, including all earned income in accordance with 24 CFR part 5, subpart F.
The standard lifetime maximum two-year disallowance period prescribed in 24 CFR 960.255(b)(3) shall not apply to individuals participating in Jobs Plus. Individuals may benefit from the Jobs Plus earned income disregard even if they have previously benefited from the standard public housing earned income disregard. If individuals at Jobs Plus targeted developments receive the standard earned income disregard, they may continue to do so until they enroll in the Jobs Plus earned income disregard or until the time of their next rent-recertification, whichever is earlier.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of reinstatement.
In accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Red Fork (USA) Investments, Inc., timely filed a petition for reinstatement of competitive oil and gas leases OKNM 127909, OKNM 127910, OKNM 127911, OKNM 127912, OKNM 127913, and OKNM 127920, in Payne County, Oklahoma, and OKNM 127917, in Noble County, Oklahoma. The lessee paid the required rentals accruing from the date of termination. No new leases were issued that affect these lands. The Bureau of Land Management proposes to reinstate these leases.
Julieann Serrano, Supervisory Land Law Examiner, Branch of Adjudication, Bureau of Land Management New Mexico State Office, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87508, (505) 954-2149,
The lessee agrees to new lease terms for rentals and royalties of $10 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year, and 16
The lessee met the requirements for reinstatement of the lease per Sec. 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. The BLM is proposing to reinstate the leases, effective the date of termination subject to the:
• Original terms and conditions of the lease;
• Additional and amended stipulations;
• Increased rental of $10 per acre;
• Increased royalty of 16
• $159 cost of publishing this Notice.
43 CFR 3108.2-3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Arctic District Office, Fairbanks, Alaska, is issuing for public comment the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Alpine Satellite Development Plan for the Proposed Greater Mooses Tooth 2 (GMT2) Development Project, National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A). BLM Alaska is also announcing pending public meetings and subsistence-related hearings to receive comments on the GMT2 Draft Supplemental EIS and the project's potential to impact subsistence resources and activities. The EIS will supplement the September 2004 Alpine Satellite Development Plan Final EIS that originally analyzed the GMT2 Project, regarding establishing satellite oil production pads and associated infrastructure within the Alpine field.
To ensure that the BLM will consider your comments on the GMT2 Draft Supplemental EIS, BLM Alaska must receive your written comments no later than 45 days after the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its notice of availability of the GMT2 Draft Supplemental EIS in the
You may provide comments by mail, fax, email, or in person. Mail comments to: GMT2 SEIS Comments, Attn: Stephanie Rice, 222 West 7th Avenue #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513; fax comments to 907-271-3933; email comments to
You may review the GMT2 Draft Supplemental EIS online at BLM Alaska's website at
Stephanie Rice, BLM Alaska State Office, 907-271-3202. People who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The GMT2 Supplemental EIS analyzes an application from ConocoPhillips, Alaska, Inc. (ConocoPhillips). The application is for a permit to drill and related authorizations to construct, operate, and maintain a drill site, access road, pipelines, and ancillary facilities on federally managed land to support development of petroleum resources at the GMT2 drill site. BLM Alaska manages the surface and subsurface at the drill site and at the proposed infield road and pipeline route. ConocoPhillips may also develop subsurface resources owned by the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, and may occupy surface lands owned by the Kuukpik Corporation.
The proposed GMT2 site is approximately 25 miles southwest of the ConocoPhillips-operated Alpine Central Processing Facility (CD1) and will be operated and maintained by staff at the Alpine Central Processing Facility.
The GMT2 Project was originally analyzed as the Colville Delta 7 (CD7) drill pad in the BLM's September 2004 Alpine Satellite Development Plan Final EIS. The purpose of the Supplemental EIS is to evaluate any relevant new circumstances and information that have arisen since the Alpine Satellite Development Plan Final EIS was completed, to update the alternatives in the 2004 EIS, and to address any changes to ConocoPhillips' proposed development plan for GMT2. The GMT2 Draft Supplemental EIS analyzes four alternatives, including two alternatives with an access road, an alternative without an access road, and a no-action alternative.
The key issues in the GMT2 Draft Supplemental EIS are the protection of
BLM Alaska will hold public meetings on the GMT2 Draft Supplemental EIS in these Alaska communities: Anchorage, Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Utqiaġvik, Fairbanks, and Nuiqsut. In addition, the public meetings at Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Utqiaġvik, and Nuiqsut will incorporate subsistence hearings to take comments on subsistence impacts pursuant to the ANILCA.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the BLM in your comment to withhold your personally identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
16 U.S.C. 3120(a); 40 CFR 1506.6(b).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of realty action.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Las Vegas Field Office, has examined and found suitable for classification for lease and subsequent conveyance under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, as amended, approximately 2.98 acres of public land in the Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada. The City of Las Vegas proposes to use the land for a community 2.98-acre park that will help meet future expanding recreation needs in the northwestern part of the Las Vegas Valley.
Interested parties may submit written comments regarding the proposed classification for lease and conveyance of the land until May 14, 2018. Absent any adverse comments, the decision will become effective on May 29, 2018.
Mail written comments to the BLM Las Vegas Field Office, Attn: Vanessa L. Hice, Assistant Field Manager, 4701 N Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130, or faxed to 775-515-5010.
Roger Ketterling at the above address or by telephone at 702-515-5087. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The Service is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The parcel is located south of the existing Wayne Bunker Park on Constantinople Avenue between Buffalo Drive and Tenaya Way in northwest Las Vegas and is legally described as:
The area described contains 2.98 acres in Clark County, Nevada.
In accordance with the R&PP Act, the City of Las Vegas has filed an application to develop the above-described land as a community park consisting of picnic shelters, children's play area, restrooms, pedestrian walkways, parking and turf open space play areas. Additional detailed information pertaining to this publication, plan of development, and site plan is located in case file N-94628, which is available for review at the BLM Las Vegas Field Office at the above address.
The City of Las Vegas is a political subdivision of the State of Nevada and is therefore a qualified applicant under the R&PP Act.
Subject to limitations prescribed by law and regulation, prior to patent issuance, the holder of any right-of-way grant within the lease area may be given the opportunity to amend the right-of-way grant for conversion to a new term, including perpetuity, if applicable.
The land identified is not needed for any Federal purpose. The lease and/or conveyance is consistent with the BLM Las Vegas Resource Management Plan dated October 5, 1998, and would be in the public interest. The City of Las Vegas has not applied for more than the 640-acre limitation for public purpose uses in a year and has submitted a statement in compliance with the regulations at 43CFR 2741.4(b).
The lease and conveyance, when issued, will be subject to the provisions of the R&PP Act and applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, and will contain the following reservations to the United States:
1. A right-of-way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945); and
2. All minerals shall be reserved to the United States, together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such deposits for the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe.
Any lease and conveyance will also be subject to all valid existing rights, will contain any terms or conditions required by law (including, but not limited to, any terms or conditions required by 43 CFR 2741,4), and will contain an appropriate indemnification clause protecting the United States from claims arising out of the lessee's/patentee's use, occupancy, or operations on the leased/patented lands. It will also contain any other terms and conditions deemed necessary and appropriate by the Authorized Officer.
Upon publication of this Notice in the
Interested parties may submit written comments on the suitability of the land for a public park in the City of Las Vegas. Comments on the classification are restricted to whether the land is physically suited for the proposal, whether the use will maximize the future use or uses of the land, whether
Before including your address, phone number, email, 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. Only written comments submitted to the Field Manager, BLM Las Vegas Field Office, will be considered properly filed. Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the BLM Nevada State Director, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action.
In the absence of any adverse comments, the decision will become effective on May 29, 2018. The lands will not be available for lease and conveyance until after the decision becomes effective.
43 CFR 2741.5.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of reinstatement.
In accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Kenneth K. Farmer (lessee) timely filed with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) a petition for reinstatement of competitive oil and gas lease WYW180886, situated in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The lessee paid the required rentals that accrued from the date of termination. BLM did not issue any leases that affect this land prior to receiving the petition. BLM proposes to reinstate this lease.
Chris Hite, Chief of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 82009; phone 307-775-6176; email
The lessee agrees to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year and 16-2/3 percent, respectively. The lessee paid the required $500 administrative fee for lease reinstatement and the $159 cost of publishing this Notice. The lessee met the requirements for reinstatement of the lease per Sec. 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). The BLM proposes to reinstate the lease effective July 1, 2016, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.
30 U.S.C. 188(e)(4) and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(b)(2)(v).
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The National Park Service is hereby giving notice of the 2018 meeting schedule for the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park Advisory Commission.
The Commission will meet on the following dates in 2018:
Thursday, April 12, 2018, 2:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. (EASTERN);
Thursday, July 12, 2018, 2:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. (EASTERN); and
Thursday, October 11, 2018, 2:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. (EASTERN).
The April and October meetings will be held at The Paterson Museum, 2 Market Street, Paterson, NJ 07501; the July meetings will be held at the Rogers Meeting Center, 32 Spruce Street, Paterson, NJ 07501.
Darren Boch, Superintendent and Designated Federal Officer, Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, 72 McBride Avenue, Paterson, NJ 07501, telephone (973) 523-2630, or email
As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 1-16), the National Park Service (NPS) is hereby giving notice for the 2018 meeting schedule for the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park Advisory Commission. The Commission is authorized by the Omnibus Public Land Management Act, (16 U.S.C. 410lll), “to advise the Secretary in the development and implementation of the management plan.” Agendas for these meetings will be provided on the Commission website at
The meetings will be open to the public and time will be reserved during each meeting for public comment. Oral comments will be summarized for the record. If individuals wish to have their comments recorded verbatim, they must submit them in writing. Written comments and requests for agenda items may be sent to: Federal Advisory Commission, Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, 72 McBride Avenue, Paterson, NJ 07501. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your written comments, 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. All comments will be made part of the public record and will be electronically distributed to all Committee members.
5 U.S.C. Appendix 1-16; 16 U.S.C. 410lll.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is proposing to renew an information collection with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 30, 2018.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Anna Atkinson by email, or by telephone at 703-787-1025. You may also view the ICR at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of BOEM; (2) Will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) Is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) How might BOEM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) How might BOEM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology?
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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 regulations at 30 CFR part 550, subpart B, concern plans and information that must be submitted to conduct activities on a lease or unit, and are the subject of this collection. The collection also covers the related Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) that BOEM issues to clarify or provide additional guidance on some aspects of our regulations.
BOEM geologists, geophysicists, and environmental scientists and other Federal agencies (
In 2016, BOEM published a final rule entitled, “Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf—Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf.” This rule finalized new regulations specific to activities conducted on the Arctic OCS that modify 30 CFR part 550, subpart B. The new regulations require operators to develop an Integrated Operations Plan (IOP) for each exploratory program on the Arctic OCS, as well as to submit additional planning information with the EPs. An additional 3,930 burden hours were approved as part of that rulemaking, and are included in the burden table for this control number. The Secretary's Order 3350 (May 1, 2017), which further implements the President's Executive Order entitled, “Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy” (82 FR 20815, May 3, 2017), directs BOEM to review the final rule. If the Secretary decides that the final determination is to suspend, revise, or rescind the rule, the related burden hours in this OMB control number will be adjusted accordingly.
We protect proprietary information, including the information collected under Subpart B, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Department of the Interior's implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), 30 CFR 550.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection,” and 30 CFR part 552, “Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Information Program.”
We have identified three non-hour costs associated with this information collection that are cost recovery fees. They consist of fees being submitted with EPs ($3,673), DPPs or Development Operation Coordination Documents (DOCDs) ($4,238), and Conservation Information Documents (CIDs) ($27,348).
There is also one non-hour cost associated with the Protected Species Observer program. The cost associated with this program is due to observation activities that are usually subcontracted to other service companies with expertise in these areas.
The following table details the individual BOEM components and respective hour burden estimates of this ICR.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of charter renewal.
Following consultation with the General Services Administration, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is renewing the charter for the Yakima River Basin Conservation Advisory Group (CAG). The purpose of the CAG is to provide recommendations to the Secretary and the State of Washington on the structure and implementation of the Yakima River Basin Water Conservation Program (Basin Conservation Program).
Gwendolyn Christensen, Manager, Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement
The Basin Conservation Program is structured to provide economic incentives with cooperative Federal, State, and local funding to stimulate the identification and implementation of structural and nonstructural cost-effective water conservation measures in the Yakima River basin. Improvements in the efficiency of water delivery and use will result in improved streamflows for fish and wildlife and improve the reliability of water supplies for irrigation.
This notice is published in accordance with Section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended). The certification of renewal is published below.
I hereby certify that Charter renewal of the Yakima River Basin Conservation Advisory Group is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Department of the Interior.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on January 19, 2018, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Radwell International, Inc., of Willingboro, New Jersey. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain programmable logic controllers (PLCs), components thereof, and products containing same by reason of: (1) A conspiracy to fix resale prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (2) a conspiracy to boycott resellers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; and (3) monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure a domestic industry in the United States, or to restrain or monopolize trade and commerce in the United States.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(A) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain programmable logic controllers (PLCs), components thereof, and products containing same by reason of: (1) A conspiracy to fix resale prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (2) a conspiracy to boycott resellers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; and (3) monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure a domestic industry in the United States, or to restrain or monopolize trade and commerce in the United States;
(2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties and other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Radwell International, Inc., 1 Millennium Drive, Willingboro, NJ 08046.
(b) The respondent is the following entity alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party upon which the complaint is to be served: Rockwell Automation, Inc., 1201 South 2nd Street, Milwaukee, WI 53204-2410.
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of the respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on February 28, 2018, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Canon Inc. of Japan; Canon U.S.A. Inc. of Melville, New York; and Canon Virginia, Inc. of Newport News, Virginia. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain toner cartridges and components thereof by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,746,826 (“the '826 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,836,021 (“the '021 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,841,727 (“the '727 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,841,728 (“the '728 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,841,729 (“the '729 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,857,764 (“the '764 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,857,765 (“the '765 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,869,960 (“the '960 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 9,874,846 (“the '846 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2017).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain toner cartridges and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9 of the '826 patent; claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 13, 18, and 20 of the '021 patent; claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 15-17, 19-22, 24, 26, and 27 of the '727 patent; claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 15-17, 19-22, 24, and 26-28 of the '728 patent; claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, 14, 16-21, 24, and 26 of the '729 patent; claims 7-9 of the '764 patent; claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 13, 16, 17, and 19 of the '765 patent; claims 1-7 of the '960 patent; and claims 1-3 of the '846 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has found a violation of section 337 in this investigation and has issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting importation of infringing access control systems and components thereof and issued cease and desist orders directed to the following respondents: Techtronic Industries Company Ltd. of Tsuen Wan, Hong Kong (“TTi HK”); Techtronic Industries North America Inc. of Hunt Valley, Maryland (“TTi NA”); One World Technologies, Inc. of Anderson, South Carolina (“One World”); and OWT Industries, Inc. of Pickens, South Carolina (“OWT”). The investigation is terminated.
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3042. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
The Commission instituted this investigation on August 9, 2016, based on a complaint filed by The Chamberlain Group, Inc. of Elmhurst, Illinois (“Chamberlain” or “CGI”). 81 FR 52713 (Aug. 9, 2016). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain access control systems and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 10-12, and 18-25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,196,611 (“the '611 patent”); claims 1-4, 7-12, 15, and 16 of the '319 patent; and claims 7, 11-13, 15-23, and 34-36 of the '336 patent.
On October 27, 2016, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's order (Order No. 4) granting a motion to amend the Notice of Investigation to include the following two additional respondents: Techtronic Trading Limited of Kwai Chung, Hong Kong; and Techtronic Industries Factory Outlets Inc., d/b/a Direct Tools Factory Outlet of Anderson, South Carolina (collectively, “Techtronic”).
On November 7, 2016, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's order (Order No. 6) terminating the investigation as to Ryobi.
On March 15, 2017, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's order (Order No. 15) granting a motion to terminate the investigation as to Techtronic. Order No. 15, Comm'n Notice of Non-Review (Mar. 15, 2017).
On March 20, 2017, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's order (Order No. 18) granting a motion to terminate the investigation as to claims 10, 19-20, and 22 of the '611 patent and claims 7, 11-13, 15-18, 35, and 36 of the '336 patent. Order No. 18; Comm'n Notice of Non-Review (Mar. 20, 2017).
On March 27, 2017, the ALJ issued Order No. 23 granting Respondents' motion for summary determination of non-infringement of the asserted claims of the '319 patent, stemming from the ALJ's construction of the claim term “wall console” to mean “a wall-mounted control unit including a passive infrared detector.”
The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing from May 1, 2017 through May 3, 2017, on issues solely relating to the '336 patent.
On May 3, the Commission determined to review Order No. 23 that granted Respondents' motion for summary determination of non-infringement of the '319 patent. On review, the Commission determined to construe “wall console” as a “wall-mounted control unit,” vacated Order No. 23, and remanded the investigation as to the '319 patent to the ALJ for further proceedings.
On May 31, 2017, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's order (Order No. 28) granting a motion to terminate the investigation as to all of the pending claims of the '611 patent. Order No. 28; Comm'n Notice of Non-Review (May 31, 2017).
The ALJ held a second evidentiary hearing from July 12, 2017, through July 13, 2017, on issues relating to the '319 patent.
On November 9, 2017, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's order (Order No. 36) granting a motion to terminate the investigation as to certain accused products and claims 19-23 of the '336 patent. Order No. 36; Comm'n Notice of Non-Review (Nov. 9, 2017).
On October 23, 2017, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding a violation of section 337 by Respondents in connection with claims 1-4, 7-12, 15, and 16 of the '319 patent. Specifically, the ALJ found that the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction,
Also on October 23, 2017, the ALJ issued his recommended determination on remedy and bonding. Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding (“RD”). The ALJ recommends that in the event the Commission finds a violation of section 337, the Commission should issue a limited exclusion order prohibiting the importation of Respondents' accused products and components thereof that infringe the asserted claims of the '319 patent. RD at 2. The ALJ also recommends issuance of cease and desist orders against respondents Techtronic Industries Company Ltd., Techtronic Industries North America Inc., One World Technologies, Inc., and OWT Industries, Inc. based on the presence of commercially significant inventory in the United States. RD at 5. With respect to the amount of bond that should be posted during the period of Presidential review, the ALJ recommends that the Commission set a bond in the amount of zero (
On November 6, 2017, Respondents filed a petition for review as to the '319 patent and a contingent petition for review as to the '336 patent.
On November 14, 2017, Chamberlain and Respondents filed their respective responses to the petitions for review.
On December 22, 2017, the Commission determined to review the final ID in part. 82 FR 61792-94 (Dec. 29, 2017). Specifically, for the '319
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the final ID, and the parties' submissions, for the '319 patent the Commission has determined to (1) affirm the ALJ's finding that a combination of prior art references Doppelt, Jacobs, and Gilbert fail to render the asserted claims obvious and (2) affirm the ALJ's finding that a combination of prior art references Matsuoka, Doppelt, and Eckel fail to render the asserted claims obvious, but reverse the ALJ's finding that Eckel is analogous art. For the '336 patent the Commission has determined to (1) affirm the ALJ's finding that Pruessel, either alone or in combination with Koestler, fails to render claim 34 obvious and (2) take no position on the ALJ's finding that claim 34 recites ineligible patent subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Commission adopts the ID's findings to the extent they are not inconsistent with the Commission opinion issued herewith.
Having found a violation of section 337 in this investigation, the Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief is: (1) A limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of access control systems and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 1-4, 7-12, 15, and 16 of the '319 patent that are manufactured by, or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf of Respondents or any of their affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, agents, or other related business entities, or their successors or assigns, are excluded from entry for consumption into the United States, entry for consumption from a foreign-trade zone, or withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption, for the remaining term of the '319 patent except under license of the patent owner or as provided by law; and (2) cease and desist orders prohibiting TTi HK, TTi NA, One World, and OWT from conducting any of the following activities in the United States: Importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, transferring (except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for, access control systems and components thereof covered by one or more of claims 1-4, 7-12, 15, and 16 of the '319 patent.
The Commission has also determined that the public interest factors enumerated in section 337(d) and (f) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d) and (f)) do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order or cease and desist orders. Finally, the Commission has determined that a bond in the amount of zero is required to permit temporary importation during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)) of access control system and components thereof that are subject to the remedial orders. The Commission's orders and opinion were delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.
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; Correction.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) published a document in the
In the
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before April 30, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before April 30, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on June 5, 2017, Fisher Clinical Services, Inc., 700 A-C Nestle Way, Breinigsville, Pennsylvania 18031-1522 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in finished dosage form for testing, and clinical trials purposes only. This authorization does not extend to the import of a finished Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved or non-approved dosage form for commercial distribution in the United States.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before April 30, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before April 30, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on February 24, 2014, Lannett Company, Inc., 9001 Torresdale Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19136 applied to be registered as an importer of tetrahydrocannabinols (7370), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule I.
The company plans to import the finished dosage forms to support their abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before April 30, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before April 30, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on January 8, 2018, Novitium Pharma, LLC., 70 Lake Drive, East Windsor, NJ 08520 applied to be registered as an importer of the Schedule II controlled substance Levorphanol (9220).
The company plans to import the controlled substance to develop the manufacturing process for a drug product that will in turn be used to produce a tablet equivalent to the current brand product.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk importers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before April 30, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before April 30, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417, (January 25, 2007)
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on February 2, 2018, Sharp Clinical Services INC., 300 Kimberton Rd., Phoenixville, PA 19460 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for analytical research, testing, and clinical trials. No other activity for these drug codes is authorized for this registration. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2).
Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before May 29, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on September 13, 2017, Navinta LLC, 1499 Lower Ferry Rd. Ewing, NJ 08618 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer for the basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to initially manufacture API quantities of the listed controlled substances for validation purposes and FDA approval.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417 (January 25, 2007).
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on February 2, 2018, Siegfried USA, LLC, 33 Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, NJ 08070 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances to manufacture bulk active pharmaceuticals ingredients (API) for distribution to its customers.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before May 29, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on December 7, 2017, Insys Manufacturing LLC, 2700 Oakmont Drive, Round Rock, Texas 78665 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture bulk synthetic active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for product development and distribution to its customers. No other activity for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before May 29, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on October 18, 2017, National Center for Natural Products Research NIDA MPROJECT, University of Mississippi, 135 Coy Waller Complex, P.O. Box 1848, University, Mississippi 38677-1848 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances to make available to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) a supply of bulk marihuana for distribution to research investigators in support of the national research program needs. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before April 30, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before April 30, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on February 18, 2015, S&B Pharma, Inc., DBA NORAC Pharma, 405 S. Motor Avenue, Azusa, CA 91702 applied for renewal of their registration as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the controlled substances in bulk for the manufacture of other controlled substances for its customers. Tapentadol (9780) will be imported in Intermediate form to bulk manufacture Tapentadol for distribution to its customers. No other activity for these drug codes will be allowed.
On March 23, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota in the lawsuit entitled
The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties for violations of the Clean Air Act and the Federal Implementation Plan for Oil and Natural Gas Well Production Facilities; Fort Berthold Indian Reservation at well pads owned and operated by XTO Energy Inc. (“XTO”) on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota. The violations relate to alleged failures to adequately design, operate, and maintain storage tank vapor control systems, resulting in emissions of volatile organic compounds (“VOC”) and other pollutants to the atmosphere.
The proposed consent decree covers all 20 of XTO's well pads on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. The proposed decree requires XTO to perform injunctive relief, including conducting engineering evaluations of the vapor control systems at each of the well pads to ensure that they are adequately sized and designed. XTO must also complete one environmental mitigation project, estimated to cost at least $425,000, and pay a $320,000 civil penalty. Entering into and fully complying with the proposed consent decree would release XTO from past civil liability at the tanks systems as associated vapor control systems for violations of the Fort Berthold FIP relating to VOC emissions from storage tanks.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $17.00 (25 cents per page
On March 22, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in the lawsuit entitled
The Consent Decree resolves Plaintiffs' claims, as the trustees of natural resources, for injuries to natural resources in connection with the discharge of hazardous substances into Bayou d'Inde in the Calcasieu Estuary located in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. Specifically, the United States, on behalf of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Department of Interior, as federal trustees for natural resources injured by Settlors' disposals of hazardous substances, seek to recover natural resource damages pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), and Section 311(f) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. 1321(f). The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”) and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (“LDWF”), for the State of Louisiana, join in this action and also seek to resolve claims under the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act, La. R.S. § 30:2025. The proposed Consent Decree resolves these claims. Under the proposed Consent Decree, Settling Defendants CITGO Petroleum Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation, OXY USA Inc., and PPG Industries, Inc. are resolving their liability for natural resource damages alleged in the Complaint and agree to pay jointly the total sum of $11 million from which $3,045,046 will reimburse the federal and state trustees for past assessment costs ($2,981,841.85 for federal trustees and $63,204 for state trustees) and $7,954,954.15 will be deposited into the Bayou d'Inde Area of Concern Site Restoration Account within the NRDAR Fund managed by the United States Department of Interior for use by the trustees to pay for future natural resource restoration actions selected by the trustees. In consideration for the payments to be made by the Settling Defendants, and subject to certain reservations of rights, the United States, LDEQ and LDWF covenant not to sue or take any civil judicial or administrative action against the Settling Defendants to recover for the natural resource damages as defined in the Consent Decree.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $9.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
On March 19, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in the lawsuit entitled
The proposed Consent Decree resolves claims under Clean Air Act (“CAA”) Sections 113(b) and 167, 42 U.S.C. 7413(b) and 7477, against Martin Marietta Magnesia Specialties LLC (“MMMS”), the owner and operator of a lime manufacturing plant located in Woodville, Sandusky County, Ohio. The Complaint asserts claims pursuant to the CAA for violations of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) provisions of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-92, Title V of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7661
Under the proposed Consent Decree, and at an estimated cost of approximately $20 million, MMMS will address sulfur dioxide (“SO
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $12.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
On March 23, 2018, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed this lawsuit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The United States' complaint names two related entities, Renaissance Land Associates II, L.P., and Renaissance Land Associates III, L.P., as defendants. The complaint requests injunctive relief in the form of performing certain remedial actions and recovery of response costs incurred by the United States in connection with Operable Units 1 and 2 of the Crater Resources, Inc. Superfund Site (“Site”) located in Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Under the Consent Decree, the defendants agree to pay past response costs of $138,800 and pay the United States' interim and future costs related to negotiating the Consent Decree and overseeing the remedial action. The defendants also agree to implement the response action prescribed by EPA for Operable Units 1 and 2, namely, capping the remaining contamination to health-protective standards for residents. In return, the United States agrees not to sue the defendants under sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA.
If the defendants, which are commercial developers, convey their Site property in the future, the Consent Decree binds the defendants' successors to various operations and maintenance and institutional controls obligations. The United States' covenant not to sue the defendants extends to their successors provided that the successors execute a form requiring them to comply with various Consent Decree conditions. The covenant not to sue extends only to contamination that exists at the Site as of the effective date of the Consent Decree.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $194.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits, the cost is $25.00.
Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor.
Notice.
This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility under the EB Program for Alaska.
The following change has occurred since the publication of the last notice regarding the state's EB status:
• Based on data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on March 12, 2018, Alaska's 3-month average seasonally adjusted total unemployment rate (TUR) remains above 6.5 percent for the 3-months ending January 2018. However, this rate fails to meet the requirement of being at least 110 percent of the seasonally adjusted TUR for the corresponding period in either of the prior two years. Therefore, the EB period for Alaska will end on April 7, 2018. The state will remain in an “off” period for a minimum of 13 weeks.
The duration of benefits payable in the EB Program, and the terms and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department of Labor. In the case of a state ending an EB period, the State Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice to each individual who is currently filing claims for EB of the forthcoming termination of the EB period and its effect on the individual's right to EB (20 CFR 615.13 (c)).
Persons who believe they may be entitled to EB, or who wish to inquire about their rights under the program, should contact their State Workforce Agency.
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and
Signed in Washington, DC.
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Notice.
The Millennium Challenge Corporation Advisory Council will hold its spring meeting on April 17 2018. See
The meeting will take place on April 17, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. EST which includes a working lunch.
The meeting will be held at the Millennium Challenge Corporation 1099 14th St. NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005.
Beth Roberts at
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.—App., the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Advisory Council was established as a discretionary advisory committee on July 14, 2016, to serve MCC in a solely advisory capacity and provide insight regarding innovations in infrastructure, technology and sustainability; perceived risks and opportunities in MCC partner countries; new financing mechanisms for developing country contexts; and shared value approaches. The Advisory Council provides a platform for systematic engagement with the private sector and other external stakeholders and contributes to MCC's mission—to reduce poverty through sustainable, economic growth.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of intent to grant an exclusive patent license.
NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive patent license in the United States to practice the invention described and claimed in U.S. Provisional 62/616,479 entitled, “A Corrected BMI for Improved Assessment of Human Weight-Related Pathology” to AQ Digital Health, having its principal place of business in Baltimore, MD.
The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, no later than April 13, 2018, NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements regarding the licensing of federally owned inventions as set forth in the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations. Competing applications completed and received by NASA no later than April 13, 2018 will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license. Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to Patent Counsel, Bryan A. Geurts, Goddard Space Flight Center, 8800 Greenbelt Road M/S 140.1, Greenbelt MD 20771. Phone (301) 286-7351. Facsimile (301) 286-9502.
Eric McGill, Innovative Partnerships Program Office, Goddard Space Flight Center, 8800 Greenbelt Road M/S 102.0, Greenbelt, MD 20771. Phone (301) 286-8596.
This notice of intent to grant an exclusive patent license is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective exclusive license will comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
The National Science Board's ad hoc Committee on Elections, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
April 2, 2018 from 10:00-11:00 a.m. EDT.
This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.
Closed.
Committee Chair's welcome and remarks; discussion of nominations of potential re-appointees; discussion on nominee
Point of contact for this meeting is: Brad Gutierrez,
The National Science Board, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
Open meeting of the Executive Committee of the National Science Board, to be held Monday, April 2, 2018, from 2:30-3:30 p.m. EDT.
This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22314.
Open.
Committee Chair's Opening Remarks; approval of Executive Committee Minutes of January 29, 2018; approval of Annual Report of the Executive Committee; discuss issues and topics for an agenda of the NSB Meeting scheduled for May 2-3, 2018.
Point of contact for this meeting is: James Hamos, 2415 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22314. Telephone: (703) 292-8000.
You may find meeting information and updates (time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) at
An audio listening line will be available for the public. Members of the public must contact the Board Office to request the number by sending an email to
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and has issued License Amendment Nos. 113 and 112 to Combined Licenses (COL) Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92, respectively. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. and Georgia Power Company; Oglethorpe Power Corporation; MEAG Power SPVM, LLC; MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC; MEAG Power SPVP, LLC; and the City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensee), for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.
The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information asked for in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
The exemption and amendment were issued on March 6, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 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:
•
•
•
Chandu Patel, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3025; email:
The NRC has granted an exemption from paragraph B of section III, “Scope and Contents,” of appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of title 10 of the
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VEGP, Units 3 and 4 (COL Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92). The exemption documents for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML18019A856 and ML18019A857, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COL Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML18019A858 and ML18019A860, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this notice.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to VEGP, Units 3 and Unit 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated November 16, 2017, the licensee requested from the Commission an exemption to allow departures from Tier 1 information in the certified DCD incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, as part of license amendment request (LAR-17-038) regarding testing inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria consolidation.
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1 of the NRC staff's safety evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML18019A862), the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law.
B. The exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety.
C. The exemption is consistent with the common defense and security.
D. Special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule.
E. The special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption.
F. The exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption from the certified DCD Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes to COL Appendix C, as described in the licensee's request dated November 16, 2017. This exemption is related to, and necessary for, the granting of License Amendment No. 113 [for Unit 3, 112 for Unit 4], which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 5.0 of the NRC staff's safety evaluation, this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.
By letter dated November 16, 2017, the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COL Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, respectively. The proposed amendment is described in Section I of this notice.
The Commission has determined that the application for amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or COL, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemptions and issued these amendments on March 6, 2018, as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML18019A854).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from elements of the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic AP1000 design control document (DCD) and is issuing License Amendment Nos. 114 and 113 to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF-91 and NPF-92, respectively. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, and Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC, MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC, MEAG Power SPVP, LLC, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (collectively referred to as the licensee); for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.
The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information asked for in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
The exemption revises the plant-specific Tier 1 information and corresponding changes to COL Appendix C, and the amendment changes the associated plant-specific DCD Tier 2 material incorporated into the VEGP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), to update Reactor Coolant System (RCS) requirements for reactor vessel head vent (RVHV) mass flow rate for the VEGP Units 3 and 4.
The exemption and amendment were issued on March 8, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 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:
•
•
•
William (Billy) Gleaves, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5848; email:
The NRC is granting an exemption from paragraph B of section III, “Scope and Contents,” of appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of title 10 of the
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VEGP Units 3 and 4 (COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92). The exemption documents for VEGP Units 3 and 4 can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML18045A188 and ML18045A189, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML18045A186 and ML18045A187, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to VEGP Units 3 and Unit 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated July 28, 2017, Southern Nuclear Operating Company requested from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) an exemption to allow departures from Tier 1 information in the certified DCD incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design,” as part of license amendment request (LAR) 17-025, “Reactor Vessel Head Vent Capacity.”
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found at ADAMS Accession No. ML18045A190 the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law;
B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;
C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;
D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;
E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and
F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption from the certified AP1000 DCD Tier 1 information, allowing changes to the plant-specific DCD Tier 1 information with corresponding changes to Appendix C of the Facility Combined License as described in the request dated July 28, 2017. This exemption is related to, and necessary for, the granting of License Amendment No. 114 [for Unit 3, 113 for Unit 4], which is being issued concurrently.
3. As explained in Section 6.0 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML18045A190), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.
By letter dated July 28, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17209A185), the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COLs for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92. The proposed amendment is described in Section I of this
The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or COL, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested by letter dated July 28, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17209A185).
The exemption and amendment were issued to the licensee on March 8, 2018, as part of a combined package (ADAMS Accession No. ML18045A183).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and has issued License Amendment Nos. 112 and 111 to Combined License (COL) Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92, respectively. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. and Georgia Power Company; Oglethorpe Power Corporation; MEAG Power SPVM, LLC; MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC; MEAG Power SPVP, LLC; and the City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensee), for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.
The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information asked for in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
The exemption and amendment were issued on March 6, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 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:
•
•
•
Chandu Patel, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3025; email:
The NRC has granted an exemption from paragraph B of section III, “Scope and Contents,” of appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of title 10 of the
Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption and the license amendment request. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in §§ 50.12 and 52.7 of 10 CFR, and section VIII.A.4 of appendix D to 10 CFR part 52. The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18040B086.
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VEGP, Units 3 and 4 (COL Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92). The exemption documents for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML18040B077 and ML18040B079, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this notice. The amendment documents for COL Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML18040B080 and ML18040B083, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this notice.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to VEGP, Units 3 and 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated October 6, 2017, Southern Nuclear Operating Company requested from the Commission an exemption to allow departures from Tier 1 information in the certified DCD incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, as part of the
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1 of the NRC staff's safety evaluation, the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law.
B. The exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety.
C. The exemption is consistent with the common defense and security.
D. Special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule.
E. The special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption.
F. The exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption from the certified DCD Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes to COL Appendix C, as described in the request dated October 6, 2017. This exemption is related to, and necessary for, the granting of License Amendment No. 112 [for Unit 3, 111 for Unit 4], which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 5.0 of the NRC staff's safety evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML18040B086), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.
By letter dated October 6, 2017, the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COL Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, respectively. The proposed amendment is described in Section I of this notice.
The Commission has determined that the application for amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or COL, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemptions and issued these amendments on March 6, 2018, as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML18040B074).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and has issued License Amendment Nos. 111 and 110 to Combined License (COL) Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92, respectively. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. and Georgia Power Company; Oglethorpe Power Corporation; MEAG Power SPVM, LLC; MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC; MEAG Power SPVP, LLC; and the City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensee), for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.
The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information asked for in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
The exemption and amendment were issued on February 28, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 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:
•
•
•
Chandu Patel, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3025; email:
The NRC has granted an exemption from paragraph B of section III, “Scope and Contents,” of appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of title 10 of the
Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption and the license amendment request. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in §§ 50.12 and 52.7 of 10 CFR, and section VIII.A.4 of appendix D to 10 CFR part 52. The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18026A571.
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VEGP, Units 3 and 4 (COL Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92). The exemption documents for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML18026A568 and ML18026A567, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this notice. The amendment documents for COL Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML18026A570 and ML18026A569, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this notice.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to VEGP, Units 3 and 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated March 31, 2017, Southern Nuclear Operating Company requested from the Commission an exemption to allow departures from Tier 1 information in the certified DCD incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, as part of the license amendment request (LAR-17-009) regarding PXS/ADS line resistance changes.”
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1 of the NRC staff's safety evaluation, the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law.
B. The exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety.
C. The exemption is consistent with the common defense and security.
D. Special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule.
E. The special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption.
F. The exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption from the certified DCD Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes to COL Appendix C, as described in the request dated March 31, 2017. This exemption is related to, and necessary for, the granting of License Amendment No. 111 [for Unit 3, 110 for Unit 4], which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 5.0 of the NRC staff's safety evaluation, this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.
By letter dated March 31, 2017, the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COL Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for VEGP, Units 3 and 4. The proposed amendment is described in Section I of this notice.
The Commission has determined that the application for amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or COL, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemptions and issued these amendments on March 31, 2017, as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML18026A565).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 23, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule 11.9 describing the operation of Minimum Quantity Orders.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule 11.9 describing the operation of Minimum Quantity Orders by removing language that provided for the re-pricing of incoming Minimum Quantity Orders to avoid an internally crossed book. As a result of this change, the Exchange proposes to specify within the rule when a Minimum Quantity Order would not be eligible to trade to prevent executions from occurring that may be inconsistent with intra-market price priority or that would cause a non-displayed order to trade ahead of a displayed order.
In sum, a Minimum Quantity Order is a non-displayed order that enables a User
The Exchange also recently amended the operation of Minimum Quantity Orders to re-price incoming Minimum Quantity Orders where that order may cross an order posted on the BYX Book.
As a result of the above change, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (c)(5) of Rule 11.9 to describe when a Minimum Quantity Order will not be eligible to trade to prevent executions from occurring that may be inconsistent with intra-market price priority or would result in a non-displayed order trading ahead of a same-priced, same-side displayed order.
Paragraph (c)(5) of Rule 11.9 would state that a Minimum Quantity Order to buy (sell) that is ranked in the BYX Book will not be eligible to trade: (i) At a price equal to or above (below) any sell (buy) orders that are displayed and that have a ranked price equal to or below (above) the price of such Minimum Quantity Order; or (ii) at a price above (below) any sell (buy) order that is non-displayed and has a ranked price below (above) the price of such Minimum Quantity Order.
The following examples describe the proposed operation of a Minimum Quantity Order during an internally crossed market. This first example addresses intra-market priority amongst a Minimum Quantity Order and other non-displayed orders in an internally crossed market as well as when an execution may occur at prices less aggressive than the resting order's ranked price. Assume the NBBO is $10.10 by $10.16. A non-displayed order to sell 50 shares at $10.12 is resting on the BYX Book (“Order A”). A non-displayed order to sell 25 shares at $10.11 is also resting on the BYX Book (“Order B”). The Exchange receives a Mid-Point Peg
This second example addresses intra-market priority amongst displayed orders, Minimum Quantity Orders and other non-displayed orders. The Exchange notes that the below behavior is not unique to an internally crossed market as the Exchange's priority rule, 11.12(a), currently prohibits non-displayed orders, including Minimum Quantity Orders, from trading ahead of same-priced, same-side displayed orders. Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.04. A non-displayed order to buy 500 shares at $10.00 is resting on the BYX Book (“Order A”). A displayed order to buy 100 shares at $10.00 is then entered and posted to the BYX Book (“Order B”). The Exchange receives a non-displayed order to sell 600 shares at $10.00 with a minimum quantity condition to execute against a single order of 500 shares (“Order C”). Although Order A satisfies Order C's minimum quantity condition and has time priority ahead of Order B, no execution occurs because Order B is a displayed order and has execution priority over Order A, a non-displayed order. Order C does not execute against Order B because Order B does not satisfy Order C's minimum quantity condition. Order C is then posted to the BYX Book at $10.00, non-displayed.
The Exchange also proposes two clarifying changes to paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule 11.9. The rule currently states that a Minimum Quantity Order cedes execution priority when it would lock an order against which it would otherwise execute if it were not for the minimum execution size restriction.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to clarify that an incoming Minimum Quantity Order would be canceled where, if posted, it would cross the displayed price of an order on the BYX Book.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. On the contrary, the proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues because it is intended to provide clarity regarding the operation of Minimum Quantity Orders and when such orders are eligible to trade and not trade through displayed orders or violate intra-market price priority.
No comments were solicited or received on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 4, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Commission has received one comment letter on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E, Commentary .02, which governs the listing and trading of Trust Issued Receipts on the Exchange.
According to the Exchange, the ProShares Bitcoin ETF's investment objective will be to seek results (before fees and expenses) that, both for a single day and over time, correspond to the performance of lead month bitcoin futures contracts
In addition, the Exchange states that the ProShares Short Bitcoin ETF's investment objective will be to seek results, for a single day, that correspond (before fees and expenses) to the inverse of the daily performance of the Benchmark Futures Contract. This Fund generally intends to invest substantially all of its assets through short positions in Benchmark Futures Contracts, but may invest through short positions in Bitcoin Futures Contracts, if available.
Further, the Exchange states that, in the event position, price, or accountability limits are reached with respect to Bitcoin Futures Contracts, each Fund may invest in listed options on Bitcoin Futures Contracts (should such listed options become available) and OTC swap agreements referencing Bitcoin Futures Contracts (collectively, “Financial Instruments”).
The Commission has received one comment letter, which expresses concerns about the proposed rule change.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by April 19, 2018. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by May 3, 2018. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in the Notice,
1. What are commenters' views on whether the Exchange has sufficiently described how the Sponsor will select the applicable Benchmark Futures Contracts, given that the contracts trading on these two bitcoin futures exchanges have different terms (including different reference prices) and trade at different prices?
2. In its proposal, the Exchange states that each Fund may, in the event that position, price, or accountability limits are reached with respect to Bitcoin Futures Contracts—or if the market for a specific Bitcoin Futures Contract experiences an emergency or disruption—also invest in Financial Instruments, which include listed options on Bitcoin Futures Contracts (should such listed options become available) and OTC swap agreements referencing Bitcoin Futures Contracts. What are commenters' views on the current availability of Financial Instruments for trading? What are commenters' views on the ability of the Funds to invest in Financial Instruments in the event that position, price, or accountability limits are reached with respect to Bitcoin Futures Contracts? What are commenters' views on the ability of the Funds to invest in Financial Instruments if the market for a specific Bitcoin Futures Contract experiences emergencies or disruptions?
3. What are commenters' views on whether the Funds would have the information necessary to adequately value, including fair value, the Bitcoin Futures Contracts and related Financial Instruments when determining an appropriate end-of-day NAV for the Funds, taking into account any volatility, fragmentation, or general lack of regulation of the underlying bitcoin markets?
4. What are commenters' views on the potential impact of manipulation in the underlying bitcoin markets on the Funds' NAV? What are commenters views on the potential effect of such manipulation on the valuation of a Fund's Bitcoin Futures Contracts, which is determined using the last traded price on the primary listing futures exchange (as opposed to the settlement price, closing price, midpoint, or volume weighted average price)? What are commenters' views on the potential effect of such manipulation on the pricing of a Fund's Financial Instruments?
5. What are commenters' views on how the Funds' valuation policies would address the potential for the bitcoin blockchain to diverge into different paths (
6. What are commenters' views on the price differentials and trading volumes across bitcoin trading platforms (including during periods of market stress) and on the extent to which these differing prices may affect the trading of the Bitcoin Futures Contracts and, accordingly, trading in the Shares of the Funds?
7. What are commenters' views on how the substantial margin requirements for Bitcoin Futures Contracts, and the nature of liquidity and volatility in the market for Bitcoin Futures Contracts, might affect the Trust's ability to meet redemption orders? What are commenters' views on whether and how the margin requirements for Bitcoin Futures Contracts, and the nature of liquidity and volatility in the market for Bitcoin Futures Contracts, might affect a Fund's use of available cash to achieve its investment strategy?
8. What are commenters' views on the possibility that the Funds—along with other exchange-traded products with similar investment objectives—could acquire a substantial portion of the market for Bitcoin Futures Contracts or the Financial Instruments? What are commenters' views on whether such a concentration of holdings could affect the Funds' portfolio management, the liquidity of the Funds' respective portfolios, or the pricing of the Bitcoin Futures Contracts or the Financial Instruments?
9. What are commenters' views on possible factors that might impair the ability of the arbitrage mechanism to keep the trading price of the Shares tied to the NAV of each Fund? With respect to the market for Bitcoin Futures Contracts, what are commenters' views on the potential impact on the arbitrage mechanism of the price volatility and the potential for trading halts? What are commenters' views on whether or how these potential impairments of the arbitrage mechanism may affect the Funds' ability to ensure adequate participation by Authorized Participants? What are commenters' views on the potential effects on investors if the arbitrage mechanism is impaired?
10. What are commenters' views on the risks of price manipulation and fraud in the underlying bitcoin trading platforms and how these risks might affect the Bitcoin Futures Contracts market or the Financial Instruments? What are commenters' views on how these risks might affect trading in the Shares of the Funds?
11. What are commenters' views on how an investor may evaluate the price of the Shares in light of the risk of
12. What are commenters' views on whether the two bitcoin futures exchanges represent a significant market,
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 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Participants are proposing to increase the Enterprise Cap from $686,400 to $1,260,000 for Network A and from $520,000 to $680,000 for Network B. The Participants state that the Enterprise Cap was established to provide incentives to entities to make market data available to large Nonprofessional Subscriber bases. Due to what they describe as ongoing industry consolidation, however, the Participants are proposing to increase the Enterprise Cap in order to account for the sudden and substantial increase of Nonprofessional Subscribers at entities using the Enterprise Cap.
To make the increase of the Enterprise Cap revenue neutral (from an overall Plan perspective) and fee neutral (from an individual entity
Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3) under Regulation NMS,
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons on the proposed Amendments. Set forth in Sections I and II is the statement of the purpose and summary of the Amendments, along with the information required by Rules 608(a) and 601(a) under the Act, prepared and submitted by the Participants to the Commission.
The Plans require an entity that is registered as a broker-dealer under the Act to pay no more than the Enterprise Cap for any month for the aggregate amount of (a) a network's Device charges for devices used for its Internal Distribution plus (b) that network's Device and Per-Quote-Packet charges payable in respect of services that it provides to Nonprofessional Subscribers that are brokerage account customers of the broker-dealer. In 2013, the Participants set the amount of the Enterprise Cap to $686,400 for Network A and $520,000 for Network B.
In the 2013 Filing, the Participants changed the mechanism for increasing the Enterprise Cap. The Enterprise Cap was previously increased based on the percentage increase in the annual composite share volume for the preceding calendar year, subject to an annual maximum increase of five percent. In 2013, the Participants permitted such annual increases in the monthly Enterprise Cap as to which they agreed by a majority vote, subject to a maximum increase in any calendar year of four percent. At that time, the Participants believed that this provision permitted an annual increase by a two-thirds vote of the Participants without requiring a corresponding rule filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Nevertheless, the Participants have not increased the Enterprise Cap since this change was adopted in 2013.
As an alternative to monthly Professional Subscriber and Nonprofessional Subscriber fees, a vendor may respond to end-user queries for quote and trade information and pay a fee for each such response. The Participants first established the Per-Quote-Packet Charges in 1991 as a pilot at $0.005 per query.
The Participants are proposing to increase the Enterprise Cap from $686,400 to $1,260,000 for Network A and from $520,000 to $680,000 for Network B. As a result of industry consolidation, the Nonprofessional Subscriber base for entities subject to the cap may suddenly increase, and where before two entities may have slightly benefited from the Enterprise Cap, a combined entity could find a substantial decrease in fees by using the Enterprise Cap. Consequently, the increase of the Enterprise Cap is designed to maintain the status quo and should not, in conjunction with the Per-Quote-Packet Charges change described below, result in an increase of revenue to the Plans or fees for any particular entity.
Additionally, the Participants are proposing to remove a provision related to an annual increase of the Enterprise Cap after a two-thirds vote of the Participants. In the 2013 Filing, the Participants amended the mechanism by which the Enterprise Cap would increase, from an automatic increase based on volume to an affirmative vote requirement by the Participants.
Since 2013, the Enterprise Cap has not been increased using this mechanism, and the Participants believe that any future changes to the Enterprise Cap should be submitted via a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission and subject to public comment. Consequently, the Participants are proposing to delete this particular provision.
Because of the increase in the Enterprise Cap, there could be broker-dealers looking to use the Enterprise Cap that, without a corresponding offset, could face an increase in fees. To offset a potential fee increase, the Participants are proposing a decrease in the Per-Quote-Packet Charges where a broker-dealer has 500,000 or more Nonprofessional Subscribers. For such entities, the Per-Quote-Packet Charges would be decreased from $.0075 to $.0025. By implementing a tiered structure for Per-Quote-Packet Charges, the proposal is designed to provide an offset to those firms most likely affected by the Enterprise Cap increase (
Additionally, the proposal will align Network A and Network B with a similar tiered structure being proposed for Network C.
Not applicable.
Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(i) under Regulation NMS, the Participants have designated the proposed amendment as establishing or changing fees and are submitting the amendment for immediate effectiveness.
The proposed amendments do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed increase in the Enterprise Cap is designed to account for industry consolidation.
Without this adjustment, the Plans' revenue will suddenly decrease due to a broker-dealer increasing its Nonprofessional Subscriber base through a merger with another broker-dealer. As detailed further below, while the Enterprise Cap is being increased, the Plans' revenue and fees collected from affected entities will be maintained at their current levels. Any potential fee increase for broker-dealers taking advantage of the Enterprise Cap will be offset by a decrease in the Per-Quote-Packet Charges for broker-dealers with large Nonprofessional Subscriber bases. The combination of the Enterprise Cap increase and the Per-Quote-Packet Charges decrease will ensure that the fee changes proposed herein remain revenue neutral.
The Participants therefore believe that the proposed fee changes are carefully calibrated to maintain the status quo and, as a result, do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate.
Not applicable.
Section XII (b)(iii) of the CTA Plan provides that “[a]ny addition of any
The Participants have executed this Amendment and represent not less than two-thirds of all of the parties to the Plans. That satisfies the Plans' Participant-approval requirements.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The Participants are proposing to increase the Enterprise Cap by an amount to ensure that industry consolidation would not result in a sudden decrease in Plan revenue, thereby avoiding any single entity from getting a disproportionate benefit from the Enterprise Cap. The Participants propose to decrease the Per-Quote-Packet Charges for broker-dealers with a large Nonprofessional Subscriber base. The amount of the proposed decrease is specifically tailored to ensure that the increase in fees as a result of raising the Enterprise Cap would be offset and that the proposed amendment would remain revenue neutral.
Because the Participants have data showing the current benefit of the Enterprise Cap and the number of queries of those potentially affected by the change in the Enterprise Cap, the Participants were able to calibrate the Per-Quote-Packet Charges in order to make the changes proposed herein revenue neutral. As previously stated, the proposed change will not only maintain the status quo on an overall Plan revenue basis, but also maintain the status quo with respect to the fees charged to individual entities.
The proposed fee changes were distributed to and discussed with members of the Plans' Advisory Committee, and were discussed and voted on during the General Session of the Operating Committee in the presence of the Advisory Committee.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The Commission seeks comment on the Amendments. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the following: (1) Is the anticipated impact on revenue to the Plans consistent with the Participants' representations; (2) is the anticipated impact on costs to consumers of market data, including broker-dealers and their non-professional customers, consistent with the Participants' representations; (3) is there supporting data to illustrate that the proposed changes are “revenue neutral” as asserted by the Participants; (4) could the fee changes have a disproportionate impact on particular data recipients; (5) what, if any, supporting data could inform whether the changes would maintain the status quo and therefore do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate as asserted by the Participants; and (6) whether the impact of potential industry consolidation on the revenue of the Plans is consistent with the representations of the Participants? Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed Amendments are consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CTA/CQ-2018-01 and should be submitted on or before April 19, 2018.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Participants are proposing to increase the Nonprofessional Subscriber Enterprise Cap (“Enterprise Cap”) from $648,000 to $1,260,000. The Participants state that the Enterprise Cap was established to provide incentives to entities to make market data available to large Nonprofessional Subscriber bases. Due to what they describe as ongoing industry consolidation, however, the Participants are proposing to increase the Enterprise Cap in order to account for the sudden and substantial increase of Nonprofessional Subscribers at entities using the Enterprise Cap.
To make the increase of the Enterprise Cap revenue neutral (from an overall Plan perspective) and fee neutral (from an individual entity
Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(i) under Regulation NMS,
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons on the Amendment. Set forth in Sections I and II is the statement of the purpose and summary of the Amendment, along with the information required by Rules 608(a) and 601(a) under the Act, prepared and submitted by the Participants to the Commission.
The Plan requires an entity that is registered as a broker-dealer under the Act to pay no more than the Enterprise Cap for any month for each entitlement system offering UTP Level 1 Service to Nonprofessional Subscribers. The Enterprise Cap equals the aggregate amount of fees payable for distribution of UTP Level 1 Service to Nonprofessional Subscribers that are brokerage account customers of the broker-dealer. The Participants adopted the Enterprise Cap in 2010 and set it at $600,000 per month. In 2014, the Participants increased the amount of the Enterprise Cap to $624,000.
In the 2014 Filing, the Participants changed the mechanism for increasing the Enterprise Cap. The Enterprise Cap was previously increased based on the percentage increase in the annual composite share volume for the preceding calendar year, subject to an annual maximum increase of five percent. In 2014, the Participants permitted such annual increases in the monthly Enterprise Cap as to which they agreed by a majority vote, subject to a maximum increase in any calendar year of four percent. At that time, the Participants believed that this provision permitted an annual increase by a two-thirds vote of the Participants without requiring a corresponding rule filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Nevertheless, the Participants have not increased the Enterprise Cap since this change was adopted in 2014.
As an alternative to monthly Professional Subscriber and Nonprofessional Subscriber fees, a vendor may respond to end-user queries for quote and trade information and pay a fee for each such response. The Participants first established Per Query Fees in 1992 as a pilot at $0.015 per query.
The Participants are proposing to increase the Enterprise Cap from $624,000 to $1,260,000. As a result of industry consolidation, the Nonprofessional Subscriber base for entities subject to the cap may suddenly increase, and where before two entities may have slightly benefited from the Enterprise Cap, a combined entity could find a substantial decrease in fees by using the Enterprise Cap. Consequently, the increase of the Enterprise Cap is designed to maintain the status quo and should not, in conjunction with the Per Query fee change described below, result in an increase of revenue to the Plan or fees for any particular entity.
Additionally, the Participants are proposing to remove a provision related to an annual increase of the Enterprise Cap after a two-thirds vote of the Participants. In the 2014 Filing, the Participants amended the mechanism by which the Enterprise Cap would increase, from an automatic increase based on volume to an affirmative vote requirement by the Participants. Since 2014, the Enterprise Cap has not been increased using this mechanism, and the Participants believe that any future changes to the Enterprise Cap should be submitted via a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission and subject to public comment. Consequently, the Participants are proposing to delete this particular provision.
Because of the increase in the Enterprise Cap, there is a small subset of broker-dealers that use the Enterprise Cap that, without a corresponding offset, could face an increase in fees. To offset this potential fee increase, the Participants are proposing a decrease in the Per Query fee for Nonprofessional Subscribers where a broker-dealer has 500,000 or more Nonprofessional Subscribers. For such entities, the Per Query fee for Non-Professional Subscribers would be decreased from $.0075 to $.0025; the Per Query fee for Professional Subscribers would remain at the $.0075 rate. By implementing a tiered structure for Per Query fees, the proposal is designed to provide an offset to those firms most likely affected by the Enterprise Cap increase (
Additionally, the proposal will align Network C with a similar tiered structure being proposed for Network A and Network B.
Not applicable.
Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(i) under Regulation NMS, the Participants have designated the proposed amendment as establishing or changing fees and are submitting the amendment for immediate effectiveness.
The proposed amendments do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The proposed increase in the Enterprise Cap is designed to account for industry consolidation. Without this adjustment, the Plan's revenue will suddenly decrease due to a broker-dealer increasing its Nonprofessional Subscriber base through a merger with another broker-dealer. As detailed further below, while the Enterprise Cap is being increased, the Plan's revenue and fees collected from entities will be maintained at their current levels. The potential fee increase for broker-dealers taking advantage of the Enterprise Cap will be offset by a decrease in the Per Query fee for broker-dealers with large Nonprofessional Subscriber bases. This offset will ensure that the fee changes proposed herein remain revenue neutral.
The Participants therefore believe that the proposed fee changes are carefully calibrated to maintain the status quo and, as a result, do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate.
Not applicable.
In accordance with Section IV(C)(2) of the Plan, more than two-thirds of the Participants have approved the fee change proposed herein.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The Participants are proposing to increase the Enterprise Cap by an amount to ensure that industry consolidation would not result in a sudden decrease in Plan revenue, thereby avoiding any single entity from getting a disproportionate benefit from the Enterprise Cap. The Participants propose to decrease the Per Query fee for Nonprofessional Subscribers for broker- dealers with a large Nonprofessional Subscriber base. The amount of the proposed decrease is specifically tailored to ensure that the increase in fees as a result of raising the Enterprise Cap would be offset and that the proposed amendment would remain revenue neutral.
Because the Participants have data showing the current benefit of the Enterprise Cap and the number of queries of those potentially affected by the change in the Enterprise Cap, the Participants were able to calibrate the Per Query fee in order to make the changes proposed herein revenue neutral. As previously stated, the proposed change will not only maintain the status quo on an overall Plan revenue basis, but also maintain the status quo with respect to the fees charged to individual entities.
The proposed fee changes were distributed to and discussed with members of the Plan's Advisory Committee, and were discussed and voted on during the General Session of the Operating Committee in the presence of the Advisory Committee.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The Commission seeks comment on the Amendments. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the following: (1) Is the anticipated impact on revenue to the Plans consistent with the Participants' representations; (2) is the anticipated impact on costs to consumers of market data, including broker-dealers and their non-professional customers, consistent with the Participants' representations; (3) is there supporting data to illustrate that the proposed changes are “revenue neutral” as asserted by the Participants; (4) could the fee changes have a disproportionate impact on particular data recipients; (5) what, if any, supporting data could inform whether the changes would maintain the status quo and therefore do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate as asserted by the Participants; and (6) whether the impact of potential industry consolidation on the revenue of the Plans is consistent with the representations of the Participants? Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed Amendment is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend paragraph (h) of Exchange Rule 11.6 describing the operation of orders with a Minimum Execution Quantity
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (h) of Exchange Rule 11.6 describing the operation of orders with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction by removing language that provided for the re-pricing of incoming
In sum, a Minimum Execution Quantity is a non-displayed order that enables a User
The Exchange also recently amended the operation of the Minimum Execution Quantity instruction to re-price incoming orders with the Minimum Execution Quantity instruction where that order may cross an order posted on the EDGA Book.
As a result of the above change, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (h) of Rule 11.6 to describe when an order with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction will not be eligible to trade to prevent executions from occurring that may be inconsistent with intra-market price priority or would result in a Non-Displayed order trading ahead of a same-priced, same-side Displayed order.
Paragraph (h) of Rule 11.6 would state that an order to buy (sell) with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction that is ranked in the EDGA Book will not be eligible to trade: (i) At a price equal to or above (below) any sell (buy) orders that are Displayed and that have a ranked price equal to or below (above) the price of such order with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction; or (ii) at a price above (below) any sell (buy) order that is Non-Displayed and has a ranked price below (above) the price of such order with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction.
The following examples describe the proposed operation of an order with a Minimum Execution Quantity during an internally crossed market. This first example addresses intra-market priority amongst an order with a Minimum Execution Quantity and other Non-Displayed orders in an internally crossed market as well as when an execution may occur at prices less aggressive than the resting order's ranked price. Assume the NBBO is $10.10 by $10.16. A Non-Displayed order to sell 50 shares at $10.12 is resting on the EDGA Book (“Order A”). A Non-Displayed order to sell 25 shares at $10.11 is also resting on the EDGA Book (“Order B”). The Exchange receives a MidPoint Peg
This second example addresses intra-market priority amongst Displayed orders, Non-Displayed orders with a Minimum Execution Quantity and other Non-Displayed orders. The Exchange notes that the below behavior is not
The Exchange also proposes two clarifying changes to paragraph (h) of Exchange Rule 11.6. The rule currently states that an order with the Minimum Execution Quantity instruction cedes execution priority when it would lock an order against which it would otherwise execute if it were not for the minimum execution size restriction.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to clarify that an incoming order with a Minimum Execution Quantity would be canceled where, if posted, it would cross the displayed price of an order on the EDGA Book.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. On the contrary, the proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues because it is intended to provide clarity regarding the operation of orders with a Minimum Quantity instruction and when such orders are eligible to trade and not trade through Displayed orders or violate intra-market price priority.
No comments were solicited or received on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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 transaction fees at Chapter XV, Section 2, which governs the pricing for Nasdaq Participants using The Nasdaq Options Market (“NOM”), Nasdaq's facility for executing and routing standardized equity and index options.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend NOM pricing at Chapter XV, Section 2 to modify the NOM Market Maker,
The Exchange proposes to amend the Tier 6 NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options by modifying the criteria to qualify for this tier and by increasing the rebate amount. Today, the Exchange has a six tier rebate structure for paying the NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options as follows:
The Exchange proposes to amend the criteria to qualify for Tier 6, which currently offers two alternative methods of qualifying for the $0.42 per contract rebate in that tier. The first method is a two-pronged requirement that the Participant (i) add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.80% of total industry customer equity and ETF option average daily volume (“ADV”) contracts per day in a month and (ii) qualifies for the Tier 7 or Tier 8 Customer and/or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options. The alternative is a requirement that the Participant add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.90% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month. The Exchange is proposing to eliminate the first method, and to amend the alternative by increasing the 0.90% total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV threshold to 0.95% and adding two new requirements to qualify for the Tier 6 rebate. As such, the proposed Tier 6 criteria will have three prongs and require that the Participant (i) add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.95% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, (ii) execute Total Volume of 250,000 or more contracts per day in a month, of which 30,000 or more contracts per day in a month must be removing liquidity, and (iii) add Firm,
The Exchange proposes to create an alternative method for Participants to earn a rebate for adding NOM Market Maker liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options. Today, the Exchange charges Participants a $0.35 per contract NOM Market Maker Fee for Adding Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options. To encourage Participants to add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange currently offers incentives to reduce this fee or earn a rebate, provided the Participants meet the volume-based requirements in note “5,” Section 2(1). Specifically, Participants who add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options of 7,500 to 9,999 ADV contracts per day in a month would be assessed a $0.00 per contract Non- Penny Options Fee for Adding Liquidity in that month. In addition, Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options of 10,000 or more ADV contracts per day in a month would receive a $0.30 per contract Non-Penny Rebate to Add Liquidity for that month instead of paying the Non-Penny Fee for Adding Liquidity.
The Exchange now proposes an additional rebate in new note “6” for NOM Market Makers that add liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options. Specifically, Participants that qualify for the proposed Tier 6 NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options, as discussed above, will receive a $0.86 per contract NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options. Participants that qualify for a note “5” incentive will receive the greater of the note “5” or note “6” incentive.
The Exchange proposes a number of changes to the Rebates to Add Customer and Professional Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options set forth in Section 2(1). First, the Exchange is proposing to modify the eight tier rebate structure to a six tier rebate structure. The Exchange currently pays a volume-based tiered Customer and Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options as follows:
For purposes of Tiers 6 and 7, “Total Volume” is defined as Customer, Professional, Firm, Broker-Dealer, Non-NOM Market Maker and NOM Market Maker volume in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options which either adds or removes liquidity on NOM. The Exchange now proposes to eliminate Tiers 6 and 7, and renumber current Tier 8 as Tier 6. The Exchange will also make a number of related clean-up changes to remove all references in Chapter XV to current Tier 6 or Tier 7, and renumber all references to Tier 8 to Tier 6. In particular, the proposed clean-ups are in notes “1,” “d,” “e” and “f” in Section 2(1), in the Tier 5 NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options in Section 2(1), and in the qualifier for the additional $0.09 per contract rebate applicable to the Market Access and Routing Subsidy Payment tiers in Section 2(6). Further, the Exchange would delete the portion of note “b” that states “For purposes of Tiers 6 and 7” and relocate the remaining rule text that contains the definition of “Total Volume” to a new corresponding note to the proposed Tier 6 NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options. As discussed above, the second prong of the proposed Tier 6 rebate will contain a Total Volume qualifier.
Further, the Exchange proposes to decrease the Customer and Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options set forth in note “e” of Section 2(1). Today, a Participant may receive a $0.53 per contract Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options as Customer or Professional if that Participant transacts in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent 3.00% or more of Consolidated Volume
The Exchange currently charges NOM Participants a Penny Pilot Options Fee for Removing Customer or Professional Liquidity that is $0.50 per contract, excluding SPY. For NOM Participants that remove Customer or Professional liquidity in SPY, this fee is reduced to $0.48 per contract.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the criteria to qualify for the Tier 6 NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and the proposed increase in the rebate amount from $0.42 to $0.48 per contract are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
As discussed above, the Exchange is proposing to eliminate the first method to qualify for Tier 6, and amend the alternative method by increasing the total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV threshold from 0.90% to 0.95% and adding two new volume-based requirements to qualify for Tier 6. Accordingly, the proposed three-pronged criteria to qualify for Tier 6 will require that Participants (1) add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.95% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, (2) execute Total Volume of 250,000 or more contracts per day in a month, of which 30,000 or more contracts per day in a month must be removing liquidity, and (3) add Firm, Broker-Dealer and Non-NOM Market Maker liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options of 10,000 or more contracts per day in a month. The Exchange notes that the proposed $0.48 per contract Tier 6 rebate will be the highest available NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange believes that the proposed $0.48 per contract Tier 6 rebate is reasonable because it will require three components to be met by Participants in order to qualify for that rebate. These requirements require more volume to be submitted on NOM than the current highest rebate (
The Exchange believes that the first prong (add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.95% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month) is reasonable because the Exchange already allows Participants to earn rebates today based on percentages of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV. While the percentage threshold has increased from 0.90% to 0.95%, the Exchange is offering to pay a rebate of $0.48 per contract, the highest rebate, for Participants that meet this higher threshold. The second prong (execute Total Volume of 250,000 or more contracts per day in a month, of which 30,000 or more contracts per day in a month must be removing liquidity) is reasonable because the Exchange already allows Participants to obtain rebates today based on Total Volume, and requiring a certain amount of the Total Volume to consist of volume that removes liquidity will attract both liquidity providers and removers to NOM. The third prong (add Firm, Broker-Dealer and Non-NOM Market Maker liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options of 10,000 or more contracts per day in a month) is reasonable because the Exchange is incentivizing Participants to send Non-Penny Pilot Firm, Broker-Dealer and Non-NOM Market Maker order flow to NOM. Overall, the Exchange believes that the proposed Tier 6 rebate will continue to encourage Participants to send additional order flow to NOM in either Penny or Non-Penny Pilot Options to qualify for the higher Tier 6 rebate. All market participants benefit from the increased order interaction when more order flow is available on NOM.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Tier 6 NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all similarly-situated Participants are equally capable of qualifying for the proposed rebate, and the rebate will be uniformly paid to all qualifying Participants. Further, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to only offer this rebate to Participants that transact as NOM Marker Makers because NOM Market Makers, unlike other market participants, add value through continuous quoting
The Exchange believes that the proposed $0.86 per contract NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options offered to Participants if they qualify for the Tier 6 NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange notes that the proposed $0.86 per contract rebate set forth in new note “6” will be the highest available incentive provided to Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options.
Further, the new note “6” incentive is intended to encourage Participants who transact as NOM Market Makers to continue to send more order flow to the Exchange in either Penny or Non-Penny Pilot Options in order to qualify for the proposed Tier 6 Penny Pilot Rebate to Add NOM Market Maker Liquidity to earn the additional $0.86 Non-Penny Rebate to Add NOM Market Maker Liquidity. All market participants benefit from the increased order interaction when more order flow is available on NOM. The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to offer Participants that qualify for a note “5” incentive the greater of the current note “5” or new note “6” incentive because the Participant will be able to receive the greater of the two rebates with this proposal.
The Exchange believes that the proposed NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all similarly-situated Participants are equally capable of qualifying for the proposed rebates, and the rebate will be uniformly paid to all qualifying Participants. Further, the Exchange believes that offering only Participants that transact as NOM Market Makers the opportunity to qualify for the proposed $0.86 per contract Rebate to Add Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the same reasons discussed above for the proposed Tier 6 Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add NOM Market Maker Liquidity. It should also be noted that while the proposed $0.86 per contract rebate will be the highest available incentive provided to Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange currently offers eligible Participants that transact as Customers and/or Professionals rebates up to $1.05 per contract for adding liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to modify the eight tier rebate structure to a six tier rebate structure by deleting the current Tier 6 and Tier 7 Customer and Professional Rebates to Add Liquidity, which currently contain Total Volume qualification requirements, is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Participants will still have the opportunity to qualify for the other tiered Customer and Professional Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options, which will remain unchanged, as well as the other incentives currently provided to Participants that add Customer and Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options.
Further, the Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to make the related clean-up changes to remove all references in Chapter XV to current Tier 6 or Tier 7, renumber all references to Tier 8 to Tier 6, and relocate the definition of “Total Volume” in note “b” to a new corresponding note to the proposed Tier 6 NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options. The proposed changes will make NOM's pricing schedule easier to read and eliminate any potential confusion to the benefit of members and investors.
In addition, the proposed change to note “e” in Section 2(1) to decrease the Customer and Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options provided to eligible Participants that transact 3.00% or more in Consolidated Volume on The Nasdaq Stock Market from $0.53 to $0.52 per contract is reasonable because the proposed change is a modest reduction, and the Exchange believes that its rebate program will continue to incentivize Participants to transact greater volume on The Nasdaq Stock Market in order to qualify for a higher rebate on NOM.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed reduction in the note “e” incentive as discussed above is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because any Participant that qualifies for this rebate will be uniformly paid the $0.52 per contract incentive for Penny Pilot Options. The requirements for earning this rebate will be applied uniformly to all market participants. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to only offer the proposed $0.52 per contract incentive in note “e” to eligible Participants that add Customer and Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts market makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. The Exchange believes that offering a lower fee to Professionals is similarly beneficial, as the lower fees may cause market participants to select NOM as a venue to send Professional order flow, increasing competition among the exchanges. As with Customer liquidity, the Exchange believes that increased Professional order flow should benefit other market participants.
The proposal to amend note 3 of Chapter XV, Section 2(1) to increase the Penny Pilot Options Fee for Removing Customer or Professional Liquidity in SPY from $0.48 to $0.49 per contract is reasonable and equitable because the proposed fee remains lower for SPY as compared to other Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange believes that the lower fee of $0.49 per contract in SPY, as compared to $0.50 per contract in other Penny Pilot Options, will continue to incentivize Participants to send Customer and Professional order flow in SPY.
The Exchange does not believe that only offering this lower fee to Participants that remove Customer and Professional liquidity in SPY is inequitable and unfairly discriminatory. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts market makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. The Exchange believes that offering a lower fee to Professionals is similarly beneficial, as the lower fees may cause market participants to select NOM as a venue to send Professional order flow, increasing competition among the exchanges. As with Customer liquidity, the Exchange believes that increased Professional order flow should benefit other market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. All of the proposed changes to the NOM Market Maker, Customer and Professional Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options, as well as the Customer and Professional Fee for Removing Liquidity in SPY Options, are designed to attract additional order flow to NOM, and the Exchange believes that its pricing remains attractive to market participants. The Exchange 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. 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.
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.
On January 19, 2018, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that the Commission has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On July 28, 2017, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item V below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
On January 29, 2015, the Exchange announced the implementation of Pillar, which is an integrated trading technology platform designed to use a single specification for connecting to the equities and options markets operated by the Exchange and its affiliates, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) and NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American”).
The NYSE serves a unique role in the U.S. market as the only cash equities exchange that still has an active Trading Floor.
Currently, the Exchange only trades securities listed on the Exchange. With Pillar, the Exchange proposes to expand its offering and introduce trading of UTP Securities.
Unlike the trading of listed securities on the Exchange, the Exchange would not conduct any auctions in UTP Securities.
Member organizations trading UTP Securities would continue to be required to comply with Section 11(a)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1), and any applicable exceptions thereto as are currently applicable to trading on the Exchange. As described below, trading by Floor brokers on the Trading Floor at the point of sale for UTP Securities, also referred to as “manual trading” or “manual transactions,” would continue to be subject to current rules relating to such trading. In addition, all trading by Floor brokers in UTP Securities (whether manual or electronic transactions) on the Exchange would continue to be subject to rules that are unique to Floor brokers, including Rules 95 (Discretionary Transactions), 122 (Orders with More than One Broker), 123 (Record of Orders), and paragraphs (d)-(j) of Rule 134 and related Supplementary Material (requirement for Floor brokers to maintain an error account).
With the exception of specified point-of-sale trading for Floor brokers, trading in UTP Securities would be subject to the Pillar Platform Rules, as set forth in Rules 1P-13P.
• Consistent with the Exchange's current allocation model, trading in UTP Securities on the Exchange would be a parity allocation model with a setter priority allocation for the participant that sets the BBO.
• The Exchange would not offer a Retail Liquidity Program and related order types (Retail Orders and Retail Price Improvement Orders) for UTP Securities.
• The Exchange would not conduct auctions in UTP Securities.
• The Exchange would offer two trading sessions, with the Early Trading Session beginning at 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
• The Exchange is not proposing to offer the full suite of order instructions and modifiers that are available on NYSE Arca and NYSE American.
Subject to rule approvals, the Exchange will announce the implementation of trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading system by Trader Update, which the Exchange anticipates will be in the second quarter of 2018.
Once trading in UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform begins, specified current Exchange trading rules would not be applicable for trading UTP Securities. As described in more detail below, for each current rule that would not be applicable for trading on the Pillar trading platform, the Exchange proposes to state in a preamble to such rule that “this rule is not applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.” Current Exchange rules governing equities trading that do not have this preamble will govern Exchange operations on Pillar.
The Exchange proposes that current rules governing Floor-based crossing transactions would be applicable to trading in UTP Securities. As with crossing transactions for Exchange-listed securities, any such cross transactions must meet the requirements of current Rule 76. However, unlike trading in Exchange-listed securities, because UTP Securities would not be assigned to a trading post with a DMM, the trading crowd for such trading,
Because the Exchange proposes to provide for Floor crossing transactions in UTP Securities, Rules 74, 75, and 76, which relate to crossing transactions on the Floor and ancillary Floor-based requirements, would be applicable to trading UTP Securities. At this time, the Exchange would not make available for UTP Securities the cross function described in Supplementary Material .10 to Rule 76. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to add a preamble to Rule 76 that would provide that Supplementary Material .10 to that Rule would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.
The Exchange also proposes to amend the existing preambles to Rules 128A, 128B, 130, 131, 132, and 135
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend the preamble to Rule 134, which currently provides that such rule is not applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform. Rule 134(a)-(c) relates to clearing of Floor-based transactions, and would be applicable to any manual transactions pursuant to Rule 76 in UTP Securities. Rule 134(d)-(j) separately requires a Floor broker to maintain an error account. Because Floor brokers would continue to be subject to Section 11(a)(1) of the Act for all trading in UTP Securities, the Exchange proposes that current Rules 134(d)-(j) would be applicable to all Floor broker trading of UTP Securities on the Exchange. To effect these two changes, the Exchange proposes that the preamble to Rule 134 would be amended to provide that: “Except for manual transactions pursuant to Rule 76, paragraphs (a)-(c) of this Rule are not applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.”
As noted above, with the exception of crossing transactions pursuant to Rule 76 and related rules, the Exchange proposes rules that would be applicable to trading UTP Securities on Pillar that are based on the rules of NYSE Arca and NYSE American. As a global matter, the Exchange proposes non-substantive differences as compared to the NYSE Arca rules to use the terms “Exchange” instead of the terms “NYSE Arca Marketplace” or “NYSE Arca” and to use the terms “mean” or “have meaning” instead of the terms “shall mean” or “shall have the meaning.” In addition, the Exchange will use the term “member organization,” which is defined in Rule 2, instead of the terms “ETP Holder” or “User.”
As previously established in the Framework Filing, Section 1 of Rule 7P sets forth the General Provisions relating to trading on the Pillar trading platform and Section 3 of Rule 7P sets forth Exchange Trading on the Pillar trading platform. In this filing, the Exchange proposes new Rules 7.10, 7.11, and 7.16 and to amend Rule 7.18 for Section 1 of Rule 7P and new Rules 7.31, 7.34, 7.36, 7.37, and 7.38 for Section 3 of Rule 7P. In addition, the Exchange proposes new Section 5 of Rule 7P to establish rules for the Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program, and proposes new Rule 7.46 in that section.
Below, the Exchange first describes proposed Rules 7.36 and 7.37, as these rules would establish the Exchange's Pillar rules governing order ranking and display and order execution and routing. Next, the Exchange describes proposed Rule 7.31, which would establish the orders and modifiers available for trading UTP Securities on Pillar. Finally, the Exchange describes proposed Rules 7.10, 7.11, 7.16, 7.34, 7.38, and 7.46 and amendments to Rule 7.18.
Proposed Rule 7.36 (Order Ranking and Display) would establish how orders in UTP Securities would be ranked and displayed on the Pillar trading platform. As described above, the Exchange proposes to extend its current allocation model to trading UTP Securities on Pillar, including the concept of “setter interest,” which the Exchange would define in proposed Rule 7.36 as “Setter Priority.” Except for the addition of Setter Priority, the Exchange proposes to use Pillar functionality for determining how orders would be ranked and displayed. Accordingly, proposed Rule 7.36 is based in part on NYSE Arca Rule 7.36-E and NYSE American Rule 7.36E, with substantive differences as described below.
Proposed Rules 7.36(a)-(g) would establish rules defining terms that would be used in Rule 7P—Equities Trading and that describe the display and ranking of orders on the Exchange, including ranking based on price, priority category, and time. The proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.36-E(a)-(g) and NYSE American Rule 7.36E(a)-(g) with the following substantive differences:
• Proposed Rule 7.36(a)(5) would add a definition of the term “Participant,” which is based on how the term “individual participant” is defined in current Rule 72(c)(ii), with non-
As described in greater detail below, the Exchange proposes that its existing parity allocation model would be available for all securities that trade on the Exchange. Because there would not be a DMM assigned to any UTP Securities, orders represented by individual Floor Brokers and the Book Participant would be eligible for a parity allocation for UTP Securities.
Because trading in UTP Securities is intended to be an extension of the Exchange's current Floor-based trading model, the Exchange proposes that Floor Broker Participant allocations for UTP Securities would be available only to Floor brokers that also engage in a Floor broker business in Exchange-listed securities. As further proposed, an order entered by a Floor broker would be eligible to be included in the Floor Broker Participant only if: (A) Such order is entered by a Floor broker while on the Trading Floor, which is an existing requirement;
• Proposed Rule 7.36(a)(6) would add the definition of “Aggressing Order” to mean a buy (sell) order that is or becomes marketable against sell (buy) interest on the Exchange Book and that a resting order may become an Aggressing Order if its working price changes, if the PBBO or NBBO is updated, because of changes to other orders on the Exchange Book, or when processing inbound messages.
• Because all displayed Limit Orders would be displayed on an anonymous basis, the Exchange does not propose to include text based on the first clause of NYSE Arca Rule 7.36-E(b)(2) in proposed Rule 7.36(b)(2).
• Proposed Rule 7.36(c) regarding ranking would not include reference to price-time priority, as the Exchange's allocation model would not always be a price-time priority allocation, as described below. As further described below, the Exchange would rank orders consistent with proposed Rule 7.36(c).
• Proposed Rule 7.36(e) would establish three priority categories: Priority 1—Market Orders, Priority 2—Display Orders, and Priority 3—Non-Display Orders. The Exchange would not offer any additional priority categories for trading of UTP Securities.
In addition to these substantive differences, the Exchange proposes a non-substantive clarifying difference for proposed Rule 7.36(f)(1)(B) to add “[o]ther than as provided for in Rule 7.38(b)(2),” to make clear that the way in which a working time is assigned to an order that is partially routed to an Away Market and returns to the Exchange is addressed in both proposed Rule 7.36(f)(1)(B) and proposed Rule 7.38(b)(2). The Exchange also proposes non-substantive differences to proposed Rule 7.36(f)(2) and (3) to streamline the rule text.
Proposed Rule 7.36(h) would establish how Setter Priority would be assigned to an order and is based in part on current Rules 72(a) and (b). Rule 72(a)(ii) provides that when a bid or offer, including pegging interest is established as the only displayable bid or offer made at a particular price and such bid or offer is the only displayable interest when such price is or becomes the Exchange BBO (the “setting interest”), such setting interest is entitled to priority for allocation of executions at that price as described in Rule 72. The rule further provides that:
• Odd-lot orders, including aggregated odd-lot orders that are displayable, are not eligible to be setting interest. (Rule 72(a)(ii)(A))
• If, at the time displayable interest of a round lot or greater becomes the Exchange BBO, there is other displayable interest of a round lot or greater, including aggregated odd-lot orders that are equal to or greater than a round lot, at the price that becomes the Exchange BBO, no interest is considered to be a setting interest, and, therefore, there is no priority established. (Rule 72(a)(ii)(B))
• If, at the time displayable interest of a round lot or greater becomes the Exchange BBO, there is other displayable interest the sum of which is less than a round lot, at the price that becomes the Exchange BBO, the displayable interest of a round lot or greater will be considered the only displayable bid or offer at that price point and is therefore established as the setting interest entitled to priority for allocation of executions at that price as described in this rule. (Rule 72(a)(ii)(C))
• If executions decrement the setting interest to an odd-lot size, a round lot or partial round lot order that joins such remaining odd-lot size order is not eligible to be the setting interest. (Rule 72(a)(ii)(D))
• If, as a result of cancellation, interest is or becomes the single displayable interest of a round lot or greater at the Exchange BBO, it becomes the setting interest. (Rule 72(a)(ii)(E))
• Only the portion of setting interest that is or has been published in the Exchange BBO is entitled to priority allocation of an execution. That portion of setting interest that is designated as reserve interest and therefore not displayed at the Exchange BBO (or not displayable if it becomes the Exchange BBO) is not eligible for priority allocation of an execution irrespective of the price of such reserve interest or the time it is accepted into Exchange systems. However, if, following an
• If interest becomes the Exchange BBO, it will be considered the setting interest even if pegging interest, Limit Orders designated ALO, or sell short orders during a Short Sale Period under Rule 440B(e) are re-priced and displayed at the same price as such interest, and it will retain its priority even if subsequently joined at that price by re-priced interest. (Rule 72(a)(ii)(G))
Rule 72(b)(i) provides that once priority is established by setting interest, such setting interest retains that priority for any execution at that price when that price is at the Exchange BBO and if executions decrement the setting interest to an odd-lot size, such remaining portion of the setting interest retains its priority for any execution at that price when that price is the Exchange BBO. Rule 72(b)(ii) further provides that for any execution of setting interest that occurs when the price of the setting interest is not the Exchange BBO, the setting interest does not have priority and is executed on parity. Finally, Rule 73(b)(ii) provides that priority of setting interest will not be retained after the close of trading on the Exchange or following the resumption of trading in a security after a trading halt in such security has been invoked pursuant to Rule 123D or following the resumption of trading after a trading halt invoked pursuant to the provisions of Rule 80B. In addition, priority of the setting interest is not retained on any portion of the priority interest that is routed to an away market and is returned unexecuted unless such priority interest is greater than a round lot and the only other interest at the price point is odd-lot orders, the sum of which is less than a round lot.
Proposed Rule 7.36(h) would use Pillar terminology to establish “Setter Priority,” which would function similarly to setting interest under Rule 72. The Exchange proposes the following substantive differences to how Setter Priority would be assigned and retained on Pillar:
• To be eligible for Setter Priority, an order would have to establish not only the BBO, but also either join an Away Market NBBO or establish the NBBO. The Exchange believes that requiring an order to either join or establish an NBBO before it is eligible for Setter Priority would encourage the display of aggressive liquidity on the Exchange.
• A resting order would not be eligible to be assigned Setter Priority simply because it is the only interest at that price when it becomes the BBO (either because of a cancellation of other interest at that price or because a resting order that is priced worse than the BBO becomes the BBO). The Exchange believes that the benefit of Setter Priority should be for orders that are aggressively seeking to improve the BBO, rather than for passive orders that become the BBO.
• The replenished portion of a Reserve Order would not be eligible for Setter Priority. The Exchange believes that Setter Priority should be assigned to interest willing to be displayed, and because the reserve interest would not be displayed on arrival, it would not be eligible for Setter Priority.
• Orders that are routed and returned unexecuted would be eligible for Setter Priority consistent with the proposed rules regarding the working time assigned to the returned quantity of an order. As described in greater detail below, if such orders meet the requirements to be eligible for Setter Priority,
Proposed Rule 7.36(h) would provide that Setter Priority would be assigned to an order ranked Priority 2—Display Orders with a display quantity of at least a round lot if such order (i) establishes a new BBO and (ii) either establishes a new NBBO or joins an Away Market NBBO. The rule would further provide that only one order is eligible for Setter Priority at each price. This proposed rule text is based in part on Rule 72(a)(ii), 72(a)(ii)(A), 72(a)(ii)(B), 72(a)(ii)(C), subject to the substantive differences described above.
Proposed Rule 7.36(h)(1) would set forth when an order would be evaluated for Setter Priority. As noted above, the Exchange proposes a substantive difference from current Rule 72(a)(ii) in that a resting order would not be eligible to be assigned Setter Priority simply because it is the only interest at that price when it becomes the BBO.
• Proposed Rule 7.36(h)(1)(A) would provide that an order would be evaluated for Setter Priority on arrival, which would include when any portion of an order that has routed returns unexecuted and is added to the Exchange Book. Pursuant to proposed Rule 7.37(a)(1), described below, an order that is routed on arrival to an Away Market would not be assigned a working time. Proposed Rule 7.36(f) provides that an order would not be assigned a working time until it is placed on the Exchange Book. As such, an order that has returned after routing would be processed similarly to a newly arriving order. Therefore, the Exchange believes that an order should be evaluated for Setter Priority when it returns from an Away Market unexecuted in the same way as evaluating an order for Setter Priority on arrival.
When evaluating Setter Priority for an order that has returned from an Away Market unexecuted, the Exchange would assess whether such order meets the requirements of proposed Rule 7.36(h), which is based in part on the second sentence of Rule 72(b)(iii). The Exchange proposes that for Pillar, an order that was routed to an Away Market and returned unexecuted would be evaluated for Setter Priority based on how a working time would be assigned to the returned quantity of the routed order, as described in proposed Rules 7.16(f)(5)(H), 7.36(f)(1)(A) and (B), and 7.38(b)(2).
○ Proposed Rule 7.16(f)(5)(H) provides that if a Short Sale Price Test, as defined in that rule, is triggered after an order has routed, any returned quantity of the order and the order it joins on the Exchange Book would be adjusted to a Permitted Price.
○ Proposed Rule 7.36(f)(1)(A) provides that an order that is fully routed to an Away Market would not be assigned a working time unless and until any unexecuted portion of the order returns to the Exchange Book. As proposed, if the Exchange routes an entire order and a portion returns unexecuted, the Exchange would evaluate the returned quantity for Setter Priority as if it were a newly arriving order. For example, if less than a round lot returns unexecuted, the returned quantity would not be eligible for Setter Priority. If at least a round lot returns unexecuted, establishes a new BBO, and either joins or establishes the NBBO, it would be eligible for Setter Priority.
○ Proposed Rule 7.36(f)(1)(B) provides that (except as provided for in proposed Rule 7.38(b)(2)), if an order is partially routed to an Away Market on arrival, the portion that is not routed would be assigned a working time and any portion of the order returning unexecuted would be assigned the same working time as any remaining portion of the original order resting on the Exchange Book and would be considered the same order as the resting order. In such case, if the resting portion of the order has Setter Priority, the returned portion would also have Setter Priority.
For example, if the Exchange receives a 200 share order ranked Priority 2—Display Orders, routes 100 shares (“C”) of such order and adds 100 shares (“D”) of such order to the Exchange Book, which establishes the BBO and joined the NBBO, “D” would be assigned Setter Priority. If “D” is partially executed and decremented to 50 shares and another order “E” for 100 shares joins “D” at its price, pursuant to proposed Rules 7.36(h)(2)(A) and (B), described below, “D” would retain Setter Priority. If “C” returns unexecuted, it would join the working time of “D” pursuant to proposed Rule 7.36(f)(1)(B), “C” and “D” would be considered a single order, and “C” would therefore also receive Setter Priority.
○ Proposed Rule 7.38(b)(2) provides that for an order that is partially routed to an Away Market on arrival, if any returned quantity of such order joins resting odd-lot quantity of the original order and the returned and resting quantity, either alone or together with other odd-lot orders, would be displayed as a new BBO, both the returned and resting quantity would be assigned a new working time. In such case, the returned quantity and the resting odd-lot quantity together would be a single order and would be evaluated for Setter Priority.
For example, if the Exchange receives an order for 100 shares, routes 50 shares (“E”) of such order and the remaining 50 shares (“F”) of such order are added to the Exchange Book, pursuant to proposed Rule 7.36(f)(1)(B), “F” would be assigned a working time when it is added to the Exchange Book. If “E” returns unexecuted, and “E” and “F” together would establish a new BBO at that price, pursuant to proposed Rule 7.38(b)(2), “F” would be assigned a new working time to join the working time of “E,” and “E” and “F” would be considered a single order. If the returned quantity together with the resting quantity establishes the BBO pursuant to proposed Rule 7.38(b)(2), the order would be eligible to be evaluated for Setter Priority.
• Proposed Rule 7.36(h)(1)(B) would provide that an order would be evaluated for Setter Priority when it becomes eligible to trade for the first time upon transitioning to a new trading session. When an order becomes eligible to trade upon a trading session transition, it is treated as if it were a newly arriving order. Accordingly, the Exchange believes it would be consistent with its proposal to evaluate arriving orders for Setter Priority to also evaluate orders that become eligible to trade upon a trading session transition for Setter Priority. For example, pursuant to proposed Rule 7.34(c)(1), described below, the Exchange would accept Primary Pegged Orders during the Early Trading Session, however, such orders would not be eligible to trade until the Core Trading Session begins. In such case, a Primary Pegged Order would be evaluated for Setter Priority when it becomes eligible to trade in the Core Trading Session.
Proposed Rule 7.36(h)(2) would establish when an order retains its Setter Priority, as follows:
• If it is decremented to any size because it has either traded or been partially cancelled (proposed Rule 7.36(h)(2)(A)). This proposed rule is based on Rule 72(b)(i), with non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology.
• if it is joined at that price by a resting order that is re-priced and assigned a display price equal to the display price of the order with Setter Priority (proposed Rule 7.36(h)(2)(B)). This proposed rule is based on Rule 72(a)(ii)(G), with non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology.
• if the BBO or NBBO changes (proposed Rule 7.36(h)(2)(C)). This proposed rule, together with proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1)(B), described below, is based on Rule 72(b)(ii), with non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology. Specifically, once an order has been assigned Setter Priority, it has that status so long as it is on the Exchange Book, subject to proposed Rule 7.36(h)(3), described below, regardless of the BBO or NBBO. However, as described in proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1)(B), it would only be eligible for a Setter Priority allocation if it is executed when it is the BBO.
• if the order marking changes from (A) sell to sell short, (B) sell to sell short exempt, (C) sell short to sell, (D) sell short to sell short exempt, (E) sell short exempt to sell, and (F) sell short exempt to sell short (proposed Rule 7.36(h)(2)(D)). This proposed rule text is consistent with proposed Rule 7.36(f)(4) because if an order retains its working time, the Exchange believes it should also retain its Setter Priority status.
• when transitioning from one trading session to another (proposed Rule 7.36(h)(2)(E)). This text would be new because, with Pillar, the Exchange would be introducing an Early Trading Session. The Exchange believes that if an order entered during the Early Trading Session is assigned Setter Priority, it should retain that status in the Core Trading Session.
Proposed Rule 7.36(h)(3) would establish when an order would lose Setter Priority, as follows:
• If trading in the security is halted, suspended, or paused (proposed Rule 7.36(h)(3)(A)). This proposed rule is based on the first sentence of current Rule 72(b)(iii), with non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology. In addition, because all orders expire at the end of the trading day, the Exchange believes that the current rule text providing that setting interest would not be retained after the close of trading on the Exchange would not be necessary for Pillar.
• if such order is assigned a new display price (proposed Rule 7.36(h)(3)(B)). The Exchange believes that if an order has Setter Priority at a price, and then is assigned a new display price, it should not retain the Setter Priority status that was associated with its original display price.
• if such order is less than a round lot and is assigned a new working time pursuant to proposed Rule 7.38(b)(2). As discussed above, pursuant to proposed Rule 7.38(b)(2) the resting odd-lot portion of an order would be assigned a new working time if the returned quantity of that order, together with the
For example, if the Exchange receives an order for 200 shares ranked Priority 2—Display Orders, routes 100 shares (“G”) of such order, and the remaining 100 shares (“H”) of such order are added to the Exchange Book and assigned Setter Priority, “H” would retain Setter Priority even if it is partially executed and the remaining portion of “H” is less than a round lot. If “G” returns unexecuted and “G” and “H” together would establish a new BBO at that price, pursuant to proposed Rule 7.38(b)(2), “H” would be assigned a new working time to join the working time of “G,” and “G” and “H” would be considered a single order. When “H” is assigned a new working time, it would lose its Setter Priority status. Even though “G” and “H” would establish the BBO, if that order does not also join or establish an NBBO, it would not be assigned Setter Priority. In this scenario, “H” would have lost its Setter Priority. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to re-evaluate such order for Setter Priority because it is being assigned a new working time together with the returned quantity of the order.
Proposed Rule 7.36(h)(4) would establish when Setter Priority is not available, as follows:
• For any portion of an order that is ranked Priority 3—Non-Display Orders (proposed Rule 7.36(h)(4)(A)). This proposed rule text is based on the second sentence of Rule 72(a)(ii)(F), with non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology.
• when the reserve quantity replenishes the display quantity of a Reserve Order (proposed Rule 7.36(h)(4)(B)). This proposed rule text would be new and would be a substantive difference, described above, as compared to the third sentence of Rule 72(a)(ii)(F).
Because proposed Rule 7.36 would address the display and working time of orders and Setter Priority, the Exchange proposes that Rules 72(a), (b), and (c)(xii) would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.
Proposed Rule 7.37 (Order Execution and Routing) would establish rules governing order execution and routing on the Pillar trading platform. As described above, the Exchange proposes to retain its parity allocation model, which the Exchange would set forth in proposed Rule 7.37(b). Except for the addition of parity allocation, the Exchange proposes to use Pillar functionality for determining how orders would be executed and routed. Accordingly, the proposed rule is based in part on NYSE Arca Rule 7.37-E and NYSE American Rule 7.37E, with substantive differences as described below.
Proposed Rules 7.37(a) and paragraphs (c)-(d) would establish rules regarding order execution, routing, use of data feeds, locking or crossing quotations in NMS Stocks, and exceptions to the Order Protection Rule. The proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.37-E(a)-(f) and NYSE American Rule 7.37E(a)-(f) with the following substantive differences:
• Proposed Rule 7.37(a) would use the proposed new term “Aggressing Order” rather than the term “incoming marketable order” to refer to orders that would be matched for execution. In addition, because the Exchange would not use a price-time priority allocation for all orders, the Exchange proposes to specify that orders would be matched for execution as provided for in proposed Rule 7.37(b).
• As discussed below, the Exchange would not offer all order types that are available on NYSE Arca and NYSE American. Accordingly, proposed Rule 7.37(a)(4) would not include a reference to Inside Limit Orders.
• Similar to NYSE American, because the Exchange would not be taking in data feeds from broker-dealers or routing to Away Markets that are not displaying protected quotations, the Exchange proposes that proposed Rule 7.37 would not include rule text from paragraph (b)(3) of NYSE Arca Rule 7.37-E, which specifies that an ETP Holder can opt out of routing to Away Markets that are not displaying a protected quotation,
• As discussed in greater detail below, because the Exchange would not offer all orders available on NYSE Arca and NYSE American, including orders based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(f) that are orders with specific routing instructions, the Exchange proposes that proposed Rules 7.37(c)(5) and (c)(7)(B) would not include reference to orders that are designated to route to the primary listing market. Similarly, the Exchange would not include rule text based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.37-E(b)(7)(C) and NYSE American Rule 7.37E(b)(7)(C).
• The Exchange proposes a non-substantive difference to update the chart in proposed Rule 7.37(e) to reflect the amended names of market centers.
Proposed Rule 7.37(b) would set forth how an Aggressing Order would be allocated against contra-side orders and is based in part on current Rule 72(c). The Exchange proposes that its existing parity allocation model, modified as described below, would be applicable to UTP Securities. Like the Exchange's existing parity allocation model for NYSE-listed securities, the proposed parity allocation model for UTP Securities would provide customers with choices. The Exchange's parity allocation model provides customers that do not have latency sensitive strategies or who value intermediation by a trusted agent with an alternative to the price-time priority model offered by other exchanges: Such customers can use a Floor broker and be allocated trades based on parity, as described below. Those customers with latency sensitive strategies or who prefer un-intermediated access can choose to send orders electronically and would be allocated trades as part of the Book Participant. Irrespective of whether the customer chooses to use a Floor broker or enter their interest electronically via the Book Participant, a customer assigned Setter Priority by setting the BBO would receive the first 15% of an allocation.
While there would be no DMMs assigned to UTP Securities, as noted above, the Exchange would require that for an order to be eligible to be included in the Floor Broker Participant, such order must be entered by a Floor broker while on the Trading Floor and only if such Floor broker also engages in a Floor broker business in Exchange-listed securities. In addition, to be eligible to be included in the Floor Broker Participant, orders must be entered on an agency basis (unless trading out of the Floor broker's error account pursuant to Rule 134). As a result, in contrast to off-Floor agency broker-dealers, Floor brokers would not be permitted to trade for their own accounts while on the Trading Floor, including principal trading on behalf of customers. The result of any allocation to an individual Floor broker would therefore always accrue to the customer. In addition, when trading UTP
The Exchange proposes to use Pillar terminology to describe allocations and proposes the following substantive differences to how allocations are processed under Rule 72(c):
• Mid-point Liquidity Orders (“MPL”) with a Minimum Trade Size (“MTS”), which are not currently available on the Exchange, would be allocated based on MTS size (smallest to largest) and time.
• The Exchange would maintain separate allocation wheels on each side of the market for displayed and non-displayed orders at each price. Currently, the Exchange maintains a single allocation wheel for each security.
• An allocation to a Floor Broker Participant would be allocated to orders represented by that Floor Broker on parity.
• If resting orders on one side of the Exchange Book are repriced such that they become marketable against orders on the other side of the Exchange Book, they would trade as Aggressing Orders based on their ranking pursuant to proposed Rule 7.36(c).
• If resting orders on both side of the Exchange Book are repriced such that they become marketable against each other,
• Because there would not be any DMMs assigned to UTP Securities, the proposed rule would not reference DMM allocations.
Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1) would set forth that at each price, an Aggressing Order would be allocated against contra-side orders as follows:
• Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1)(A) would provide that orders ranked Priority 1—Market Orders would trade first based on time. This proposed rule is based on the first sentence of Rule 72(c)(i) with non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology.
• Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1)(B) would provide that next, an order with Setter Priority that has a display price and working price equal to the BBO would receive 15% of the remaining quantity of the Aggressing Order, rounded up to the next round lot size or the remaining displayed quantity of the order with Setter Priority, whichever is lower. The rule would further provide that an order with Setter Priority is eligible for allocation under proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1)(B) if the BBO is no longer the same as the NBBO. This proposed rule text is based on Rules 72(b)(ii) and 72(c)(iii) with non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology. Although the Exchange is using different rule text, the quantity of an Aggressing Order that would be allocated to an order with Setter Priority would be the same under both current rules and the proposed Pillar rule.
• Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1)(C) would provide that next, orders ranked Priority 2—Displayed Orders would be allocated on parity by Participant and that any remaining quantity of an order with Setter Priority would be eligible to participate in this parity allocation, consistent with the allocation wheel position of the Participant that entered the order with Setter Priority. This proposed rule text is based on Rules 72(c)(i), (iv), (vi), and (ix) with non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology.
• Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1)(D) would provide that next, orders ranked Priority 3—Non-Display Orders, other than MPL Orders with an MTS, would be allocated on parity by Participant. This proposed rule text is based on Rules 72(c)(i), (iv), (vi), and (ix) with non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology and a substantive difference not to include MPL Orders with an MTS in the parity allocation of resting non-displayed orders.
• Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1)(E) would provide that MPL Orders with an MTS would be allocated based on MTS size (smallest to largest) and time. Because MPL Orders with an MTS would be a new offering on the Exchange, this proposed rule text is new. With an MTS instruction, an [sic] member organization is instructing the Exchange that it does not want an execution of its order if the MTS cannot be met. Accordingly, an MPL Order with an MTS is willing to be skipped if such instruction cannot be met. The Exchange proposes to separate MPL Orders with an MTS from the parity allocation of Priority 3—Non-Display Orders because with a parity allocation, an MTS instruction would not be guaranteed. In order to honor the MTS instruction of the resting MPL Order, the Exchange proposes to allocate these orders after all other Priority 3—Non-Display Orders have been allocated on parity. The Exchange believes that this proposed allocation priority would be consistent with the MTS instruction in that such orders are willing to be skipped in order to have the MTS met.
Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(2) would establish the allocation wheel for parity allocations. The proposed rule would be new for Pillar and would establish that at each price on each side of the market, the Exchange would maintain an “allocation wheel” of Participants with orders ranked Priority 2—Display Orders and a separate allocation wheel of Participants with orders ranked Priority 3—Non-Display Orders. The rule further describes how the position of an order on an allocation wheel would be determined, as follows:
• Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(2)(A) would provide that the Participant that enters the first order in a priority category at a price would establish the first position on the applicable allocation wheel for that price. The rule would further provide that if an allocation wheel no longer has any orders at a price, the next Participant to enter an order at that price would establish a new allocation wheel. This proposed rule is based in part on the first sentence of Rule 72(c)(viii)(A), with both non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology and substantive differences because the Exchange would maintain separate allocation wheels at each price point, rather than a single allocation wheel for a security. Accordingly, an allocation wheel at a price point could be re-established throughout the trading day.
• Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(2)(B) would provide that additional Participants would be added to an allocation wheel based on time of entry of the first order entered by a Participant. This proposed rule is based in part on the second sentence of Rule 72(c)(viii)(A) with non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology.
• Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(2)(C) would provide that once a Participant has established a position on an allocation wheel at a price, any additional orders from that Participant at the same price would join that position on an allocation wheel. This proposed rule uses Pillar terminology to describe current functionality.
• Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(2)(D) would provide that if an order receives a new working time or is cancelled and replaced at the same working price, a Participant that entered such order would be moved to the last position on an allocation wheel if, that Participant has no other orders at that price. This proposed rule is based in part on the last sentence of Rule 72(c)(viii)(A) with non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology.
• Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(2)(E) would provide that a Participant would be removed from an allocation wheel if (i) all orders from that Participant at that
• Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(2)(F) would provide that if multiple orders are assigned new working prices at the same time, the Participants representing those orders would be added to an allocation wheel at the new working price in time sequence relative to one another. This proposed rule would be new functionality associated with the substantive difference of having separate allocation wheels at each price point.
Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(3) would set forth the parity pointer associated with the allocation wheel. As proposed, if there is more than one Participant on an allocation wheel, the Exchange would maintain a “pointer” that would identify which Participant would be next to be evaluated for a parity allocation and that the Participant with the pointer would be considered the first position. This proposed rule is based in part on the Parity Example 1 described in Rule 72(c)(viii)(A) and Rule 72(c)(viii)(B), with non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology. The rule would further provide that the Setter Priority allocation described in proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1)(B) would not move the pointer, which is based on the second sentence of Rule 72(c)(iv) with non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology.
Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(4) would set forth how an Aggressing Order would be allocated on parity. As proposed, an Aggressing Order would be allocated by round lots. The Participant with the pointer would be allocated a round lot and then the pointer would advance to the next Participant. The pointer would continue to advance on an allocation wheel until the Aggressing Order is fully allocated or all Participants in that priority category are exhausted. This proposed rule is based on Rule 72(c)(viii), sub-paragraphs (A)-(C) of that Rule, and Parity Examples 1 through 4, with non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology. Rather than include examples in the proposed rule, the Exchange believes that the Pillar terminology streamlines the description of parity allocations in a manner that obviates the need for examples, as follows:
• Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(4)(A) would provide that not all Participants on an allocation wheel would be guaranteed to receive an allocation. The size of an allocation to a Participant would be based on which Participant had the pointer at the beginning of the allocation, the size of the Aggressing Order, the number of Participants in the allocation, and the size of the orders entered by Participants. The Exchange believes that this proposed rule makes clear that while the parity allocation seeks to evenly allocate an Aggressing Order, an even allocation may not be feasible and would be dependent on multiple variables.
For example, if there are three Participants on an allocation wheel, “A,” “B,” and “C,” each representing 200 shares and “A” has the pointer, an Aggressing Order of 450 shares would be allocated as follows: “A” would be allocated 100 shares, “B” would be allocated 100 shares, “C” would be allocated 100 shares, “A” would be allocated 100 shares, and “B” would be allocated 50 shares. In this example, an uneven allocation would result because the Aggressing Order cannot be evenly divided by round lots among the Participants and the allocation sizes would be dependent on which Participant has the pointer at the beginning of the allocation. Accordingly, “A” would be allocated a total of 200 shares, “B” would be allocated a total of 150 shares, and “C” would be allocated a total of 100 shares.
• Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(4)(B) would provide that if the last Participant to receive an allocation is allocated an odd lot, the pointer would stay with that Participant. The Exchange proposes that the pointer would advance only after a round-lot allocation. If the last allocation is an odd-lot, the pointer would stay with that Participant. For example, continuing with the example above where “B” received an allocation of 150 shares because the last allocation was 50 shares, the pointer would remain with “B” for the next allocation at that price. By contrast, if the last Participant receives a round-lot allocation of an Aggressing Order, the pointer would advance to the next Participant for the next allocation at that price.
• Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(4)(C) would provide that if the Aggressing Order is an odd lot, the Participant with the pointer would be allocated the full quantity of the order, unless that Participant does not have an order that could satisfy the Aggressing Order in full, in which case, the pointer would move to the next Participant on an allocation wheel. This proposed rule uses Pillar terminology to describe how an odd-lot sized Aggressing Order would be allocated.
• Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(4)(D) would provide that a Participant that has an order or orders equaling less than a round lot would be eligible for a parity allocation up to the size of the order(s) represented by that Participant. This proposed rule is based in part on Rule 72(c)(viii)(B) with non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology.
Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(5) would provide that an allocation to the Book Participant would be allocated to orders that comprise the Book Participant by working time. This proposed rule is based on the second sentence of Rule 72(c)(ii) with non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology.
Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(6) would provide that an allocation to a Floor Broker Participant, which would be defined as a “Floor Broker Allocation,” would be allocated to orders with unique working times that comprise the Floor Broker Participant, which would be defined as “Floor Broker Orders,” on parity. In other words, any allocation to an individual Floor Broker Participant at a price would be further allocated among multiple orders that may be represented by that Floor broker. The proposed reference to “unique working times” would refer to orders that have multiple working times. For example, pursuant to proposed Rule 7.31(d)(1)(B), each time a Reserve Order is replenished from reserve interest, a new working time would be assigned to the replenished quantity of the Reserve Order, while the reserve interest would retain the working time of original order entry. As a result, the display quantity of a Reserve Order may be represented by multiple orders with unique working times representing each replenishment. For purposes of the Floor Broker Allocation, each quantity with a unique working time would be considered a separate order.
As further proposed, the parity allocation within a Floor Broker Allocation would be processed as described in proposed Rule 7.37(b)(2)-(4) with the Floor Broker Allocation processed as the “Aggressing Order” and each Floor Broker Order processed as a “Participant.” Because a Floor Broker Participant may represent multiple orders, the Exchange believes that allocating the Floor Broker Allocation on parity would be consistent with the Exchange's allocation model, which provides for a parity allocation to Floor brokers. For example, if an Aggressing Order is allocated 200 shares to Floor Broker Participant “X,” which would be the Floor Broker Allocation, and “X”
Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(8) would provide that if resting orders on one side of the market are repriced and become marketable against contra-side orders on the Exchange Book, the Exchange would rank the re-priced orders as described in proposed Rule 7.36(c) and trade them as Aggressing Orders consistent with their ranking.
Proposed Rule 7.37(b)(9) would provide that if resting orders on both sides of the market are repriced and become marketable against one another, the Exchange would rank the orders on each side of the market as described in Rule 7.36(c) and trade them as follows:
• The best-ranked order would establish the price at which the marketable orders will trade, provided that if the marketable orders include MPL orders, orders would trade at the midpoint of the PBBO (proposed Rule 7.37(b)(9)(A)).
• The next best-ranked order would trade as the Aggressing Order with contra-side orders at that price pursuant to proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1) (proposed Rule 7.37(b)(9)(B)).
• When an Aggressing Order is fully executed, the next-best ranked order would trade as the Aggressing Order with contra-side orders at that price pursuant to proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1) (proposed Rule 7.37(b)(9)(C)).
• Orders on both sides of the market would continue to trade as the Aggressing Order until all marketable orders are executed (proposed Rule 7.37(b)(9)(D)).
Because proposed Rule 7.37 would address order execution and routing, including parity allocations, locking and crossing, and the Order Protection Rule, the Exchange proposes that Rules 15A, 19, 72(c), 1000, 1001, 1002, and 1004 would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.
Proposed Rule 7.31 (Orders and Modifiers) would establish the orders and modifiers that would be available on the Exchange for trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform. The Exchange proposes to offer a subset of the orders and modifiers that are available on NYSE Arca and NYSE American, with specified substantive differences, as described below.
• Proposed Rule 7.31(a) would establish the Exchange's proposed Primary Order Types. The Exchange would offer Market Orders, which would be described in proposed Rule 7.31(a)(1), and Limit Orders, which would be described in proposed Rule 7.31(a)(2). These proposed rules are based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(a)(1) and (2) with one substantive difference. Because the Exchange would not be conducting auctions for UTP Securities and because, as described below, with the exception of Primary Pegged Orders, Limit Orders entered before the Core Trading Session would be deemed designated for both the Early Trading Session and the Core Trading Session, the Exchange proposes not to include the following text in proposed Rule 7.31(a)(2)(B): “A Limit Order entered before the Core Trading Session that is designated for the Core Trading Session only will become subject to Limit Order Price Protection after the Core Open Auction.” Instead, the Exchange proposes to provide that a Limit Order entered before the Core Trading Session that becomes eligible to trade in the Core Trading Session would become subject to the Limit Order Price Protection when the Core Trading Session begins. Accordingly, Primary Pegged Orders entered before the Core Trading Session begins would not be subject to Limit Order Price Protection until the Core Trading Session begins.
• Proposed Rule 7.31(b) would establish the proposed time-in-force modifiers available for UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform. The Exchange would offer both Day and Immediate-or-Cancel (“IOC”) time-in-force modifiers. The rule text is based on NYSE American Rule 7.31E(b) without any substantive differences.
• Proposed Rule 7.31(c) would establish the Exchange's Auction-Only Orders. Because the Exchange would not be conducting auctions in UTP Securities, the Exchange would route all Auction-Only Orders in UTP Securities to the primary listing market, as described in greater detail below in proposed Rule 7.34. To reflect this functionality, proposed Rule 7.31(c) would provide that an Auction-Only Order is a Limit or Market Order that is only to be routed pursuant to Rule 7.34. Proposed Rules 7.31(c)(1)-(4) would define Limit-on-Open Orders (“LOO Order”), Market-on-Open Order (“MOO Order”), Limit-on-Close Order (“LOC Order”), and Market-on-Close (“MOC Order”). The proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(c)(1)-(4) and NYSE American Rule 7.31E(c)(1)-(4), with the substantive difference not to include rule text relating to how Auction-Only Orders would function during a Trading Halt Auction, as the Exchange would not be conducting any auctions in UTP Securities. Because the Exchange would not have defined terms for auctions in the Pillar rules, the Exchange proposes an additional non-substantive difference to use the term “an opening or re-opening auction” instead of “the Core Open Auction or a Trading Halt Auction” and the term “a closing auction” instead of “the Closing Auction.”
• Proposed Rule 7.31(d) would describe orders with a conditional or undisplayed price and/or size. Proposed Rule 7.31(d) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(d) and NYSE American Rule 7.31E(d) without any differences.
• Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(1) would establish Reserve Orders, which would be a Limit Order with a quantity of the size displayed and with a reserve quantity (“reserve interest”) that is not displayed. Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(1) and subparagraphs (A)-(C) to that rule are based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(d)(1) and its sub-paragraphs (A)-(C) without any substantive differences. As described below, the Exchange proposes to describe Limit Orders that do not route as a “Limit Non-Routable Order.”
• Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(2) would establish Limit Non-Displayed Orders, which would be a Limit Order that is not displayed and does not route. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(d)(2), with one substantive difference: The Exchange would not be offering the ability for a Limit Non-Displayed Order to be designated with a Non-Display Remove Modifier and therefore would not be proposing rule text based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(d)(2)(B).
• Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(3) would establish MPL Orders, which would be a Limit Order that is not displayed and does not route, with a working price at the midpoint of the PBBO. Proposed Rule 7.31(d)(3) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(d)(3) and NYSE American Rule 7.31E(d)(3) with one substantive difference: Because the Exchange would not be conducting auctions in UTP Securities, the Exchange does not propose to include rule text that MPL Orders do not participate in any auctions.
Proposed Rules 7.31(d)(3)(A)-(F), which further describe MPL Orders, are
• Proposed Rule 7.31(e)(1) would establish the Limit Non-Routable Order, which is a Limit Order that does not route. Proposed Rule 7.31(e)(1) and its sub-paragraphs (A)-(B) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(e)(1) and its sub-paragraphs (A)-(B) and NYSE American Rule 7.31E(1) and its sub-paragraphs (A)-(B) without any substantive differences. Because the Exchange would not offer Non-Display Remove Modifiers for Limit Non-Routable Orders, the Exchange is not proposing rule text based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(e)(1)(C).
• Proposed Rule 7.31(e)(2) and sub-paragraphs (B)-(D) would establish the ALO Order, which is a Limit Non-Routable Order that, except as specified in the proposed rule, would not remove liquidity from the Exchange Book. The proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(e)(2) and its sub-paragraphs (B)-(D) with two substantive differences. First, because the Exchange would not have auctions in UTP Securities, the Exchange does not propose rule text based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(A), and would designate this sub-paragraph as “Reserved.” Second, because the Exchange would not offer the Non-Display Remove Modifier for Limit Non-Routable Orders or Limit Non-Display Orders, the Exchange does not propose rule text based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(B)(iv)(b).
• Proposed Rule 7.31(e)(3) and sub-paragraphs (A)-(D) would establish Intermarket Sweep Orders (“ISO”), which would be a Limit Order that does not route and meets the requirements of Rule 600(b)(3) of Regulation NMS and could be designated IOC or Day. The proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(e)(3) and its sub-paragraphs (A)-(D) and its sub-paragraphs (A)-(D) with two substantive differences. First, because Exchange Floor brokers do not have the ability to enter orders directly on Away Markets, the Exchange does not currently offer the ability for Floor brokers to enter ISOs.
• Because the Exchange would not offer Primary Only Orders or Cross Orders, the Exchange proposes that Rules 7.31(f) and (g) would be designated as “Reserved.”
• Proposed Rule 7.31(h) would establish Pegged Orders, which would be a Limit Order that does not route with a working price that is pegged to a dynamic reference price. Proposed Rule 7.31(h) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(h) with one substantive difference. Consistent with the Exchange's current rules, Pegged Orders would be available only to Floor brokers.
Proposed Rule 7.31(h)(2) and sub-paragraphs (A) and (B) would establish Primary Pegged Orders, which would be a Pegged Order to buy (sell) with a working price that is pegged to the PBB (PBO), must include a minimum of one round lot of displayed, and with no offset allowed. This proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(h)(2) and sub-paragraphs (A) and (B) with one substantive difference. Because the Exchange would not conduct auctions in UTP Securities, the Exchange does not propose to include rule text that a Primary Pegged Order would be eligible to participate in auctions at the limit price of the order.
Proposed Rule 7.31(h)(4) and sub-paragraphs (A) and (B) would establish a Non-Displayed Primary Pegged Order, which would be a Pegged Order to buy (sell) with a working price that is pegged to the PBB (PBO), with no offset allowed, that is not displayed. This rule text is based on NYSE American Rule 7.31E(h)(2), which describes a Primary Pegged Order that is not displayed. Similar to the rules of NYSE American, the proposed Non-Displayed Primary Pegged Order would be rejected on arrival, or cancelled when resting, if there is no PBBO against which to peg. In addition, Non-Displayed Primary Pegged Orders would be ranked Priority 3—Non-Display Orders and if the PBBO is locked or crossed, both an arriving and resting Non-Displayd [sic] Primary Pegged Order would wait for a PBBO that is not locked or crossed before the working price is adjusted and the order becomes eligible to trade.
Because the Exchange would not offer Market Pegged Order or Discretionary Pegged Orders, the Exchange proposes that paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(3) of proposed Rule 7.31 would be designated as “Reserved.”
• Proposed Rule 7.31(i)(2) would establish Self Trade Prevention Modifiers (“STP”) on the Exchange. As proposed, any incoming order to buy (sell) designated with an STP modifier would be prevented from trading with a resting order to sell (buy) also designated with an STP modifier and from the same Client ID, as designated by the member organization, and the STP modifier on the incoming order would control the interaction between two orders marked with STP modifiers. Proposed Rule 7.31(i)(2)(A) would establish STP Cancel Newest (“STPN”) and proposed Rule 7.31(i)(2)(B) would establish STP Cancel Oldest (“STPO”). Proposed Rule 7.31(i)(2) and subparagraphs (A) and (B) are based in part on NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(i)(2) and its sub-paragraphs (A) and (B) and NYSE American Rule 7.31E(i)(2) and its sub-paragraphs (A) and (B), with substantive differences to specify how STP modifiers would function consistent with the Exchange's proposed allocation model.
Specifically, because, as described above, resting orders are allocated either on parity or time based on the priority category of an order, the Exchange proposes to specify in proposed Rule 7.31(i)(2) that the Exchange would evaluate the interaction between two orders marked with STP modifiers from the same Client ID consistent with the allocation logic applicable to the priority category of the resting order. The proposed rule would further provide that if resting orders in a priority category do not have an STP modifier from the same Client ID, the incoming order designated with an STP modifier would trade with resting orders in that priority category before being evaluated for STP with resting orders in the next priority category.
For STPN, proposed Rule 7.31(i)(2)(A)(i) would provide that if a resting order with an STP modifier from the same Client ID is in a priority category that allocates orders on price-
Proposed Rule 7.31(i)(2)(A)(ii) would be new and would address how STPN would function for resting orders in a priority category that allocates orders on parity. As proposed, if a resting order with an STP modifier from the same Client ID is in a priority category that allocates orders on parity and would have been considered for an allocation, none of the resting orders eligible for a parity allocation in that priority category would receive an allocation and the incoming order marked with the STPN modifier would be cancelled back.
For STPO, proposed Rule 7.31(i)(2)(B)(i) would provide that if a resting order with an STP modifier from the same Client ID is in a priority category that allocates orders on price-time priority, the resting order marked with the STP modifier would be cancelled back to the originating member organization and the incoming order marked with the STPO modifier would remain on the Exchange Book. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(i)(2)(B) and NYSE American Rule 7.31E(i)(2)(B), with non-substantive differences to specify that this order processing would be applicable for orders that are allocated in price-time priority.
Proposed Rule 7.31(i)(2)(B)(ii) would be new and would address how STPO would function for resting orders in a priority category that allocates orders on parity. As proposed, if a resting order with an STP modifier from the same Client ID is in a priority category that allocates orders on parity, all resting orders with the STP modifier with the same Client ID in that priority category that would have been considered for an allocation would not be eligible for a parity allocation and would be cancelled. The rule would further provide that an incoming order marked with the STPO modifier would be eligible to trade on parity with orders in that priority category that do not have a matching STP modifier and that resting orders in that priority category with an STP modifier from the same Client ID that would not have been eligible for a parity allocation would remain on the Exchange Book. The Exchange believes that this proposed processing of STPO would allow for the incoming order to continue to trade with resting orders that do not have an STP modifier from the same client ID, while at the same time processing the instruction that resting orders with an STP from the same Client ID would be cancelled if there were a potential for an execution between the two orders.
• Proposed Rule 7.31(i)(3) would describe the Minimum Trade Size (“MTS”) Modifier, which is based in part on NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(i)(3).
The Exchange proposes an additional substantive difference to address how a resting order with an MTS that becomes an Aggressing Order would trade under the parity allocation model. As described in proposed Rule 7.31(i)(3)(B), on arrival, an order to buy (sell) with an MTS Modifier would trade with sell (buy) orders in the Exchange Book that in the aggregate meet such order's MTS. In other words, the MTS of an Aggressing Order on arrival can be met by one or more resting orders. Because more than one resting order can trade with an arriving order with an MTS, such allocation can be made consistent with the Exchange's parity allocation model without any changes.
By contrast, proposed Rule 7.31(i)(3)(E) would provide that a resting order to buy (sell) with an MTS Modifier that becomes an Aggressing Order would trade with individual sell (buy) orders that each meet the MTS. Because a resting order that becomes an Aggressing Order, which could only be an MPL Order, would need to be able to trade with individual contra-side orders that each meet the MTS, the Exchange proposes to address how such requirement would operate with the Exchange's proposed allocation model. Specifically, proposed Rule 7.31(i)(3)(F)(i) would provide that when such Aggressing Order is trading with sell (buy) orders in a priority category that allocates orders on price-time priority, if a sell (buy) order does not meet the MTS, the MPL Order with the MTS Modifier would not trade and would be ranked on the Exchange Book.
Accordingly, for orders that trade in a price-time priority category, the MPL Order with an MTS Modifier would stop trading if a contra-side order does not meet the MTS. This proposal is consistent with how a resting order that becomes an Aggressing Order would trade on NYSE Arca, which has a price-time priority allocation model.
Proposed Rule 7.31(i)(3)(F)(ii) would set forth how a resting MPL Order to buy (sell) with an MTS that becomes an Aggressing Order would trade with sell (buy) orders in a priority category that allocates orders on parity. Because in a parity allocation model, more than one resting order may participate in an allocation, the Exchange proposes that a resting order to buy (sell) with an MTS that becomes an Aggressing Order would not trade with any contra-side orders if at least one sell (buy) order that would have been considered for allocation does not meet the MTS. As proposed, in such case, the resting order with the MTS Modifier would be ranked on the Exchange Book.
• Proposed Commentary .01 and .02 to Rule 7.31 is based on Commentary .01 and .02 to NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E without any substantive differences.
Because proposed Rule 7.31 would govern orders and modifiers, including orders entered by Floor brokers, the Exchange proposes that Rules 13 (Orders and Modifiers) and 70 (Execution of Floor broker interest) would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform. In addition, references to Trading Collars in Rule 1000(c) would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar Trading platform.
Proposed Rule 7.10 (Clearly Erroneous Executions) would set forth the Exchange's rules governing clearly erroneous executions. The proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.10-E and NYSE American Rule 7.10E with substantive differences not to refer to a Late Trading Session or Cross Orders. The Exchange proposes rule text based on NYSE Arca rather than current Rule 128 (Clearly Erroneous Executions) because the NYSE Arca and NYSE American version of the rule uses the same terminology that the Exchange is proposing for the Pillar trading platform,
Proposed Rule 7.11 (Limit Up-Limit Down Plan and Trading Pauses in Individual Securities Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility) would establish how the Exchange would comply with the Regulation NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (“LULD Plan”).
Finally, because proposed Rule 7.11 would govern trading in UTP Securities and the Exchange would not conduct auctions for such securities, the Exchange does not propose rule text from NYSE American Rule 7.11E(b) that describes how the Exchange would re-open trading in a security. The Exchange proposes that Rule 7.11(b)(1) would be based on rule text from NYSE American Rule 7.11E(b)(1).
Because the proposed rule covers the same subject matter as Rule 80C, the Exchange proposes that Rule 80C would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.
Proposed Rule 7.16 (Short Sales) would establish requirements relating to short sales. The proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.16-E and NYSE American Rule 7.16E with two substantive differences. First, because the proposed rule would not be applicable to any securities that are listed on the Exchange, the Exchange would not be evaluating whether the short sale price test restrictions of Rule 201 of Regulation SHO have been triggered. Accordingly, the Exchange does not propose rule text based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.16-E(f)(3) or NYSE American Rule 7.16E(f)(3) and would designate that sub-paragraph as “Reserved.” For similar reasons, the Exchange proposes not to include rule text based on NYSE Arca Rules 7.16-E(f)(4)(A) and (B) or NYSE American Rule 7.16E(f)(4)(A) and (B).
Second, because the Exchange would not be offering Tracking Orders, Cross Orders, or the Proactive if Locked/Crossed Modifier, the Exchange does not propose rule text based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.16-E(f)(5)(D), (G), or (I) or NYSE American Rule 7.16E(f)(5)(D), (G), or (I). The Exchange proposes to designate proposed Rules 7.16(f)(5)(D) and (G) as “Reserved.”
Because the proposed rule covers the same subject matter as Rule 440B (Short Sales), the Exchange proposes that Rule 440B would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.18 (Halts) to establish how the Exchange would process orders during a halt in a UTP Security and when it would halt trading in a UTP Exchange Traded Product.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.18(d)(1)(A) to specify that if a UTP Exchange Traded Product begins trading on the Exchange in the Early Trading Session and subsequently a temporary interruption occurs in the calculation or wide dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value (“IIV”) or the value of the underlying index, as applicable, to such UTP Exchange Traded Product, by a major market data vendor, the Exchange may continue to trade the UTP Exchange Traded Product for the remainder of the Early Trading Session. This proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.18-E(d)(1)(A) and NYSE American Rule 7.18E(d)(1)(A) without any substantive differences. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 7.18(d)(1)(B) to change the reference from “Exchange's Normal Trading Hours” to the term “Core Trading Session,” which would be defined in proposed Rule 7.34, described below.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 7.18(a) to change the cross reference from Rule 80C to Rule 7.11 as proposed Rule 7.11 would govern how the Exchange would comply with the LULD Plan for trading UTP Securities.
Proposed Rule 7.34 would establish trading sessions on the Exchange. The Exchange proposes that on the Pillar trading platform, it would have Early and Core Trading Sessions. Accordingly, proposed Rule 7.34 is based in part on NYSE Arca Rule 7.34-E and NYSE American Rule 7.34E, with the following substantive differences. First, similar to NYSE American, the Exchange proposes that the Early Trading Session would begin at 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time. Similar to NYSE Arca and NYSE American, the Exchange would begin accepting orders 30 minutes before the Early Trading Session begins, which means order entry acceptance would begin at 6:30 a.m. Eastern Time. These differences would be reflected in proposed Rule 7.34(a)(1).
Second, proposed Rule 7.34(b) would be new and is not based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.34-E(b) or NYSE American Rule 7.34E(b). Rather than require member organizations to include a designation for which trading session the order would be in effect, the Exchange proposes to specify in Rule 7.34(b) and (c) which trading sessions an order would be deemed designated. Proposed Rule 7.34(b)(1) would provide that unless otherwise specified in Rule 7.34(c), an order entered before or during the Early or Core Trading Session would be deemed designated for the Early Trading Session and the Core Trading Session. Proposed Rule 7.34(b)(2) would provide that an order without a time-in-force designation would be deemed designated with a day time-in-force modifier.
Proposed Rule 7.34(c) would specify which orders would be permitted in each session. Proposed Rule 7.34(c)(1) would provide that unless otherwise specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(A)-(C), orders and modifiers defined in Rule 7.31 would be eligible to participate in the Early Trading Session. This proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.34-E(c)(1) and NYSE American Rule 7.34E(c)(1) with a substantive difference not to refer to orders “designated” for the Early Trading Session. In addition, because the Exchange would not be offering a Retail Liquidity Program, the Exchange would not reference Rule 7.44.
• Proposed Rule 7.34(c)(1)(A) would provide that Pegged Orders would not be eligible to participate in the Early Trading Session. This rule text is based in part on NYSE Arca Rule 7.34-E(c)(1)(A) and NYSE American Rule 7.34E(c)(1)(A) in the Pegged Orders would not be eligible to participate in the Early Trading Session. The Exchange proposes a substantive difference from the NYSE Arca and NYSE American rules because proposed Rule 7.34(c)(1)(A) would not refer to Market Orders. Market Orders entered during the Early Trading Session would be addressed in proposed Rule 7.34(c)(1)(C), described below. The proposed rule would further provide that Non-Displayed Primary Pegged Orders entered before the Core Trading Session would be rejected and Primary Pegged Orders entered before the Core Trading Session would be accepted but would not be eligible to trade until the Core Trading Session begins. This rule text is based in part on both NYSE Arca Rule 7.34-E(c)(1)(A) and NYSE American Rule 7.34E(c)(1)(A), but uses terminology consistent with the Exchange's proposed order types.
• Proposed Rule 7.34(c)(1)(B) would provide that Limit Orders designated IOC would be rejected if entered before the Early Trading Session begins. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.34-E(c)(1)(B) and NYSE American Rule 7.34E(c)(1)(B) with two substantive differences. First, because the Exchange would not be conducting auctions, the Exchange proposes to specify that the rejection period would begin “before the Early Trading Session begins” rather than state “before the Early Open Auction concludes.” Second, the Exchange would not refer to Cross Orders, which would not be offered on the Exchange.
• Proposed Rule 7.34(c)(1)(C) would provide that Market Orders and Auction-Only Orders in UTP Securities entered before the Core Trading Session begins would be routed to the primary listing market on arrival and any order routed directly to the primary listing market on arrival would be cancelled if that market is not accepting orders. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.34-E(c)(1)(D) and NYSE American Rule 7.34E(c)(1)(D) with a non-substantive difference to specify that such orders would be routed until the Core Trading Session begins.
Proposed Rule 7.34(c)(2) would provide that unless otherwise specified in Rule 7.34(c)(2)(A)-(B), all orders and modifiers defined in Rule 7.31 would be eligible to participate in the Core Trading Session. This proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.34-E(c)(2) and NYSE American Rule 7.34E(c)(2) with a substantive difference not to refer to orders “designated” for the Core Trading Session. In addition, because the Exchange would not be offering a Retail Liquidity Program, the Exchange would not reference Rule 7.44.
• Proposed Rule 7.34(c)(2)(A) would provide that Market Orders in UTP Securities would be routed to the primary listing market until the first opening print of any size on the primary listing market or 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time, whichever is earlier. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.34-E(c)(2)(A) and NYSE American Rule 7.34E(c)(2)(A) with a non-substantive difference to use the term “UTP Securities” instead of referencing orders that “are not eligible for the Core Open Auction.”
• Proposed Rule 7.34(c)(2)(B) would provide that Auction-Only Orders in UTP Securities would be accepted and routed directly to the primary listing market. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.34-E(c)(2)(B) and NYSE American Rule 7.34E(c)(2)(B) with a non-substantive difference to use the term “UTP Securities” instead of referencing orders that “are not eligible for an auction on the Exchange.”
Proposed Rule 7.34(d) would establish requirements for member organizations to provide customer disclosure when accepting orders for execution in the Early Trading Session. The proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.34-E(d) and NYSE American Rule 7.34E(d) without any substantive differences.
Proposed Rule 7.34(e) would provide that trades on the Exchange executed and reported outside of the Core Trading Session would be designated as .T trades. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.34-E(e) and NYSE American Rule 7.34E(e) without any substantive differences.
Proposed Rule 7.38 (Odd and Mixed Lot) would establish requirements relating to odd lot and mixed lot trading on the Exchange. The proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.38-E and NYSE American Rule 7.38E with one substantive difference. Because orders ranked Priority 2—Display Orders, including odd-lot sized orders, are on an allocation wheel at their display price, the Exchange proposes that if the display price of an odd-lot order to buy (sell) is above (below) its working price (
For example, if at 10.02, the Exchange has an order “A” to buy 50 shares ranked Priority 2—Display Orders, and at 10.01, the Exchange has an order “B” to buy 10 shares ranked Priority 2 -Display Orders, an order “C” to buy 10 shares ranked Priority 2—Display Orders, and an order “D” to buy 10 shares ranked Priority 2 -Display Orders, and the parity pointer is on order “C,” if the Away Market PBO becomes 10.00, which crosses the display price of “A,” “B,” “C,” and “D,” those orders would trade at 10.00. If the Exchange were to receive a Market Order to sell 70 shares, it would trade at 10.00 and be allocated 50 shares to “A,” 10 shares to “C,” and 10 shares to “D.” “B” would not receive an allocation based on its position on the allocation wheel.
The Exchange proposes that Rule 61 (Recognized Quotations) would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.
Section 5 of Rule 7P would establish requirements relating to the Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program. Proposed Rule 7.46 (Tick Size Pilot Plan) would specify such requirements. The proposed rule is based on NYSE American Rule 7.46E with the following substantive differences for proposed Rule 7.46(f). First, because the Exchange would not offer Market Pegged Orders, the Exchange proposes that paragraph (f)(3) of the Rule would be designated as “Reserved.” Second, the Exchange proposes to set forth the priority of resting orders both for ranking and for allocation. For Pilot Securities in Test Group Three, proposed Rule 7.46(f)(5)(A) would govern ranking instead of proposed Rule 7.36(e), described above, as follows:
• Priority 2—Display Orders. Non-marketable Limit Orders with a displayed working price would have first priority.
• Protected Quotations of Away Markets. Protected quotations of Away Markets would have second priority.
• Priority 1—Market Orders. Unexecuted Market Orders would have third priority.
• Priority 3—Non-Display Orders. Non-marketable Limit Orders for which the working price is not displayed, including reserve interest of Reserve Orders, would have fourth priority.
For Pilot Securities in Test Group Three, proposed Rule 7.46(f)(5)(B) would set forth how an Aggressing Order would be allocated against contra-side orders, instead of proposed Rule 7.37(b)(1), described above, as follows:
• First, an order with Setter Priority that has a display price and working price equal to the BBO would receive 15% of the remaining quantity of the Aggressing Order, rounded up to the next round lot size or the remaining displayed quantity of the order with Setter Priority, whichever is lower. An order with Setter Priority would be eligible for Setter Priority allocation if the BBO is no longer the same as the NBBO.
• Next, orders ranked Priority 2—Displayed Orders would be allocated on parity by Participant. The remaining quantity of the order with Setting Priority would be eligible to participate in this parity allocation, consistent with the allocation wheel position of the Participant that entered the order with Setter Priority.
• Next, subject to proposed Rule 7.46(f)(5)(F) (describing orders with instructions not to route), the Exchange would route the Aggressing Order to protected quotations of Away Markets.
• Next, orders ranked Priority 1—Market Orders would trade based on time.
• Next, orders ranked Priority 3—Non-Display Orders, other than MPL Orders with an MTS, would be allocated on parity by Participant.
• Next, MPL Orders with an MTS would be allocated based on MTS size (smallest to largest) and time.
Third, the Exchange would not include rule text based on NYSE American Rule 7.46E(f)(G), relating to Limit IOC Cross Orders, which would not be offered on the Exchange. Finally, proposed Rules 7.46(f)(5)(F)(i)(a) and (b) are based on NYSE Arca Rules 7.46-E(f)(5)(F)(i)(a) and (b) and not the NYSE American version of the rule because NYSE American does not offer Day ISO orders.
The Exchange proposes that Rule 67 (Tick Size Pilot Plan) would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.
As described above, the Exchange would not assign UTP Securities to DMMs. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 103B(I) (Security Allocation and Reallocation) to specify that UTP Securities would not be allocated to a DMM unit.
In addition, because UTP Securities would be eligible to be assigned to Supplemental Liquidity Providers, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 107B (Supplemental Liquidity Providers) to replace the term “NYSE-listed securities” with the term “NYSE-traded securities,” which would include UTP Securities.
As described in more detail above, in connection with the proposed rules to support trading of UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform, the Exchange has identified current Exchange rules that would not be applicable because they would be superseded by a proposed rule. The Exchange has identified additional current rules that would not be applicable to trading on Pillar. These rules do not have a counterpart in the proposed Pillar rules, described above, but would be obsolete when trading UTP Securities on Pillar.
The main category of rules that would not be applicable to trading on the Pillar trading platform are those rules that are specific to auctions and Floor-based point-of-sale trading other than crossing transactions pursuant to Rule 76. For this reason, the Exchange proposes that the following Floor-specific rules would
• Rule 15 (Pre-Opening Indication and Opening Order Imbalance Information).
• Rule 77 (Prohibited Dealings and Activities).
• Rule 79A (Miscellaneous Requirements on Stock Market Procedures).
• Rule 108 (Limitation on Members' Bids and Offers).
• Rule 111 (Reports of Executions).
• Rule 115A (Orders at Opening).
• Rule 116 (`Stop' Constitutes Guarantee).
• Rule 123A (Miscellaneous Requirements).
• Rule 123B (Exchange Automated Order Routing System).
• Rule 123C (The Closing Procedures).
• Rule 123D (Openings and Halts in Trading)
• Rule 127 (Block Crosses Outside the Prevailing NYSE Quotation).
In addition, as noted above, the Exchange would not offer a Retail Liquidity Program when it trades on the Pillar trading platform. Proposed rules that are based on NYSE Arca rules that include a cross reference to NYSE Arca Rule 7.44-E would not include that rule reference. The Exchange also proposes that Rule 107C would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.
As discussed above, because of the technology changes associated with the migration to the Pillar trading platform, the Exchange will announce by Trader Update when the Pillar rules for trading UTP Securities will become operative.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Generally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rules would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because they would support the Exchange's introduction of trading UTP Securities in a manner that would use Pillar terminology to describe how the Exchange's current Floor-based parity allocation model with Setter Priority would operate, with specified substantive differences from current rules, and introduce Pillar rules for the Exchange that are based on the rules of its affiliated markets, NYSE Arca and NYSE American.
With respect to how UTP Securities would be ranked, displayed, executed, and routed on Pillar, the Exchange believes that proposed Rules 7.36(a)-(g) and proposed Rules 7.37(a) and (c)-(g) would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because these rules would use Pillar terminology that is based on the approved rules of NYSE Arca and NYSE American. The Exchange believes that proposed Rule 7.36(h), which would establish Setter Priority, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed rule is based on current Rule 72(a), with substantive differences designed to encourage the display of aggressively-priced orders by requiring that an order not only establish the BBO, but also establish or join the NBBO to be eligible for Setter Priority.
The Exchange similarly believes that proposed Rule 7.37(b), which would use Pillar terminology to describe how an Aggressing Order would be allocated, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it is based on current Rule 72(b) and (c). The Exchange believes that the proposed substantive difference to maintain separate allocation wheels for displayed and non-displayed orders at each price would promote just and equitable principles of trade because it would allow for Exchange member organizations to establish their position on an allocation wheel at each price point, rather than rely on their position on a single allocation wheel that would be applicable to trades at multiple price points.
The Exchange believes that extending its parity allocation model to UTP Securities, including extending parity allocation for orders entered by Floor brokers, is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. First, although the Exchange would not have DMMs assigned to UTP Securities, the Exchange proposes to maintain Floor trading for UTP Securities. Similar to trading in Exchange-listed securities, Floor brokers, would be able to effect crossing transactions in UTP Securities on the Floor, but with Exchange employees rather than DMMs staffing where such trading would occur.
Second, to be eligible to be included in the Floor Broker Participant, and thus be eligible for a parity allocation, the Floor broker that entered the order must be engaged in a Floor broker business in Exchange-listed securities. The Exchange believes that this requirement provides a nexus between Exchange Floor trading in Exchange-listed securities and the extension of that model to trading in UTP Securities.
Third, because member organizations operating as Floor brokers would be trading on the floor of an exchange, they would be subject to restrictions on trading for their own account set forth in Section 11(a)(1) of the Act and rules thereunder. Moreover, the Exchange proposes to specify in proposed Rule 7.36 that for an order to be eligible to be included in the Floor Broker Participant, it cannot be for the account of the Floor broker or any associated persons (unless entered via an error account pursuant to Rule 134).
Because Floor brokers trading in UTP Securities would not be permitted to trade for their own accounts, they would not be permitted to engage in the type of customer-based principal trading activities of a member organization that enters orders from off the Floor of the Exchange. Therefore, an allocation to an individual Floor broker under the Exchange's proposed allocation model would
This choice remains relevant in today's more electronic market. As broker-dealers and institutional investors have reduced the number of
Fourth, any member organization can choose to have a Floor broker operation and thus have direct access to Floor broker parity allocations on behalf of its customers. The Exchange does not charge member organizations for the use of booth space on the Floor, and therefore there would be minimal to no extra cost for a member organization to have a Floor business. Indeed, a smaller firm that moves its entire operation to the NYSE Floor could have reduced costs as compared to a firm that needs to pay for office space. Because there is fair access to any member organization to engage in a Floor broker operation, the differences between how an order is allocated to a Floor Broker Participant and Book Participant would not unfairly discriminate among Exchange member organizations.
Finally, customers relying on agency broker-dealers to represent their orders on the Exchange can choose whether to use a Floor broker or a member organization that only uses off-exchange order entry methods.
The Exchange also believes that its proposal to make its existing parity allocation model, as modified for the Pillar trading platform, available for UTP Securities would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because it would extend the Exchange's choice-based allocation model to all securities that would trade on the Exchange in a manner that is consistent with its Trading Floor model. For market participants other than DMMs, the Exchange does not believe that there is an inherent benefit of one method of allocation on the Exchange over another. Market participants that are latency sensitive—whether for proprietary or agency-based trading—may choose to use the off-exchange order entry method because of the relative speed of that order entry path as compared to Floor broker order entry and availability of Setter Priority allocation. By contrast, market participants that are not as latency sensitive or are seeking an unconflicted agent to manage their order flow and potentially negotiate a large crossing transaction may choose to use a Floor broker.
The Exchange believes that intra-day trading volume entered by Floor brokers in NYSE-listed securities, which are subject to the Exchange's existing parity allocation model, demonstrates how customers have already exercised this choice. In October 2017, orders from Floor brokers represented approximately 5.5% of the intra-day liquidity-providing volume on the Exchange in NYSE-listed securities (the parity allocation model is only applicable to provide volume).
That volume of Floor broker intra-day trading also demonstrates that customers have similarly exercised their choice not to use Floor brokers. If there were an inherent benefit to the Floor broker parity allocation that distinguishes it as superior to the Book Participant allocation, it would likely follow that there would be greater proportion of intra-day order flow directed to Floor brokers in NYSE-listed securities. But that is not the case. In sum, the current NYSE-listed intra-day Floor broker provide volume demonstrates that using a Floor broker has value to certain customers, but also demonstrates that the parity allocation to a Floor broker is not the only component of a customer's decision about how to send its orders to the Exchange. With this filing, the Exchange proposes to extend that choice to UTP Securities, thereby benefiting the ultimate customer of the Floor broker.
The Exchange further believes that its proposed parity allocation model for UTP Securities would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it is a competitive offering vis-à-vis other exchange competitors, which offer variations on a price-time priority models, and over-the-counter trading. The Exchange is currently the only registered exchange that does not trade non-Exchange listed securities on a UTP basis. Additionally, the Exchange currently is the only registered exchange that makes available Floor-based trading for cash equity securities. The Exchange proposes to extend the availability of this feature by maintaining Floor-based crossing transactions when it launches trading in UTP Securities. The Exchange believes that trading UTP Securities is a natural extension of its current offering of trading Exchange-listed securities, which also trade on a parity allocation model. The Exchange believes it would promote competition to offer this allocation model for all securities that would trade on the Exchange, thereby providing an alternative allocation model for UTP Securities. Conversely, Floor brokers on the Exchange would be able to expand the services they provide to customers by being able to manage order flow in UTP Securities in addition to Exchange-listed securities. The Exchange also believes that this proposed allocation model would promote intra-market competition by offering a menu of choices to market participants of how their orders in UTP Securities would be allocated on the Exchange.
While the parity allocation model is a competitive offering, its origins are derived from the Floor-based trading model of the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that it would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system to provide for Floor-based crossing transactions and to extend existing requirements relating to Floor brokers for orders in UTP Securities that seek to be eligible to be included in the Floor Broker Participant. First, as noted above, the Floor broker must trade on an agency-only basis and would continue to be subject to rules that are unique to a Floor broker, including requirements specified in Rules 95, 122, 123, and 134(d)-(j). Second, consistent with current Rule 70 requirements, for orders in UTP Securities to be eligible to be included in the Floor Broker Participant, such orders must be entered by a Floor broker while on the Trading Floor.
In addition, because the parity allocation model is based on the history of the Exchange as a Floor-based model, the Exchange believes that for orders in UTP Securities to be eligible to be included in the Floor Broker Participant, the Floor broker representing such orders must also be engaged in a Floor broker business in Exchange-listed securities. Trading in UTP Securities on the Trading Floor is designed to complement a Floor broker's existing role in representing orders in Exchange-listed securities because it would enable such Floor brokers to trade additional securities on behalf of their customers. For example, a Floor broker would be better positioned to process baskets of securities that include Tape A, B, and C securities and enter all such orders on the Exchange. By offering the parity allocation model for UTP Securities, a Floor broker would not need to segregate its orders in UTP Securities into different trading strategies than what would be offered for Exchange-listed securities. Because Floor broker trading in UTP Securities is designed to function in tandem with trading in Exchange-listed securities, the Exchange believes that it would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system to require such nexus because it would ensure that member organizations would not seek to conduct a stand-alone Floor broker business in only UTP Securities.
The Exchange believes that proposed Rules 7.10, 7.11, 7.16, 7.18, 7.31, 7.34, 7.38, and 7.46 would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because they are based on the rules of NYSE Arca and NYSE American. The proposed substantive differences to the Exchange's rules would be because the Exchange would not be offering the full suite of orders and modifiers available on NYSE Arca and NYSE American. In addition, the Exchange proposes substantive differences to these rules consistent with the Exchange's proposed parity allocation model. The Exchange believes that the proposed substantive differences for these rules would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because they would provide transparency of which orders, modifiers and instructions would be available on the Exchange when it begins trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform, and how the Pillar rules would function with a parity allocation model.
The Exchange believes that the proposed substantive differences to Rule 7.34 to offer Early and Core Trading Sessions, but not a Late Trading Session, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it is consistent with the Exchange's current hours, described in Rule 51, that the Exchange is not open for business after 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The Exchange further believes that adding a trading session before 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time would provide additional time for Exchange member organizations to trade UTP Securities on the Exchange consistent with the trading hours of other exchanges, including NYSE American, which also will begin trading at 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rules 103B and 107B would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because they would provide transparency that the Exchange would not be assigning UTP Securities to DMMs and that member organizations would be eligible to register as a Supplemental Liquidity Providers in UTP Securities. The Exchange further believes that not assigning DMMs to UTP Securities is consistent with just and equitable principles of trade because the Exchange would not be conducting auctions in UTP Securities and therefore the Exchange would not need DMMs assigned to such securities to facilitate auctions. Not having DMMs registered in UTP Securities is also consistent with how NYSE Arca and NYSE American function on Pillar, in that neither lead market makers (on NYSE Arca) nor electronic designated market makers (on NYSE American) are assigned securities not listed on those exchanges. The Exchange further believes that it would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system for member organizations to be eligible to register as Supplemental Liquidity Providers in UTP Securities as this would provide an incentive for displayed liquidity in UTP Securities.
The Exchange further believes that it would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system to specify which current rules would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform. The Exchange believes that the following legend, which would be added to existing rules, “This Rule is not applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform,” would promote transparency regarding which rules would govern trading UTP Securities on the Exchange on Pillar. The Exchange has proposed to add this legend to rules that would be superseded by proposed rules or rules that would not be applicable because they relate to auctions or Floor-based point-of-sale trading.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is designed to propose rules to support trading of UTP Securities on the Exchange's new Pillar trading platform. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment in which its unaffiliated exchange competitors operate multiple affiliated exchanges that operate under common rules. By adding trading of UTP Securities on the Exchange, the Exchange believes that it will be able to compete on a more level playing field with its exchange competitors that similarly trade all NMS Stocks. In addition, by basing certain rules on those of NYSE Arca and NYSE American, the Exchange will provide its members with consistency across affiliated exchanges, thereby enabling the Exchange to compete with unaffiliated exchange competitors that similarly operate multiple exchanges on the same trading platforms.
More specifically, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal to extend
The Exchange further believes that the proposal would promote intra-market competition because it would provide a choice to customers of how their orders in UTP Securities would be allocated on the Exchange. For certain customers, entering orders via the Book Participant may serve their trading strategies. For other customers, using a Floor broker for intra-day trading may serve their trading strategies. Importantly, the results of a Floor broker allocation would always accrue to the customer, and whether to use a Floor broker is the customer's choice. Accordingly, this proposed market structure is not about providing a “benefit” to a Floor broker, but rather providing customers with a choice of how an order would be allocated.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Commission received one comment letter, which opposes NYSE's proposal to provide floor brokers with parity allocation and the exclusive use of certain order types (
The commenter states that floor brokers do not have the restrictions of time priority when they receive parity and can “skip the line.”
According to the commenter, many entities cannot, as a practical matter, take advantage of the floor brokers' parity allocations, and that those that can use the services of floor brokers may route more orders through them to get the advantage of parity.
The commenter also states that providing floor brokers with the exclusive use of pegged orders provides them an unjustified competitive advantage over customers and broker-dealers when trading securities electronically.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Exchange proposes to trade, for the first time, securities that it does not list, and it proposes to do so using a new technology platform—the Pillar platform that has been deployed to date on the Exchange's affiliated exchanges NYSE Arca and NYSE American. The proposed rules for UTP trading would govern clearly erroneous executions, limit-up-limit-down plan compliance, short sales, trading halts, orders and
Trading of UTP Securities on the Exchange would differ in two significant respects from trading in NYSE-listed securities.
The Commission also notes that, while the proposed trading rules are similar in most respects to previously approved rules of NYSE Arca and NYSE American—which also use the Pillar trading platform
When instituting proceedings to determine whether the Exchange's proposal was consistent with Section 6(b)(5) and Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Commission notes that, in Amendment No. 1 to its proposal, the Exchange has responded to the questions raised by the Commission, and the concerns expressed by the commenter, by modifying its proposal to require that floor brokers be engaged in a floor-broker business in NYSE-listed securities in order to be eligible for parity allocation in UTP Securities; to expressly require that orders in UTP Securities be entered from the Exchange floor in order to be eligible for parity
The Exchange argues that the parity allocation model for UTP Securities is based on the historically floor-based model of the Exchange and that trading in UTP Securities is designed to complement the floor broker's existing role in NYSE-listed securities, which includes both parity allocation and the use of pegging orders. The Exchange argues that the proposed parity allocation model in UTP Securities would benefit competition by providing market participants with a choice as to how their orders are executed, asserting that market participants who do not wish to invest in speed-related technology, who have a thinly staff trading desk, or who would like to execute a large crossing transaction could utilize the services of a floor broker. According to the Exchange, trading UTP Securities using a parity model would also benefit competition by providing an alternative trading model for trading those securities. The Exchange asserts that floor brokers serve an important role as an agency broker without conflicts, especially for illiquid securities. The Exchange also notes that any member organization can choose to become a floor broker and that the Exchange does not charge member organizations for the use of space on the trading floor.
The Commission believes that the changes to the proposal in Amendment No. 1 have sufficiently addressed the Commission's and the commenter's concerns regarding the proposal's consistency with the Act. The proposal, as amended, represents a measured extension of the Exchange's existing market model (including the potential for floor-based trading added by Amendment No. 1) to trading in UTP Securities, while ensuring that the ability of floor brokers to obtain parity allocation is limited to those floor brokers who are engaged in a bona fide agency business while physically on the trading floor of the Exchange, with the benefit of parity allocations flowing to the customers of the floor brokers. Floor brokers, as agency-only market participants, would not be able to use either parity allocations or pegging orders to liquidate or acquire their own proprietary positions. Finally, with respect to concerns regarding competition, the Exchange has representated that, in October 2017, floor-broker orders receiving parity executions (all of which are liquidity-providing orders) represented only about 5.5% of the intraday liquidity-providing volume on the Exchange in NYSE-listed securities.
The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 12(f) of the Act. Section 12(a) of
The UTP Act of 1994
The proposal would establish Exchange rules providing for transactions on securities that are listed on other national securities exchanges. As a national securities exchange, the Exchange is permitted under Section 12(f) of the Act
The proposed rules provide for transactions in the class or type of security to which the Exchange intends to extend unlisted trading privileges. Together with the existing Exchange rules for trading on Pillar—NYSE Rules 1P to 13P—the Exchange would have rules providing for transactions in the class or type of security to which the exchange proposes to extend unlisted trading privileges, and, therefore, the proposal is consistent with Section 12(f) of the Act.
Because the proposal, as amended, is consistent with Sections 6(b)(5), 6(b)(8), and 12(f) of the Act, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of Amendment No. 1 in the
As discussed above, Amendment No.1 addresses the Commission's concerns and the comment letter received. The definitions of Aggressing Order, the MPL Order, and the MTS Modifier are similar to the rules of NYSE Arca, which have been approved by the Commission previously, with adaptions for the Exchange's parity allocation model. The remaining changes are non-substantive. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend paragraph (h) of Exchange Rule 11.6 describing the operation of orders with a Minimum Execution Quantity
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (h) of Exchange Rule 11.6 describing the operation of orders with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction by removing language that provided for the re-pricing of incoming orders with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction to avoid an internally crossed book. As a result of this change, the Exchange proposes to specify within the rule when an order with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction would not be eligible to trade to prevent executions from occurring that may be inconsistent with intra-market price priority or that would cause a Non-Displayed
In sum, a Minimum Execution Quantity is a non-displayed order that enables a User
The Exchange also recently amended the operation of the Minimum Execution Quantity instruction to re-price incoming orders with the Minimum Execution Quantity instruction where that order may cross an order posted on the EDGX Book.
As a result of the above change, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (h) of Rule 11.6 to describe when an order with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction will not be eligible to trade to prevent executions from occurring that may be inconsistent with intra-market price priority or would result in a Non-Displayed order trading ahead of a same-priced, same-side Displayed order.
Paragraph (h) of Rule 11.6 would state that an order to buy (sell) with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction that is ranked in the EDGX Book will not be eligible to trade: (i) At a price equal to or above (below) any sell (buy) orders that are Displayed and that have a ranked price equal to or below (above) the price of such order with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction; or (ii) at a price above (below) any sell (buy) order that is Non-Displayed and has a ranked price below (above) the price of such order with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction.
The following examples describe the proposed operation of an order with a Minimum Execution Quantity during an internally crossed market. This first example addresses intra-market priority amongst an order with a Minimum Execution Quantity and other Non-Displayed orders in an internally crossed market as well as when an execution may occur at prices less aggressive than the resting order's ranked price. Assume the NBBO is $10.10 by $10.16. A Non-Displayed order to sell 50 shares at $10.12 is resting on the EDGX Book (“Order A”). A Non-Displayed order to sell 25 shares at $10.11 is also resting on the EDGX Book (“Order B”). The Exchange receives a MidPoint Peg
This second example addresses intra-market priority amongst Displayed orders, Non-Displayed orders with a Minimum Execution Quantity and other Non-Displayed orders. The Exchange notes that the below behavior is not unique to an internally crossed market as the Exchange's priority rule, 11.9(a), currently prohibits Non-Displayed orders, including Non-Displayed orders with a Minimum Execution Quantity, from trading ahead of same-priced, same-side Displayed orders. Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.04. A Non-Displayed order to buy 500 shares at $10.00 is resting on the EDGX Book (“Order A”). A Displayed order to buy 100 shares at $10.00 is then entered and posted to the EDGX Book (“Order B”). The Exchange receives a Non-Displayed order to sell 600 shares at $10.00 with a minimum quantity condition to execute against a single order of 500 shares (“Order C”). Although Order A satisfies Order C's minimum quantity condition and has time priority ahead of Order B, no execution occurs because Order B is a Displayed order and has execution priority over Order A, a Non-Displayed order. Order C does not execute against Order B because Order B does not satisfy Order C's minimum quantity condition. Order C is then posted to the EDGX Book at $10.00, non-displayed.
The Exchange also proposes two clarifying changes to paragraph (h) of Exchange Rule 11.6. The rule currently states that an order with the Minimum Execution Quantity instruction cedes execution priority when it would lock an order against which it would otherwise execute if it were not for the minimum execution size restriction.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to clarify that an incoming order with a Minimum Execution Quantity would be canceled where, if posted, it would cross the displayed price of an order on the EDGX Book.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. On the contrary, the proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues because it is intended to provide clarity regarding the operation of orders with a Minimum Quantity instruction and when such orders are eligible to trade and not trade through Displayed orders or violate intra-market price priority.
No comments were solicited or received on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule 11.9 describing the operation of Minimum Quantity Orders.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule 11.9 describing the operation of Minimum Quantity Orders by removing language that provided for the re-pricing of incoming Minimum Quantity Orders to avoid an internally crossed book. As a result of this change, the Exchange proposes to specify within the rule when a Minimum Quantity Order would not be eligible to trade to prevent executions from occurring that may be inconsistent with intra-market price priority or that would cause a non-displayed order to trade ahead of a displayed order.
In sum, a Minimum Quantity Order is a non-displayed order that enables a User
The Exchange also recently amended the operation of Minimum Quantity Orders to re-price incoming Minimum Quantity Orders where that order may cross an order posted on the BZX Book.
As a result of the above change, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (c)(5) of Rule 11.9 to describe when a Minimum Quantity Order will not be eligible to trade to prevent executions from occurring that may be inconsistent with intra-market price priority or would result in a non-displayed order trading ahead of a same-priced, same-side displayed order.
Paragraph (c)(5) of Rule 11.9 would state that a Minimum Quantity Order to buy (sell) that is ranked in the BZX Book will not be eligible to trade: (i) At a price equal to or above (below) any sell (buy) orders that are displayed and that have a ranked price equal to or below (above) the price of such Minimum Quantity Order; or (ii) at a price above (below) any sell (buy) order that is non-displayed and has a ranked price below (above) the price of such Minimum Quantity Order.
The following examples describe the proposed operation of a Minimum Quantity Order during an internally crossed market. This first example addresses intra-market priority amongst a Minimum Quantity Order and other non-displayed orders in an internally crossed market as well as when an execution may occur at prices less aggressive than the resting order's ranked price. Assume the NBBO is $10.10 by $10.16. A non-displayed order to sell 50 shares at $10.12 is resting on the BZX Book (“Order A”). A non-displayed order to sell 25 shares at $10.11 is also resting on the BZX Book (“Order B”). The Exchange receives a Mid-Point Peg
This second example addresses intra-market priority amongst displayed orders, Minimum Quantity Orders and other non-displayed orders. The Exchange notes that the below behavior is not unique to an internally crossed market as the Exchange's priority rule, 11.12(a), currently prohibits non-displayed orders, including Minimum Quantity Orders, from trading ahead of same-priced, same-side displayed orders. Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.04. A non-displayed order to buy 500 shares at $10.00 is resting on the BZX Book (“Order A”). A displayed order to buy 100 shares at $10.00 is then entered and posted to the BZX Book (“Order B”). The Exchange receives a non-displayed order to sell 600 shares at $10.00 with a minimum quantity condition to execute against a single order of 500 shares (“Order C”). Although Order A satisfies Order C's minimum quantity condition and has time priority ahead of Order B, no execution occurs because Order B is a displayed order and has execution priority over Order A, a non-displayed order. Order C does not execute against Order B because Order B does not satisfy Order C's minimum quantity condition. Order C is then posted to the BZX Book at $10.00, non-displayed.
The Exchange also proposes two clarifying changes to paragraph (c)(5) of Exchange Rule 11.9. The rule currently states that a Minimum Quantity Order cedes execution priority when it would lock an order against which it would otherwise execute if it were not for the minimum execution size restriction.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to clarify that an incoming Minimum Quantity Order would be canceled where, if posted, it would cross the displayed price of an order on the BZX Book.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. On the contrary, the proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues because it is intended to provide clarity regarding the operation of Minimum Quantity Orders and when such orders are eligible to trade and not trade through displayed orders or violate intra-market price priority.
No comments were solicited or received on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is publishing this notice to comply with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which requires agencies to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before April 30, 2018.
Comments should refer to the information collection by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to:
Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7030
The Small Business Act states that a women-owned small (WOSB) or an economically disadvantaged women-owned small business (EDWOSB) must (1) be a Federal agency, a State government, or a national certifying entity as a WOSB. or, (2) certify to the contracting office that it is a WOSB and provide adequate documentation to support such certification. These documents will be used by the SBA, contracting offices and third party certifies to determine program eligibility and compliance.
(1)
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Solicit nominations of owners, operators, and officers of small business concerns to serve on 10 Regional Regulatory Fairness Boards nationwide.
The SBA Office of the National Ombudsman (ONO) is issuing this notice to solicit nominations of qualified owners, operators, and officers of small business concerns to be considered for appointment by the SBA Administrator as a member of a Small Business Regional Regulatory Fairness Board (“RegFair Board”).
The RegFair Board members on the ten regional boards serve as advisors to the National Ombudsman on regulatory enforcement and compliance issues of concern to small business owners within their respective regions and surface those issues to the attention of the National Ombudsman. Nominations of qualified candidates are being sought to fill vacancies on the RegFair Boards. RegFair Board members are appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the SBA Administrator for terms of no longer than three years. The Administrator may reappoint an individual for additional terms of service.
Board members serve without compensation. They will, however, be reimbursed for authorized travel-related expenses at per diem rates established by GSA when asked to perform official duties as a Board member.
Nominations for membership on the RegFair Board will be accepted on a rolling basis.
All nominations should be mailed to the Office of the National Ombudsman, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20416, or emailed to
Ms. Trina Mintern, Office of the National Ombudsman, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20416, Telephone: (202) 205-6918; Email:
As established by the United States Congress, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 created ONO within the SBA and 10 Regional Regulatory Fairness Boards nationwide. Pursuant to the statute, ONO works with Federal agencies that have regulatory authority over small businesses subjected to an audit, on-site inspection, fine or penalty, compliance
Pursuant to SBREFA, the ONO is authorized to establish, maintain, and coordinate activities of 10 Regional Regulatory Fairness Boards. The ONO has RegFair Boards in each of SBA's 10 regions. Each Board is comprised of 5 small business owners, operators, or officers. No more than three RegFair Board Members per board may be of the same political affiliation. All Board members are appointed by the SBA Administrator for three-year terms.
The purpose of the RegFair Boards is to have leaders of small businesses advise and represent the National Ombudsman on regulatory issues for small businesses in their respective regions. Each year, the RegFair Boards convene for an annual meeting to discuss the state of affairs in Federal regulatory enforcement. The meeting also provides the ONO with the opportunity to assess trends and new regulatory issues that impact small businesses in each region.
Additionally, the RegFair Boards work with the SBA District Offices and SBA Regional staff to communicate opportunities small businesses have to share their concerns regarding regulatory enforcement. This includes promoting and providing small businesses with information regarding RegFair Hearings and Roundtables within their respective regions.
This notice was prepared in accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), (Public Law 104-121), Sec. 222.
The Fine Arts Committee of the Department of State will meet on April 20, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. in the Henry Clay Room of the Harry S. Truman Building, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC. The meeting will last until approximately 4:00 p.m. and is open to the public.
The agenda for the committee meeting will include a summary of the work of the Fine Arts Office since its last meeting on April 20, 2018 and the announcement of gifts and loans of furnishings as well as financial contributions from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.
Public access to the Department of State is strictly controlled and space is limited. Members of the public wishing to take part in the meeting should telephone the Fine Arts Office at (202) 647-1990 or send an email to
Personal data is requested pursuant to Public Law 99-399 (Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986), as amended; Public Law 107-56 (USA PATRIOT Act); and Executive Order 13356. The purpose of the collection is to validate the identity of individuals who enter Department facilities. The data will be entered into the Visitor Access Control System (VACS-D) database. Please see the Security Records System of Records Notice (State-36) at
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR pt. 1152 subpart F—
UP has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) no overhead traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years and, therefore, there is no need to reroute any traffic; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(c) (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA)
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to UP's representative: Jeremy M. Berman, 1400 Douglas St., #1580, Omaha, NE 68179.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
UP has filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by April 3, 2018. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling OEA at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or interim trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), UP shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the Line. If consummation has not been effected by UP's filing of a notice of consummation by March 29, 2019, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before April 18, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0215 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Brenda Robeson (202) 267-4712, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591-0001.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before April 18, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-1157 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Jake Troutman, (202) 683-7788, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice to rescind a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an environmental impact statement will not be prepared for a proposed transportation project in Alexander, Pulaski, and Union Counties, Illinois between the intersection of Illinois Route 3 with Illinois Route 146 and Interstate 57.
Catherine A. Batey, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 3250 Executive Park Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62703, Phone: (217) 492-4600. Jeffrey L. Keirn, Deputy Director of Highways, Region 5 Engineer, Illinois Department of Transportation, 1102 Eastport Plaza Drive, Collinsville, Illinois 62234, Phone: (618) 346-3110.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the Illinois Department of Transportation, issued a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) in 2015 (80 FR 73871, November 25, 2015). The project proposal was to improve transportation between the identified project termini.
The project is being cancelled and no further activities will occur for the Shawnee Parkway project at this time.
Comments or questions concerning this notice should be directed to FHWA or the Illinois Department of Transportation at the addresses provided above.
23 U.S.C. 315; 23 CFR 771.123; 49 CFR 1.48
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Request for Information (RFI).
This request for information notice replaces the version published in the
Comments and information responsive to this request should be received by May 7, 2018.
You may submit information and comments identified by the docket number FRA-2018-0027 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal,
Peter Cipriano, Special Assistant to the Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6017),
FRA seeks to understand the current stage and development of automated railroad operations and how the agency can best position itself to support the integration and implementation of new automation technologies to increase the safety, reliability, and the capacity of the nation's railroad system. As in other transportation modes, there are varying levels of automation that already are, or could potentially be, implemented in the railroad industry. Currently, U.S. passenger and freight railroads do not have a fully autonomous rail operation in revenue service, however, railroads commonly use automated systems for dispatching, meet and pass trip planning, locomotive fuel trip time optimization, and signaling and train control. Railroads conduct many switching and yard operations by remote control and automated equipment and track inspections technologies are used to augment manual inspection methods. Modern locomotive cabs are equipped with intelligent information systems designed to provide operating crews with up-to-date situational awareness as train sensor data and alarms are continuously updated and displayed in operator consoles within the cab. Railroads often now utilize energy management technology (the equivalent of automobile cruise-control) to optimize fuel consumption based on specific operational and equipment factors, as well as movement planner systems designed to optimize in real-time, train movements on the rail network. Railroads are implementing statutorily mandated positive train control technology (a processor-based/communications-based train control system) to prevent train accidents by automatically controlling train speeds and movements if a train operator fails to take appropriate action in certain operational scenarios. These various systems of automation and technologies have transformed rail operations in recent years, improving railroad operational safety and efficiency.
FRA has helped developed many of these technologies and enhancements to these technologies are currently underway to support more advanced train control schemes and fully autonomous operations. In the fall of 2017, the Association of American Railroads, the freight rail industry's primary industry organization that focuses on policy, research, standard setting and technology, formed a Technical Advisory Group on autonomous train operations (ATO TAG). The focus of the ATO TAG is to define industry standards for an interoperable system to support enhanced safety and efficiency of autonomous train operations. The ATO TAG intends to develop standardization to support common interfaces and functions, such that technology may be applied in an interoperable fashion, while also allowing some flexibility in the specific design, implementation and packaging of the technology.
Internationally, the only known fully-autonomous freight railroad system is in Australia. The system is part of the Australia Rio Tinto mining company and began fully-autonomous train operations on an approximately 62-mile stretch of track in Western Australia. This Rio Tinto train is equipped with a variety of sensors (
FRA seeks to understand the rail industry's plans for future development and implementation of automated train systems and technologies and the industry's plans and expectations related to potential fully-automated rail operations. FRA is specifically interested in the anticipated benefits, costs, risks, and challenges to achieving the industry's desired level of automation. FRA also seeks to understand how the rail industry's plans for future automation may affect other stakeholders, including railroad employees, the traveling public and freight shipping industry, railroad industry suppliers and equipment manufacturers, communities through which railroads operate, local and state governments with roles in regulating highway-rail grade crossing safety, and any other interested parties.
FRA also seeks comment on the appropriate taxonomy to use to provide a baseline framework for the continued development and implementation of automated technology in the railroad industry. For example, both SAE, for on-road vehicles, and the International Association of Public Transport's (UITP) for public transit fixed guideway (rail) have developed taxonomies for their respective modes of transportation.
The SAE definitions divide vehicles into levels based on “who does what, when.” Generally:
• At SAE Level 0, the driver does everything.
• At SAE Level 1, an automated system on the vehicle can
• At SAE Level 2, an automated system on the vehicle can
• At SAE Level 3, an automated system can both actually conduct some parts of the driving task and monitor the driving environment
• At SAE Level 4, an automated system can conduct the driving task and monitor the driving environment, and the driver need not take back control, but the automated system can operate only in certain environments and under certain conditions.
• At SAE Level 5, the automated system can perform all driving tasks, under all conditions that a driver could perform them.
Using the SAE levels described above, the Department has drawn a distinction for non-road vehicles between Levels 0-2 and 3-5 based on whether the human driver or the automated system is primarily responsible for monitoring the driving environment.
Automatic Train Operation of public transit fixed guideway (rail) systems is an operational safety enhancement to automate operations of trains. It is mainly used on fixed guideway rail systems which are easier to ensure safety of agency staff and passengers. Basically, each grade defines distinct functions of train operation that are the responsibility of agency staff and those that are the responsibility of the rail system itself.
Similar to SAE, UITP defines grades of automation (GoA) for fixed guideway (rail) systems. Generally:
• At UITP Grade 0, on-sight train operation, similar to a streetcar running in mixed traffic.
• At UITP Grade 1, manual train operation where a train operator controls starting and stopping, operation of doors and handling of emergencies or sudden diversions.
• At UITP Grade 2, semi-automatic train operation where starting and stopping is automated, but the train operator or conductor controls the doors, drives the train if needed and handles emergencies (many ATO systems worldwide are Grade 2),
• At UITP Grade 3, driverless train operation where starting and stopping are automated but a train attendant or conductor controls the doors and drives the train in case of emergencies.
• At UITP Grade 4, unattended train operation where starting and stopping, operation of doors and handling of emergencies are fully automated without any on-train staff.
FRA requests comment on whether these or other taxonomies for automation should be applied to railroads.
Although FRA seeks comments and relevant information and data on all issues related to the development and continued implementation of automated train systems and technologies and potentially fully autonomous train operations, FRA specifically requests comment and data in response to the following questions:
1. To what extent do railroads plan to automate operations? Do railroads plan to implement fully autonomous rail vehicles (
2. How do commenters envision the path to wide-scale development and implementation of autonomous rail operations (or operations increasingly reliant on automated train systems or technologies)? What is the potential timeframe for technology prototype availability for testing and for deployment of such technologies?
3. As discussed above, the railroad industry is currently taking steps in developing standards for automation. How does the railroad industry currently define “autonomous operations”? Would it be helpful to develop automated rail taxonomy; a system of standards to clarify and define different levels of automation in trains, as currently exists for on-road vehicles and rail transit? What, if any, efforts are already under way to develop such rail automation taxonomy? Should FRA embrace any existing and defined levels of automation in the railroad industry or other transportation modes such as highways or public transit? For example, should FRA consider SAE Standard J3016_201609 (see
4. What limitations and/or risks (
5. What benefits and efficiencies (
6. What societal benefits if any, could be expected to result from the adoption of these technologies (
7. What, if anything, is needed from other railroad industry participants (
8. How does the state of automation of U.S. railroad operations compare to that of railroads in other countries? What can be learned from automation employed or under development in other countries? What are the unique characteristics of U.S. railroad operations and/or infrastructure as compared to railroads in other countries that may affect the wide-scale automation of railroad operations in this country?
9. How do commenters believe these technologies could increase rail safety?
10. What processes do railroads have in place to identify potential safety and/or security, including cybersecurity, risks arising during the adoption of these technologies and that may result from the adoption of such technologies?
11. How should railroads plan to ensure identified safety and/or security risks are adequately addressed during the development and implementation of these new technologies? What is an acceptable level of risk in this context?
12. How should railroads plan to ensure the integration of these technologies will not adversely affect, and will instead improve, the safety and/or security of railroad operations?
13. What are the safety and security issues raised by automation in railroad operations at public and private at-grade highway-rail crossings? To what extent should DOT coordinate with state or local governmental entities on certain safety or security issues? How might automation improve the safety of the general public at highway-rail grade crossings or along the railroad rights-of way?
14. How do railroads plan to ensure safety and security from cyber risks?
15. How do the safety and/or security, including cyber risks, faced by U.S. railroads implementing these technologies compare to the risks faced by railroads operating in other countries? How have railroads in other countries addressed or mitigated these risks? Are there opportunities for cross-border collaboration to address such risks?
16. What are the infrastructure needs for effectively, safely, and securely
17. How can the nation's existing rail infrastructure be leveraged to support the implementation of new infrastructure, necessary for the adoption of automated and autonomous operations?
18. What is the potential impact of the adoption of these technologies on the existing railroad industry workforce?
19. Would the continued implementation of these technologies, including fully autonomous rail vehicles, create new jobs and/or eliminate the need for existing jobs in the railroad industry?
20. What railroad employee training needs would likely result from the adoption of these technologies? For example, if the technology fails en route, will an onboard employee be trained to take over operation of the vehicle manually or be required to repair the technology en route?
21. What potential legal issues are raised by the development and implementation of autonomous train systems and technologies within the industry?
22. What are the regulatory challenges (rail-specific or DOT-wide) that must be addressed before autonomous rail vehicles can be made a part of railroad operations in the United States?
23. Are there current safety standards and/or regulations that impede the development and/or implementation of automated train systems or technologies in the railroad industry, including the development and/or implementation of autonomous rail vehicles? If so, what are they and how should they be addressed?
24. Are there current or anticipated railroad industry, private, international, or State or local government pilot projects or research initiatives involving automated train systems or technologies potentially in need of FRA support? If so, what are the needs (
25. What data relevant to the development and integration of automated train systems and technologies currently exists that could be leveraged to address future government/industry research needs?
FRA invites all interested parties to submit comments, data, and information related to the specific questions listed in Section II above and any other comments, data, or information relevant to issues related to the development and implementation in the railroad industry of new automated train systems or technologies.
Your comments should be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are filed in the correct docket, please include docket number FRA-2018-0027 in your comments.
Please submit your comments to the docket following the instruction given above under
Although FRA encourages the submission of information that can be freely and publicly shared, if you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you must follow the procedures in 49 CFR 209.11.
FRA will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
You may read the comments received at the address given above under Comments. The hours of the docket are indicated above in the same location. You may also read the comments on the internet, filed in the docket number at the heading of this notice, at
Please note that, even after the comment closing date, FRA will continue to file any relevant information it receives in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, FRA recommends that you periodically check the docket for new material.
FRA notes that anyone is able to search (at
49 U.S.C. 20101
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before April 30, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Quintana by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before April 30, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Quintana by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
Federal Communications Commission.
Final action; requirements and procedures.
In the document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) establishes the procedures for the Connect America Fund Phase II auction (Phase II auction, auction, or Auction 903). The auction will award up to $1.98 billion over 10 years to providers that commit to offer voice and broadband services to fixed locations in unserved high-cost areas. The auction is scheduled to begin on July 24, 2018.
Auction 903 short-form applications must be filed prior to 6 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on March 30, 2018. Bidding in Auction 903 is scheduled to begin on July 24, 2018.
Heidi Lankau or Katie King, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484; Mark Montano or Angela Kung, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0660.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's document in AU Docket No. 17-182; WC Docket No. 10-90; FCC 18-6, released on February 1, 2018 (
1. The Commission establishes procedures for the Connect America Fund Phase II auction (Phase II auction, auction, or Auction 903), thus furthering its progress toward closing the digital divide for all Americans, including those in rural areas of the country. The Phase II auction will award up to $198 million annually for 10 years to service providers that commit to offer voice and broadband services to fixed locations in unserved high-cost areas. The auction is scheduled to begin on July 24, 2018.
2. Auction 903 will be the first auction to award ongoing high-cost universal service support using a multiple-round, reverse auction. Through this auction, the Commission intends to maximize the value the American people receive for the universal service dollars it spends, balancing higher-quality services with cost efficiencies. Therefore, the auction is designed to select bids from providers that would deploy high-speed broadband and voice services in unserved communities for lower relative levels of support. The bidding procedures will be implemented through the Auction 903 bidding system, which will enable a bidder to express in a simple and orderly way the amount of support it needs to provide a specified level of service to a specified set of eligible areas.
3.
4.
5.
6. Each winning bidder that is authorized to receive Phase II support after the close of the auction will be required to offer voice and broadband services meeting the relevant performance requirements to fixed locations. It must make these services available to the required number of locations associated with the eligible census blocks for which it is the winning bidder. The number of locations that a support recipient is required to serve in the eligible census blocks is aggregated to the census block group (CBG) level, which is the geographic area that will be used for bidding in the auction. In the auction, the Commission will accept bids for service at one of four performance tiers, each with its own minimum download and upload speed and usage allowance, and for either high or low latency service, as shown in the tables below. Winning bidders that become authorized to receive Phase II support must deploy broadband service that meets the performance tier and latency requirements associated with their winning bids. Each Connect America Fund support recipient must offer voice as a standalone service, but may separately bundle its broadband offerings with a voice service.
7. Phase II support recipients are permitted to offer a variety of broadband service offerings as long as they offer at least one standalone voice plan and one service plan that provides broadband at the relevant performance tier and latency requirements, and these plans must be offered at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates offered in urban areas. For voice service, a support recipient will be required to certify that the pricing of its service is no more than the applicable reasonably comparable rate benchmark that the Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) releases each year. For broadband services, a support recipient will be required to certify that the pricing of a service that meets the required performance tier and latency performance requirements is no more than the applicable reasonably comparable rate benchmark, or that it is no more than the non-promotional price charged for a comparable fixed wireline broadband service in the state or U.S. territory where the eligible telecommunication carrier (ETC) receives support.
8. The Commission has adopted specific service milestones that require each winning bidder authorized to receive Phase II support to offer service to a portion of the number of locations associated with the eligible census blocks included in its authorized winning bids in a state. Specifically, each support recipient must complete construction and begin commercially offering service to 40 percent of the requisite number of locations in a state by the end of the third year of funding and to an additional 20 percent in each subsequent year, with 100 percent by the end of the sixth year. A support recipient is deemed to be commercially offering voice and/or broadband service to a location if it provides service to the location or could provide it within 10 business days upon request.
9. Compliance will be determined at the state-level. The Commission will verify that the support recipient offers the required service to the total number of locations across all the eligible census blocks included in all of the support recipient's authorized bid areas (
10. The required number of locations for each performance tier and latency combination will be determined by adding up the locations in all the eligible census blocks in the state covered by authorized winning bids specifying the particular performance tier and latency combination.
11. The Commission also decided that a support recipient that faces unforeseen challenges may take advantage of the flexibility to serve, at a minimum, 95 percent of the required number of locations in a state. Support recipients that offer service to at least 95 percent of locations but fewer than 100 percent of locations must refund support based on the number of locations left unserved in the state.
12. In the event a support recipient cannot identify enough locations in the eligible census blocks in its winning bids to meet its statewide obligation, it will have one year after release of the Phase II auction closing public notice to file evidence of the total number of locations in those blocks, including geolocation data of all the locations it was able to identify. The support recipient's filing will be subject to review and comment by relevant stakeholders and an audit. If the support recipient demonstrates that the number of actual, on-the-ground locations is lower than the number estimated by the CAM, its state location total will be adjusted, and its support will be reduced on a pro rata basis. If a support recipient finds that the number of actual locations has increased, its location total and support will not be increased.
13. To monitor each support recipient's compliance with the Phase II auction public interest obligations, the Commission has adopted reporting requirements described in detail in the
14. The Commission will use CBGs containing one or more eligible census blocks as the minimum geographic area for bidding in the auction. WCB released a list of the eligible census blocks for Auction 903 in December 2017 based on December 31, 2016 FCC Form 477 data. The list contains two tables. The first table identifies the CBGs eligible for bidding in the Phase II auction and lists the CBG identification number (the 12-digit Census code), the relevant state abbreviation, the county name, the number of locations that are eligible for Phase II support, and the reserve price (on an annual basis) rounded to the nearest dollar. The second table identifies the eligible census blocks within the CBGs that are eligible for bidding in the Phase II auction. This table lists the census block identification number (the 15-digit Census code), the relevant state abbreviation, the county name, and the CBG identification number. All the eligible census blocks within a CBG will be aggregated for bidding purposes. The table includes approximately 214,000 census blocks that are within approximately 30,300 CBGs, located in 50 states and territories. The Commission directs WCB to release a revised map and list of eligible areas that removes census block groups with a $0 reserve price and census blocks that overlap certain rate-of-return carrier study area boundaries.
15.
16. An entity seeking to participate in Auction 903 must file a short-form application electronically via the FCC's Auction Application System prior to 6:00 p.m. ET on March 30, 2018. Among other things, an applicant must submit operational and financial information demonstrating that it can meet the service requirements associated with the performance tier and latency combination(s) for which it intends to bid. Below the Commission describes more fully the information disclosures and certifications required in the short-form application. An applicant that files a short-form application is subject to the Commission's rule prohibiting certain communications. An applicant is subject to the prohibition beginning at the deadline for filing short-form applications.
17. An applicant bears full responsibility for submitting an accurate, complete, and timely short-form application. An applicant should consult the Commission's rules to ensure that, in addition to the materials described below, all required information is included in its short-form application. To the extent the information in the document does not address a potential applicant's specific operating structure, or if the applicant needs additional information or guidance concerning the following disclosure requirements, the applicant should review the educational materials for Auction 903 and/or use the contact information provided in the document to consult with Commission staff to better understand the information it must submit in its short-form application.
18. The same entity may not bid based on more than one auction application,
19. An applicant should note that submitting a short-form application (and any amendments thereto) constitutes a representation by the certifying official that he or she is an authorized representative of the applicant, that he or she has read the form's instructions and certifications, and that the contents of the application, its certifications, and any attachments are true and correct. As more fully explained below, an applicant is not permitted to make major modifications to its application after the short-form application filing deadline. Submitting a false certification to the Commission may result in penalties, including monetary forfeitures, the forfeiture of universal service support, license forfeitures, ineligibility to participate in future auctions, and/or criminal prosecution.
20. After the initial short-form application filing deadline, Commission staff will review all timely submitted applications to determine whether each application complies with the application requirements and has provided all required information concerning the applicant's qualifications for bidding. After this review is completed, a public notice will be released announcing the status of applications and identifying the applications that are complete and those that are incomplete because of minor defects that may be corrected. This public notice also will establish an application resubmission filing window, during which an applicant may make permissible minor modifications to its application to address identified deficiencies. The public notice will include the deadline for resubmitting modified applications. After the review of resubmitted applications is complete, a public notice will be released identifying the applicants that are qualified to bid.
21.
22. An applicant must certify under penalty of perjury in its short-form application that it has disclosed all real parties in interest to any agreements involving the applicant's participation in the competitive bidding for Phase II support. An applicant must also certify under penalty of perjury that it has not entered into any explicit or implicit agreements, arrangements, or understandings of any kind related to the support to be sought through the Phase II auction, other than those disclosed in its application. For purposes of making the required agreement disclosures, if parties agree in principle on all material terms prior to the application filing deadline, each applicant should provide a brief description of, and identify the other party or parties to, the agreement on its respective FCC Form 183, even if the agreement has not been reduced to writing. If an applicant has had discussions, but has not reached an agreement by the close of the initial filing window, it should not include the names of parties to the discussions on its application and may not continue such discussions with any applicants after the close of the initial filing window until after the auction closes.
23.
24. In certain circumstances, an applicant may have previously filed an FCC Form 602 ownership disclosure information report or filed an auction application for a previous auction in which ownership information was disclosed. The most current ownership information contained in any FCC Form 602 or previous auction application on file with the Commission that used the same FRN the applicant is using to submit its FCC Form 183 will automatically be pre-filled into certain ownership sections on the applicant's FCC Form 183, if such information is in an electronic format compatible with FCC Form 183. Each applicant must carefully review any ownership information automatically entered into its FCC Form 183, including any ownership attachments, to confirm that all information supplied on FCC Form 183 is complete and accurate as of the application filing deadline for Auction 903. Any information that needs to be corrected or updated must be changed directly in FCC Form 183.
25.
26. In addition, an applicant must certify that it will make any default payment that may be required pursuant to § 1.21004, and that it is aware that if its application is shown to be defective, the application may be dismissed without further consideration and penalties may apply.
27.
28. In addition, to discourage coordinated bidding that may disadvantage other bidders, separate applicants that are commonly controlled or are parties to a joint bidding arrangement are prohibited from bidding in any of the same states. Knowing the specific state(s) for which an applicant intends to bid, as well as its ownership and bidding arrangement information, all of which is collected on the short-form application, will help the Commission ensure that applicants comply with this prohibition.
29. Commonly controlled applicants are those in which the same individual or entity either directly or indirectly holds a controlling interest. To identify commonly controlled applicants, the Commission defines a “controlling interest” for purposes of the Phase II auction as an individual or entity with positive or negative
30. Entities that are commonly controlled or are parties to a joint bidding arrangement have two options for submitting short-form applications to avoid the restriction on state overlaps. It is important that such entities carefully consider these options prior to the short-form application filing deadline. At the deadline, the prohibition of certain communications begins, and after that time, only minor amendments or modifications to applications will be permitted.
31. First, such entities may submit a single short-form application and qualify to bid as one applicant in a state. To facilitate the identification of such applications, an applicant will indicate whether it is submitting the application on behalf of itself and one or more existing operating companies, and if so, to identify such companies. Similarly, parties to a joint bidding arrangement may form a consortium or a joint venture and submit a single short-form application that identifies each party to the consortium or joint venture. At least one related entity, affiliate, or member of the holding or parent company, consortium, or joint venture identified in the short-form application must demonstrate that it meets the operational and financial requirements of § 54.315(a)(7).
32. If a holding/parent company or a consortium/joint venture is announced as a winning bidder in Auction 903, the entity may designate at least one operating company controlled by the holding/parent company or by a member of (or an entity controlled by a member of) the consortium/joint venture that will be authorized to receive Phase II support for the winning bids in a state. While more than one operating company may be designated in a state, an operating company must be identified for each winning bid, whether the bid covers one CBG or a package of CBGs. Thus, a winning bidder cannot apportion either eligible census blocks within a winning bid for a CBG or separate CBGs within a winning package bid among multiple operating companies. The operating company that seeks authorization for Phase II support must file the long-form application in its own name. Because the operating company is the entity that will be required to meet the associated Phase II public interest obligations, the operating company should be the entity that will make the required certifications in the long-form application about its technical and financial qualifications and that will meet the public interest obligations. A holding/parent company or a consortium/joint venture short-form applicant that intends to form a new operating company if it is named as a winning bidder is expected to take whatever steps are necessary to form the operating company in advance of the long-form application filing deadline. The identified operating company must also be the entity that is designated as the ETC by the relevant state(s) in the areas covered by the winning bid(s) and is named in the letter of credit applicable to the specific winning bids for which it becomes authorized for support.
33. The second way commonly controlled entities or parties to a joint bidding arrangement can participate is by submitting short-form applications and qualifying to bid independently, though not in the same state. Such applicants must exercise due diligence to confirm prior to submitting their respective short-form applications that no other commonly controlled entity or party to a joint bidding arrangement, or an entity that controls any party to such an arrangement, has indicated its intent to bid in any of the same state(s) that each of the applicants has selected. To that end, an applicant must certify in its short-form application that it acknowledges that it cannot place any bids in the same state as (i) another commonly controlled entity, (ii) another party to a joint bidding arrangement related to Phase II support that it is a party to, or (iii) any entity that controls a party to such an arrangement. And, as noted above, to help identify any impermissible state overlaps, an applicant must provide in its short-form application a brief description of any bidding arrangements that are required to be disclosed.
34. If, during short-form application review, applicants that are commonly controlled and/or parties to a joint bidding arrangement are found to have selected the same state(s) in their respective applications, all such applications will be deemed to be incomplete on initial review. The WCB and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) (collectively, the Bureaus) will inform each affected applicant of the identity of each of the other applicant(s) with which it has an impermissible state overlap and the specific overlapping state(s). To the extent that an affected applicant has disclosed a joint bidding arrangement with one or more of the other affected applicants, these applicants must decide amongst themselves which applicant (if any) will bid in each overlapping state. Then, the applicants must revise their
35.
36. With the first pathway, an applicant can certify, if applicable, on its FCC Form 183 that it has provided voice, broadband, and/or electric distribution or transmission services for at least two years prior to the short-form application filing deadline (or that the applicant is the wholly owned subsidiary of an entity that has done so), specify the number of years it has been operating, and identify the services it has provided. An applicant will be deemed to have started providing a service on the date it began commercially offering that service to end users.
37. If an applicant certifies that it has been providing voice and/or broadband services for at least two years, it must certify that it (or its parent company, if it is a wholly owned subsidiary) has filed FCC Form 477s as required during that time period. It must also identify the FRNs it (or its parent company) used to file the FCC Form 477s for the relevant filing periods. The relevant FCC Form 477 filing periods include data as of June 30, 2016; December 31, 2016; and June 30, 2017. FCC Form 477 data for these periods that were on file as of February 5, 2018 will be used to validate an applicant's representation on the short-form application that it has been providing a voice and/or broadband service for at least two years. If the applicant certifies that it has been providing only electric distribution or transmission services for at least two years (
38. If an applicant that meets the foregoing requirements and it (or its parent company) is audited in the ordinary course of business, the applicant must also submit its (or its parent company's) financial statements from the prior fiscal year, including balance sheets, net income, and cash flow, that were audited by an independent certified public accountant. If the applicant is a holding company, it must submit its own audited financial statements. If the applicant is a consortium or a joint venture, it must submit the audited financial statements of the entity that is the subject of the at least two-year operational certification. If the applicant is a wholly owned subsidiary and has certified that its parent company has provided service for at least two years, it must submit the audited financial statements of its parent company. Because the short-form application filing window opens in the first quarter of 2018, the Commission requires that an applicant submit its (or its parent company's) 2016 audited financial statements. However, an applicant may, and is encouraged to, instead submit its fiscal year-end 2017 audited financial statements if they are finalized before the short-form application deadline.
39. If an applicant (or its parent company) is not audited in the ordinary course of business and the applicant does not submit its audited financial statements with the short-form application, it must certify that the long-form applicant will submit its (or its parent company's) audited financial statements from the prior fiscal year within 180 days after being announced as a winning bidder. Such an applicant must also submit its (or its parent company's) fiscal year-end 2016 unaudited financial statements with its short-form application, including balance sheet, net income, and cash flow. If an applicant certifies in its short-form application that it will submit audited financial statements during the long-form application process, but such statements are ultimately not submitted, the winning bidder or long-form applicant will be deemed to be in default and subject to a forfeiture.
40. An applicant that does not have at least two years of operational experience must submit with its short-form application its (or its parent company's) financial statements that are audited by an independent certified public accountant from the three most recent fiscal years (
41.
42. These metrics must be reported in the short-form application and will be scored using a five-point scale described below. The five-point scale will be used to score one yes/no question and four other common financial metrics. These metrics are based on information already contained in the financial statements that must be submitted with the short-form application. The five-point scale provides a streamlined process for assessing, efficiently and objectively, whether an applicant has sufficient financial qualifications or requires further financial review. An applicant that scores at least three points will be deemed to have sufficient financial qualifications to participate in the auction if it has submitted the required financial information with its short-form application.
43. The objective financial metrics for this five-point scale will not necessarily provide a full picture of an applicant's financial qualifications. Therefore, a score of less than three points will warrant a review of the full set of financial statements submitted with the short-form application, as well as other information submitted with the application and/or information submitted to the Commission in other contexts (
44. The first point on the five-point scale is based on a yes/no question. Specifically, an applicant that submits audited financial statements will be asked whether it received an unmodified, non-qualified opinion from the auditor; an applicant will receive one point for a “yes” answer. An applicant must also enter the following metrics from the most recent financial statements submitted with the short-form application: (1) Latest operating margins (
45. The question regarding an applicant's audit opinion measures both the applicant's financial condition and operations. The metric for operating margin measures core profitability, and the metrics for current ratio and equity ratio measure the applicant's short- and long-term financial condition, respectively. TIER measures the ability to pay interest on outstanding debt.
46. The Commission will consider an applicant with a total score of three points or greater (
47.
48.
49.
50. Eligibility to bid for specific tier and latency combinations will be determined on a state-by-state basis. Accordingly, for each selected performance tier and latency combination, an applicant will be required to demonstrate that it is reasonably capable of meeting the relevant public interest obligations for each state it selects and to explain how it intends to provision service if awarded support. Because compliance with the service obligations will be determined on a state-level basis and some applicants may propose to deploy hybrid networks, it will be useful to understand how an applicant selecting multiple performance tier and latency combinations within a state intends to meet the requirements for each combination in the state. To reduce the risk of defaults, the combination(s) selected by an applicant will be evaluated to determine its eligibility to bid for any such combination(s).
51. An applicant must answer the questions listed in Appendix A of the
52. The Commission expects concise descriptions from applicants. The Commission will implement its usual procedures for reviewing auction applications to help ensure that eligibility determinations are made consistently across all applications by, among other things, leveraging the expertise of engineers and/or other subject matter experts.
53. Until an applicant knows where it will be awarded support and how many locations it will be required to serve, it may not have made all its decisions regarding how it will meet its Phase II obligations. However, an applicant is required to certify that it has performed the necessary due diligence to participate in the Phase II auction. This includes making sure that the applicant will be able to build and operate facilities that will fully comply with all applicable requirements. Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect that an applicant will have developed a preliminary plan for how it will meet its Phase II obligations if awarded support. If an applicant has not demonstrated that it is reasonably capable of meeting the relevant public interest obligations based on the information submitted in the short-form application, the applicant will be asked to submit evidence during the resubmission filing window to demonstrate that it has developed a preliminary plan.
54.
55. First, the Commission retains the question about the total number of subscribers an applicant has served with voice and broadband because the size of a service provider's current operations provides useful insight into how an applicant has scaled its network in the years it has been operating. However, an applicant can provide an estimate and should provide the current total number of subscribers (as of the short-form application filing deadline). If an applicant is no longer providing service in any state, the applicant must estimate the number of customers that were served at the beginning of the last full year that it did provide service.
56. Second, the Commission retains the question asking an applicant to identify the relevant industry standards for the last-mile technologies it intends to use to meet its Phase II obligations if it becomes a winning bidder and is authorized to receive support. This question will give an applicant the opportunity to demonstrate that it has started planning how it will meet the Phase II obligations and that it intends to use technologies that are generally accepted as having the capabilities to meet the relevant performance standards. However, an applicant is not precluded from proposing to use non-standards-based technology. So that an applicant intending to use such technology can demonstrate that the technology has suitable capabilities for meeting the applicable performance requirements, such an applicant must identify the vendors and the products it is considering using and provide links to the vendors' websites and to publicly available technical specifications of the products. If the technical specifications are not publicly available, the applicant may submit them with its application.
57. The Commission will treat the responses to the questions in Appendix A of the
58.
59. First, an applicant must assume it will offer service to at least 95 percent of the required number of locations across its bids in each state by the end of the six-year build-out period. This
60. Second, consistent with assumptions made in the CAM, an applicant must assume that it will have at least a 70 percent subscription rate for its voice and broadband services by the time it will meet the final service milestone if it becomes authorized to receive support. Because it may take time for an applicant that becomes a winning bidder and is authorized to receive Phase II support to obtain customers as it builds out its network, applicants may factor this into their engineering and make reasonable assumptions about how the subscription rate will scale during the build-out term. Regardless of the assumptions an applicant makes about its subscription rate when engineering its network, the applicant must keep in mind that its network must be capable of scaling to meet demand. That is, if a Phase II support recipient reports in the High Cost Universal Service Portal that a location is served, it must be capable of providing service meeting the relevant performance requirements to that location within 10 business days after receiving a request.
61. An applicant, if it becomes a winning bidder and is authorized to receive Phase II support, will not be required to demonstrate that it has achieved at least a 70 percent subscription rate once it has deployed to the required number of locations. Instead, an applicant must assume for purposes of its short-form application that it will achieve at least a 70 percent subscription rate when engineering its network. Some Phase II support recipients will achieve at least a 70 percent subscription rate in the areas where they are authorized to receive support and others will not. However, requiring an applicant to make a specific assumption will give the Commission reasonable assurance that an applicant is engineering a network that can be scaled to meet potential demand. Given that subscription rates are likely to vary from area to area and over the 10-year period, the most objective way to minimize defaults and verify that an applicant is making reasonable assumptions about its subscription rate is to require all applicants to make the same assumption about the minimum subscription rate at the end of the build-out period. By adopting a minimum 70 percent subscription rate, applicants are provided some additional clarity for how they can demonstrate that they are technically qualified to participate in the Phase II auction. These benefits would not be achieved by simply presuming that an applicant will have the incentive to make reasonable subscription assumptions because the applicant will ultimately be subject to network testing requirements and non-compliance measures if it becomes a winning bidder and is authorized to receive Phase II support.
62. By requiring an applicant to assume a minimum subscription rate of 70 percent, the Commission is balancing the reality that not all consumers in a given area may subscribe to the Phase II-funded service with the requirement that Phase II support recipients provide the required service to consumers living at a funded location within 10 business days of a request. In the Commission's predictive judgment, a 70 percent subscription rate is a reasonable assumption for engineering a network when taking into account (i) that existing subscription rates, which in some cases are lower than 70 percent, may not reflect actual demand over the 10-year support term, which would be expected to increase as data usage increases and higher speeds are made available, and (ii) in the high-cost areas where the Phase II support recipient will be deploying its network, it is more likely to be the only broadband provider, which may increase adoption rates. There is a risk that this requirement may result in an increase in costs and could potentially lead to an applicant engineering a network that is capable of serving more locations than actually request service. However, this potential harm is outweighed by the risk that a support recipient could engineer a network that is incapable of meeting demand and may leave consumers unserved if the Commission does not take proactive measures to ensure that a support recipient is making reasonable assumptions about its potential subscription rate.
63. Finally, each winning bidder must provide high-level information regarding its peak period data usage assumptions during the short-form application stage and detailed information regarding its peak period data usage assumptions during the long-form application stage once the bidders know the number of locations they will be required to serve. The Commission intends to review each winning bidder's response on a case-by-case basis to ensure that it is making reasonable assumptions given the required data usage allowances for the performance tiers for which it has been named a winning bidder.
64.
65. The Commission's Phase II auction rules require an applicant that plans to use spectrum to demonstrate that it has (i) the proper spectrum use authorizations, if applicable; (ii) access to operate on the spectrum it intends to use; and (iii) sufficient spectrum resources to cover peak network usage and meet the minimum performance requirements to serve the fixed locations in eligible areas. Consistent with the Commission's approach in the Mobility Fund Phase I auction, for the described spectrum access to be sufficient, the applicant must have obtained any necessary approvals from the Commission for the spectrum, if applicable, by the short-form application filing deadline, subject to the exceptions described below. The Phase II auction short-form application
66. An applicant that intends to use licensed or unlicensed spectrum must in its short-form application (i) identify the spectrum band(s) it will use for the last mile, backhaul, and any other parts of the network; (ii) describe the total amount of uplink and downlink bandwidth (in megahertz) that it has access to in each spectrum band for the last mile; (iii) describe the authorizations (including leases) it has obtained to operate in the spectrum, if applicable; and (iv) list the call signs and/or application file numbers associated with its spectrum authorizations, if applicable. Any applicant that intends to provide service using satellite technology must describe in its short-form application its expected timing for applying for earth station licenses if it has not already obtained these licenses. Moreover, because an applicant can apply to obtain a microwave license at any time, an applicant that intends to obtain microwave license(s) for backhaul to meet its Phase II public interest obligations may describe in its short-form application its expected timing for applying for such license(s), if it has not already obtained them.
67. This spectrum information, combined with the operational and financial information submitted in the short-form application, will allow an applicant to demonstrate that it has sufficient spectrum resources and is reasonably capable of meeting the public interest obligations required by its selected performance tier and latency combination(s). If a license, lease, or other authorization is set to expire prior to the end of the 10-year support term, the Commission will infer that the authorization will be able to be renewed when determining at the short-form application stage whether an applicant has sufficient access to spectrum. However, this inference will in no way influence or prejudge the Commission's resolution of any future renewal application, and if the authorization is not renewed during the support term and the Phase II support recipient is unable to meet its Phase II obligations, that support recipient will be in default and subject to any applicable non-compliance measures.
68. In Appendix B of the
69. Appendix B of the
70.
71. Specifically, applicants must submit in the short-form application any FCC Registration Numbers (FRNs) that an applicant or its parent company—and in the case of a holding company applicant, the operating companies identified in its application—has used to submit its FCC Form 477 data during the past two years. Because the short-form application deadline is March 30, 2018, the Commission will collect FCC Form 477 FRNs that were used for the filings for data as of June 30, 2017, data as of December 31, 2016, and data as of June 30, 2016. Requiring submission of the FRNs that an applicant has used for FCC Form 477, will allow reviewers to cross-reference FCC Form 477 data that an applicant (or a related entity) has filed during the past two years.
72. An applicant must also submit in the short-form application any study area codes (SACs) indicating that the applicant (or its parent company/subsidiaries) is an existing ETC. A holding-company applicant must submit the SACs of its operating companies identified in the application. An applicant is required by the Commission's Phase II short-form application rules to disclose its status as an ETC if applicable.
73. Finally, applicants must submit in the short-form application any FCC Form 499 filer identification numbers that the applicant or its parent company and, in the case of a holding company, its operating companies identified in the application have used to file an FCC Form 499-A in the past year, if applicable. Because the short-form application filing deadline is March 30, 2018, applicants must submit filer identification numbers that were used for the April 3, 2017 filing.
74.
75. In addition, the Auction Application System will allow an applicant that selects the Gigabit and Above Baseline performance tiers to also select the fixed wireless and/or digital subscriber line (DSL) technologies for those performance tiers on the short-form application. However, the applicant's most recent publicly available FCC Form 477 deployment and subscription data, in addition to the applicant's operational information, will be used to determine the applicant's eligibility to bid in those tiers. If the FCC Form 477 data for that period do not show that the applicant offers residential Gigabit service using fixed wireless or DSL (whichever is selected by the applicant), the applicant will not be deemed eligible to bid in the Gigabit performance tier. If an applicant does not offer a fixed wireless or DSL service at or above 100/20 Mbps based on its FCC Form 477 data, the applicant may be deemed eligible to bid in the Above Baseline performance tier, but that determination will be informed by its FCC Form 477 data as well as its operational information.
76. Applicants that propose to use other technologies that lack historical deployment data are not precluded from bidding for any specific performance tier and latency combination if such applicants become qualified to bid. Without historical deployment data, the Commission is unable to decide categorically whether it can reasonably predict that a new technology would generally be able to meet the relevant public interest obligations by the required service milestones. The Commission will consider each application proposing to use such a new technology on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the applicant's experience, its responses to the short-form operational questions, its spectrum access (if applicable), and other information collected in the short-form application. The additional costs of having to review these technologies on a case-by-case basis are outweighed by the potential benefits to consumers if an applicant can use new technologies to bring advanced services to unserved areas.
77.
78. If an applicant is unable to demonstrate that it is reasonably capable of meeting the relevant public interest obligations for its selected performance tier and latency combination(s) based on the information submitted in its short-form application and other available information, the Bureaus will deem the application incomplete. The applicant will then have another opportunity during the application resubmission period to submit additional information to demonstrate that it meets this standard. The Bureaus will notify the applicant that additional information is required to assess the applicant's eligibility to bid for one or more of the specific performance tier and latency combination(s) selected in its short-form application. During the application resubmission filing window, the applicant will be able to submit additional information to establish its eligibility to bid for the relevant performance tier and latency combination(s). An applicant will also have the option of selecting a lesser performance tier and latency combination for which it might be more likely to meet the relevant public interest obligations. The Commission considers these to be permissible minor modifications of the short-form application. After the Auction 903 qualified bidders are announced, each applicant will be able to view its final eligibility determination for each performance tier and latency combination in the selected state(s) for which it is eligible through the Auction Application System. An applicant must have at least one performance tier and latency combination deemed eligible in at least one state in order to become qualified to bid. The bidding system will be configured to permit a qualified bidder to bid only for the performance tier and latency combination(s) for which it has been deemed eligible to bid.
79.
80. Applicants should be aware that Auction 903 represents an opportunity to apply for Phase II support, subject to certain conditions and regulations. Auction 903 does not constitute an endorsement by the Commission of any particular service, technology, or product, nor does the award of Phase II support constitute a guarantee of business success.
81. An applicant should perform its due diligence research and analysis before proceeding, as it would with any new business venture. In particular, the Commission strongly encourages each applicant to review all underlying Commission orders and to assess all pertinent economic factors relating to the deployment of service in a particular area.
82. Each applicant should perform technical analyses or refresh its previous analyses to assure itself that, should it become a winning bidder for Phase II support, it will be able to build and operate facilities that fully comply with all applicable technical and legal requirements and will advertise and provide the service to customers. Each applicant should verify that it can identify enough locations within the eligible census blocks that it intends to include in its bids to be able to offer service meeting the relevant requirements to the required number of locations if it becomes a winning bidder and is authorized to receive Phase II support. Each Phase II support recipient will be required to offer service meeting the relevant requirements to the total number of locations across all the winning bids in each state where it is authorized to receive support. The total number of locations where a Phase II support recipient is required to offer service in each state is determined by
83. The Commission strongly encourages each applicant to conduct its own research prior to Auction 903 to determine the existence of pending administrative or judicial proceedings that might affect its decision on participation in the auction. The due diligence considerations mentioned in the document do not comprise an exhaustive list of steps that should be undertaken prior to participating in this auction. As always, the burden is on the applicant to determine how much research to undertake, depending upon specific facts and circumstances related to its interests.
84. Pending and future judicial proceedings, as well as certain pending and future proceedings before the Commission—including applications, applications for modification, notices of proposed rulemaking, notices of inquiry, petitions for rulemaking, requests for special temporary authority, waiver requests, petitions to deny, petitions for reconsideration, informal objections, and applications for review—may relate to or affect licensees or applicants for support in Auction 903. Each prospective applicant is responsible for assessing the likelihood of the various possible outcomes and for considering the potential impact on Phase II support available through this auction.
85. Each applicant is solely responsible for identifying associated risks and for investigating and evaluating the degree to which such matters may affect its ability to bid on or otherwise receive Phase II support. Each applicant is responsible for undertaking research to ensure that any support won in this auction will be suitable for its business plans and needs. Each applicant must undertake its own assessment of the relevance and importance of information gathered as part of its due diligence efforts.
86. The Commission makes no representations or guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of information in its databases or any third-party databases, including, for example, court docketing systems. To the extent the Commission's databases may not include all information deemed necessary or desirable by an applicant, an applicant must obtain or verify such information from independent sources or assume the risk of any incompleteness or inaccuracy in said databases. Furthermore, the Commission makes no representations or guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of information that has been provided by incumbent licensees and incorporated into the Commission's databases.
87. To confirm an applicant's understanding of its obligations, the applicant must certify under penalty of perjury in its short-form application that the applicant acknowledges that it has sole responsibility for investigating and evaluating all technical, marketplace, and regulatory factors that may have a bearing on the level of Connect America Fund Phase II support it submits as a bid, and that, if the applicant wins support, it will be able to build and operate facilities in accordance with the Connect America Fund obligations and the Commission's rules generally.
88. This certification will help ensure that an applicant acknowledges and accepts responsibility, if it becomes a qualified bidder, for its bids and any forfeitures imposed in the event of default, and that it will not attempt to place responsibility for the consequences of its bidding activity on either the Commission or any of its contractors.
89.
90. The Commission decided that an applicant need not be an ETC as of the initial short-form application filing deadline for Auction 903, but that it must obtain a high-cost ETC designation for the areas covered by its winning bids within 180 days after being announced as a winning bidder. Absent a waiver of the deadline, a long-form applicant that fails to obtain the necessary ETC designations by this deadline will be subject to an auction forfeiture as described below, and will not be authorized to receive Phase II support. In addition to all the requirements for participating in the Phase II auction, each applicant should be familiar with the requirements for a high-cost ETC. For example, all high-cost ETCs are required to offer Lifeline voice and broadband service to qualifying low-income consumers pursuant to the Lifeline program rules. Moreover, when the requirement has been fully implemented, each Phase II support recipient will be required to bid on category one telecommunications and internet access services in response to a posted FCC Form 470 seeking broadband service that meets the connectivity targets for the schools and libraries universal service support program (E-rate) for eligible schools and libraries located within any area in a census block where the ETC is receiving Phase II support. A high-cost ETC may also be subject to state-specific requirements imposed by the state that designates it as an ETC.
91.
92. Specifically, to help ensure anonymous bidding and to protect applicants' competitively sensitive information, the Commission will withhold from the public, as well as other applicants, the following information submitted with an Auction 903 short-form application at least until after the auction closes and the results are announced:
• The state(s) selected by an applicant.
• The state(s) for which the applicant has been determined to be eligible to bid.
• The performance tier and latency combination(s) selected by an applicant and the associated weight for each combination.
• The spectrum access attachment submitted with the short-form application.
• The performance tier and latency combination(s) for which the applicant has been determined to be eligible to bid and the associated weight for each combination.
• An applicant's responses to the questions in Appendix A of the
• Any financial information contained in an applicant's short-form application for which the applicant has requested confidential treatment under the abbreviated process in § 0.459(a)(4) of the Commission's rules.
93. All other application information that is not subject to a request for confidential treatment will be publicly available upon the release of the public notice announcing the status of submitted short-form applications after initial review.
94. Any applicant may use an abbreviated process under § 0.459(a)(4) to request confidential treatment of the financial information contained in its short-form application. The abbreviated process allows applicants to answer a simple yes/no question on FCC Form 183 as to whether they wish their information to be withheld from public inspection. Requests to withhold financial data that applicants elsewhere disclose to the public will not be granted and that information may be disclosed in the normal course.
95. Unlike the typical § 0.459 process, which requires that an applicant submit a statement of the reasons for withholding the information for which confidential treatment is sought from public inspection, an applicant that seeks confidential treatment of the financial information contained in its short-form application need not submit a statement that conforms with the requirements of § 0.459(b) unless and until its request for confidential treatment is challenged. Because the Commission has found in other contexts that financial information that is not otherwise publicly available could be competitively sensitive, applicants seeking confidential treatment of financial information may use this abbreviated process. The Commission will not, however, permit an applicant to seek confidential treatment of the total financial score that it receives for its financial metrics (using the five-point scale adopted above) pursuant to the § 0.459(a)(4) abbreviated process. Because an applicant's total financial score will not identify an applicant's specific financial information, it does not raise the same competitive sensitivity concerns.
96. The § 0.459(a)(4) abbreviated process for requesting confidential treatment may not be used by an applicant to request confidential treatment of any information in its short-form application other than its financial information. Thus, an applicant that wishes to seek confidential treatment of any other portion(s) of its short-form application must file a regular § 0.459 request for confidential treatment of any such information with its short-form application (other than responses to the questions in Appendix A of the
97. After the auction closes and the results are announced, the Commission no longer has a need to preserve anonymous bidding. Accordingly, the Commission will make publicly available all short-form application information that was withheld from the public prior to and/or during the auction, except for (1) responses to the questions in Appendix A of the
98.
99.
100. “Applicant” for purposes of this section includes the entity filing the application, each party capable of controlling the applicant, and each party that may be controlled by the applicant or by a party capable of controlling the applicant.
101. Subject to the joint bidding arrangement exception, the prohibition applies to communications of an applicant that are conveyed to another applicant. The prohibition of “communicating in any manner” includes public disclosures as well as private communications and indirect or implicit communications, as well as express statements of bids and bidding strategies. Consequently, an applicant must take care to determine whether its auction-related communications may reach another applicant, unless the exception applies.
102. Applicants subject to § 1.21002 should take special care in circumstances where their officers, directors, and employees may receive information directly or indirectly relating to any other applicant's bids or bidding strategies. Information received by a party related to the applicant may
103.
104.
105. All applicants applying to obtain support are “competing applicants” under the rule. Parties apply to participate in Auction 903 to obtain support from a fixed budget that is insufficient to provide support at the reserve price to all eligible areas. The bidding system determines which areas will receive support based on the bids placed for any areas. As in the reverse auction portion of the broadcast incentive auction, applicants are competing with one another regardless of whether each seeks to serve different geographic areas with Phase II support.
106. A communication must convey “bids or bidding strategies” to be covered by the prohibition. The prohibition applies to the same subject matter included in “joint bidding arrangements,” as defined for purposes of determining impermissible state overlaps among applicants. Those arrangements (i) relate to any eligible area in the Phase II auction and (ii) address or communicate bids or bidding strategies, including arrangements regarding Phase II support levels (
107. Business discussions and negotiations that are unrelated to bidding in Auction 903 and that do not convey information about Phase II bids or bidding strategies are not prohibited by the rule. Moreover, not all auction-related information is covered by the prohibition. For example, communicating merely whether a party has or has not applied to participate in Auction 903 will not violate the rule. In contrast, communicating how a party will participate, including specific states and/or tier and latency combinations selected, specific percentages bid, and/or whether or not the party is placing bids, would convey bids or bidding strategies and would be prohibited.
108. While § 1.21002 does not prohibit business discussions and negotiations among auction applicants that are not auction related, each applicant must remain vigilant not to communicate, directly or indirectly, information that affects, or could affect, bids or bidding strategy. Certain discussions might touch upon subject matters that could convey cost information and bidding strategies. Such subject areas include, but are not limited to, management, sales, local marketing agreements, and other transactional agreements.
109. Bids or bidding strategies may be communicated outside of situations that involve one party subject to the prohibition communicating privately and directly with another such party. For example, the Commission has warned that prohibited “communications concerning bids and bidding strategies may include communications regarding capital calls or requests for additional funds in support of bids or bidding strategies to the extent such communications convey information concerning the bids and bidding strategies directly or indirectly.” Moreover, the Commission found a violation of the rule against prohibited communications when an applicant used the Commission's bidding system to disclose “its bidding strategy in a manner that explicitly invited other auction participants to cooperate and collaborate . . . in specific markets,” and has placed auction participants on notice that the use of its bidding system “to disclose market information to competitors will not be tolerated and will subject bidders to sanctions.”
110. Likewise, when completing short-form applications, each applicant should avoid any statements or disclosures that may violate § 1.21002, particularly in light of the limited information procedures in effect for Auction 903. Specifically, an applicant should avoid including any information in its short-form application that might convey information regarding its state selection, such as referring to certain states or markets in describing bidding agreements, including any information in attachments that will be publicly available that may otherwise disclose the applicant's state selections, or, to the extent it has an alternative option, using applicant names that refer to states or locations within a state.
111. Applicants also should use caution in their dealings with other parties, such as members of the press, financial analysts, or others who might become conduits for the communication of prohibited bidding information. For example, even though communicating that it has applied to participate in the auction will not violate the rule, an applicant's statement to the press that it intends to stop bidding in the auction could give rise to a finding of a § 1.21002 violation. Similarly, an applicant's public statement of intent not to place bids during Auction 903 bidding could also violate the rule.
112. Applicants should be mindful that communicating non-public application or bidding information publicly or privately to another applicant may violate § 1.21002 even though that information subsequently may be made public during later periods of the application or bidding processes.
113.
114. As Commission staff have explained in the context of the broadcast incentive auction, in the case of an individual, the objective precautionary measure of a firewall is not available. As a result, an individual that is privy to bids or bidding information of more than one applicant presents a greater risk of engaging in a prohibited communication. The Commission will take the same approach to interpreting the prohibited communications rule in Auction 903. Whether a prohibited communication has taken place in a given case will depend on all the facts pertaining to the case, including who possessed what information, what information was conveyed to whom, and the course of bidding in the auction.
115. Separate Auction 903 applicants should not specify the same individual on their short-form applications to serve as an authorized bidder. A violation of § 1.21002 could occur if an individual acted as the authorized bidder for two or more applicants because a single individual may, even unwittingly, be influenced by the knowledge of the bids or bidding strategies of multiple applicants, in his or her actions on behalf of such applicants. Also, if the authorized bidders are different individuals employed by the same organization (
116. Whether a communication is prohibited is fact dependent and determined on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the Commission cannot categorically announce more “flexible” or lenient enforcement intentions or speculate on whether hypothetical, broadly described conduct would constitute a violation of the rule. Nonetheless, Commission precedent makes clear that an individual consultant hired by multiple applicants to offer bidding advice during the auction presents a greater risk of violating § 1.21002 than an individual consultant who estimates the costs of individual projects for multiple applicants without weighing in on bidding strategies during the bidding.
117. Potential applicants may discuss the short-form application or bids for specific CBGs with the counsel, consultant, or expert of their choice before the short-form application deadline. Furthermore, the same third-party individual could continue to give advice after the short-form deadline regarding the application, provided that no information pertaining to bids or bidding strategies, including state(s) selected on the short-form application, is conveyed to that individual. With respect to bidding, the same third-party individual could, before the short-form application deadline, assist more than one potential applicant with calculating how much support the specific applicant would require to provide service in each CBG for which it is interested in bidding. If such work can be completed in advance of the short-form application deadline, it would eliminate the need for third-party bidding advice during the auction. Finally, to the extent potential applicants can develop bidding instructions prior to the short-form deadline that a third party could implement without changes during bidding, the third party could follow such instructions for multiple applicants provided that those applicants do not communicate with the third party during the prohibition period.
118.
119. Merely filing a certifying statement as part of an application will not outweigh specific evidence that a prohibited communication has occurred, nor will it preclude the initiation of an investigation when warranted. The Commission has stated that it “intend[s] to scrutinize carefully any instances in which bidding patterns suggest that collusion may be occurring.” Any applicant found to have violated § 1.21002(b) may be subject to sanctions.
120.
121. In addition, § 1.65 of the Commission's rules requires an applicant to maintain the accuracy and completeness of information furnished in its pending application and to notify the Commission of any substantial change that may be of decisional significance to that application. Thus, § 1.65 requires an Auction 903 applicant to notify the Commission of any substantial change to the information or certifications included in its pending short-form application. An applicant is therefore required by § 1.65 to report to the Commission any communication the applicant has made to or received from another applicant after the short-form application filing deadline that affects or has the potential to affect bids or bidding strategy, unless such communication is made to or received from an applicant that is a member of a joint bidding arrangement identified on the application pursuant to § 1.21001(b)(4).
122. Sections 1.65(a) and 1.21002 of the Commission's rules require each applicant in competitive bidding proceedings to furnish additional or corrected information within five days of a significant occurrence, or to amend its short-form application no more than five days after the applicant becomes aware of the need for amendment. These rules are intended to facilitate the auction process by making information that should be publicly available promptly accessible to all participants and to enable the Bureaus to act expeditiously on those changes when such action is necessary.
123.
124. Parties must file only a single report concerning a prohibited communication and must file that report with the Commission personnel expressly charged with administering the Commission's auctions. The Commission's rule is designed to minimize the risk of inadvertent dissemination of information in such reports. Any reports required by § 1.21002(c) must be filed consistent with the instructions set forth in the document. For Auction 903, such reports must be filed with Margaret W. Wiener, the Chief of the Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, by the most expeditious means available. Any such report should be submitted by email to Ms. Wiener at the following email address:
125. A party seeking to report such a prohibited communication should consider submitting its report with a request that the report or portions of the submission be withheld from public inspection by following the procedures specified in § 0.459 of the Commission's rules. Such parties are encouraged to coordinate with the Auctions and Spectrum Access Division staff about the procedures for submitting such reports.
126.
127.
128.
129. To the extent the Commission becomes aware of specific allegations that suggest that violations of the federal antitrust laws may have occurred, the Commission may refer such allegations to the United States Department of Justice for investigation. If an applicant is found to have violated the antitrust laws or the Commission's rules in connection with its participation in the competitive bidding process, it may be subject to a forfeiture and may be prohibited from participating further in Auction 903 and in future auctions, among other sanctions.
130.
131. Because robust participation is critical to the success of the Phase II auction, the Commission finds good cause to provide a limited waiver of the red light rule for any applicant seeking to participate in Auction 903 that is red-lighted for debt owed to the Commission at the time it timely files a short-form application. Specifically, a red-lighted applicant seeking to participate in Auction 903 will have until the close of the application resubmission filing window to pay any debt(s) associated with the red light. No further opportunity to cure will be allowed. If an applicant has not resolved its red light issue(s) by the close of the initial filing window, its application will be deemed incomplete. If the applicant has not resolved its red light issue(s) by the close of the application resubmission window, Commission staff will immediately cease all processing of the applicant's short-form application, and the applicant will be deemed not qualified to bid in the auction. As noted above, this waiver is limited. It does not waive or otherwise affect the Commission's right or obligation to collect any debt owed to the Commission by an Auction 903 applicant by any means available to the Commission, including set off, referral of debt to the United States Treasury for collection, and/or by red lighting other applications or requests filed by an Auction 903 applicant.
132. Potential applicants for Auction 903 should review their own records, as well as the Commission's Red Light Display System (RLD), to determine whether they owe non-tax debt to the Commission and should try to resolve and pay any outstanding debt(s) prior to submitting a short-form application. The RLD enables a party to check the status of its account by individual FCC Registration Numbers (FRNs) and links other FRNs sharing the same Tax Identification Number (TIN) when determining whether there are outstanding delinquent debts. The RLD is available at
133. Additionally, an Auction 903 applicant may incur debt to the Commission after it files its short-form application and may fail to pay that debt when due. An applicant should note that the Commission will conduct additional red light checks prior to authorizing Phase II auction support. Qualified bidders are encouraged to continue to review their own records as well as the RLD periodically during the auction and to resolve and pay all outstanding debts to the Commission as soon as possible. The Commission will not authorize any winning bidder to receive Phase II auction support until its red light issues have been resolved.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138. An applicant will also be allowed to modify its FCC Form 183 in the Auction Application System, except for certain fields, during the resubmission filing window and after the release of the public notice announcing the Auction 903 qualified bidders. During these times, if an applicant needs to make permissible minor changes to its FCC Form 183, or must make changes in order to maintain the accuracy and completeness of its application pursuant to § 1.65, it must make the change(s) in the Auction Application System and then re-certify and re-submit its application to confirm and effect the change(s).
139. An applicant's ability to modify its FCC Form 183 in the Auction Application System will be limited between the closing of the initial filing window and the opening of the application resubmission filing window and between the closing of the resubmission filing window and the release of the public notice announcing the Auction 903 qualified bidders. During these periods, an applicant will be able to view its submitted application, but will be permitted to modify only the applicant's address, responsible party address, and contact information (
140. Applicants should also note that even at times when the Auction Application System is open and available to applicants, the system will not allow an applicant to make certain other permissible changes itself (
141. As with filing FCC Form 183, any amendment(s) to the application and related statements of fact must be certified by an authorized representative of the applicant with authority to bind the applicant. Applicants should note that submission of any such amendment or related statement of fact constitutes a representation by the person certifying that he or she is an authorized representative with such authority and that the contents of the amendment or statement of fact are true and correct.
142. Applicants must not submit application-specific material through the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System. Further, as discussed above, parties submitting information
143. Questions about FCC Form 183 amendments should be directed to the Auctions and Spectrum Access Division at (202) 418-0660.
144.
145. The Commission will provide various materials on the pre-auction process in advance of the opening of the short-form application window, beginning with the release of step-by-step instructions for completing Form 183. In addition, the Commission will provide an online application procedures tutorial covering information on pre-auction preparation, completing short-form applications, the application review process, and Phase II rules. Moreover, the Commission will conduct a workshop or webinar on the pre-auction application process, with an opportunity for participants to ask questions.
146. The Commission will provide separate educational materials on the bidding process in advance of the start of the mock auction, beginning with release of a user guide for the bidding system, followed by an online bidding procedures tutorial. The Commission will also conduct a workshop or webinar on the bidding process with an opportunity for participants to ask questions.
147. Based on the Commission's experience with past auctions, parties interested in participating in this auction will find these educational opportunities an efficient and effective way to further their understanding of the application and bidding processes. The Auction 903 online tutorials will allow viewers to navigate the presentation outline, review written notes, listen to audio of the notes, and search for topics using a text search function. Additional features of this web-based tool include links to auction-specific Commission releases, email links for contacting Commission staff, and a timeline with deadlines for auction preparation. The online tutorials will be accessible on the “Education” tab of the Phase II auction website at
148. Finally, the Commission's Office of Communications Business Opportunities will engage with small providers interested in the auction process.
149.
150. Applications may be filed at any time beginning at noon ET on March 19, 2018, until the filing window closes at 6:00 p.m. ET on March 30, 2018. Applicants are strongly encouraged to file early and are responsible for allowing adequate time for filing their applications. There are no limits or restrictions on the number of times an application can be updated or amended until the filing deadline on March 30, 2018.
151. An applicant must always click on the CERTIFY & SUBMIT button on the “Certify & Submit” screen to successfully submit its FCC Form 183 and any modifications; otherwise, the application or changes to the application will not be received or reviewed by Commission staff. Additional information about accessing, completing, and viewing the FCC Form 183 will be provided in a separate public notice. Applicants requiring technical assistance should contact FCC Auctions Technical Support at (877) 480-3201, option nine; (202) 414-1250; or (202) 414-1255 (text telephone (TTY)); hours of service are Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. ET. In order to provide better service to the public, all calls to Technical Support are recorded.
152.
153. After the initial application filing deadline on March 30, 2018, applicants can make only minor modifications to their applications. Major modifications (
154. Commission staff will communicate only with an applicant's contact person or certifying official, as designated on the applicant's FCC Form 183, unless the applicant's certifying official or contact person notifies Commission staff in writing that another representative is authorized to speak on the applicant's behalf. Authorizations may be sent by email to
155.
156.
157. Qualified bidders that do not receive this registration mailing will not be able to submit bids. Therefore, any qualified bidder that has not received this mailing by noon on July 9, 2018, should call the Auctions Hotline at (717) 338-2868. Receipt of this registration mailing is critical to participating in the auction, and each applicant is responsible for ensuring it has received all the registration materials.
158. In the event that SecurID® tokens are lost or damaged, only a person who has been designated as an authorized bidder, the contact person, or the certifying official on the applicant's short-form application may request replacements. To request replacement of these items, call the Auction Bidder Line at the telephone number provided in the registration materials or the Auction Hotline at (717) 338-2868.
159.
160. The Commission makes no warranties whatsoever, and shall not be deemed to have made any warranties, with respect to the CAF II Bidding System, including any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall the Commission, or any of its officers, employees, or agents, be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, but not limited to, loss of business profits, business interruption, loss of use, revenue, or business information, or any other direct, indirect, or consequential damages) arising out of or relating to the existence, furnishing, functioning, or use of the CAF II Bidding System. Moreover, no obligation or liability will arise out of the Commission's technical, programming, or other advice or service provided in connection with the CAF II Bidding System.
161. To the extent an issue arises with the CAF II Bidding System itself, the Bureaus will take all appropriate measures to resolve such issues quickly and equitably. Should an issue arise that is outside the CAF II Bidding System or attributable to a bidder, including, but not limited to, a bidder's hardware, software, or internet access problem that prevents the bidder from submitting a bid prior to the end of a round, the Commission shall have no obligation to resolve or remediate such an issue on behalf of the bidder. Similarly, if an issue arises due to bidder error using the CAF II Bidding System, the Commission shall have no obligation to resolve or remediate such an issue on behalf of the bidder. Accordingly, after the close of a bidding round, the results of bid processing will not be altered absent evidence of any failure in the CAF II Bidding System.
162.
163.
164. At a very high level, bidding in Auction 903 works as follows: In each round of the auction, a bidder will be asked whether it is willing to provide service to an area, at a performance tier and latency it indicates, in exchange for a support amount that is at least as high as an amount announced by the bidding system. In each subsequent round, the announced support amount will be less than the amount from the previous round. To the extent that the bidder is willing to accept the announced amount, it will so indicate by submitting a “bid” on a spreadsheet indicating the area, the tier and latency, and the current amount that it accepts. If the current round's announced support amount becomes too low for the bidder, the bidder can simply stop bidding for the area or alternatively, can enter a bid that indicates the lowest amount it will accept (an amount higher than the round's announced amount and lower than the last round's announced amount) in exchange for providing the service.
165. As set forth in the sections below, the announced support amount that the bidder responds to in a round depends on a percentage—applicable to bidding for all areas—as well as the reserve price for the specific area and the level of service that the bidder proposes to provide if it is assigned support for the area. These factors are linked through a formula. However, the bidding template—the spreadsheet—will show the support amount for a bid as well as the various factors determining that support amount in a given bidding round. Therefore, to bid effectively, a bidder need only determine the lowest amount of support it will accept in exchange for providing service to an area and bid for support that is at least that amount.
166. The Commission is mindful of the need to make the bidding process as simple as possible, while ensuring an orderly, fair, and transparent auction. The Commission will provide ample bidder education prior to the auction to help ensure that all potential auction participants are confident of the bidding procedures the Commission adopts.
167.
168.
169.
170. The Bureaus will conduct the Phase II auction over the internet, and bidders will upload bids in a specified file format for processing by the bidding system. Before each bidding round, the bidding system will announce a new base clock percentage, which will set a lower limit on the range of percentages for which bids will be accepted during that round. The percentage specified in a bid implies an annual support amount for the area, based on the specified performance tier and latency combination.
171. The opening base clock percentage implies a support amount that is equal to the full reserve price, and the base clock percentage then descends from one round to the next. In a round, a bidder can submit a bid for a given area at any percentage that is greater than or equal to the round's base clock percentage and less than the previous round's base clock percentage. As of the close of a round, each bid represents an irrevocable offer to meet the terms of the bid if it becomes a winning bid. That is, a bid indicates that the bidder is willing to provide service to the locations in the area in accordance with its specified performance tier and latency requirements in exchange for support. The support amount will be no less than the support amount implied by the bid percentage.
172. The base clock percentage will continue to descend in a series of bidding rounds, implying decreasing support amounts, until the aggregate amount of support represented by the bids placed in a round at the base clock percentage is no greater than the budget. At that point, when the budget “clears,” the bidding system will assign support to bidders in areas where there are no competing bids. Bidding will continue, however, for areas where there are competing bids, and the clock will continue to descend in subsequent rounds. When there is no longer competition for any area, the auction will end. A winning bidder may receive support in amounts at least as high, because of the second-price rule, as the support amounts corresponding to the percentages of their winning bids.
173. The bidding procedures implement the Commission's prior decisions on bidding in the Phase II auction in a straightforward and simple way. Accordingly, to compete effectively in the auction, a potential bidder need only determine the percentage corresponding to the lowest amount of support it will accept to serve a given area using its chosen technology and bid in the auction down to that percentage. The Commission sets forth the rules governing how the auction system collects bids and determines winning bids and support amounts. The Commission addresses these in detail so that potential participants can understand exactly how the auction works. Among the bidding rules the Commission addresses are procedures for two optional variations on the basic bid submission approach, namely, procedures for instructing the system to submit proxy bids on behalf of the bidder and procedures for a type of package bidding. The Commission includes these options because the Commission finds that they will simplify the bidding process for those bidders that choose to use them, without unfairly disadvantaging bidders that do not choose to use them.
174.
175. Finally, for administrative simplicity, the Commission rounds the calculated reserve prices for each CBG (based on the sum of the reserve prices for each eligible census block in the CBG) to the nearest dollar. For example, if the calculated annual reserve price for a CBG is $15,000.49, the reserve price will be rounded down to $15,000 for the auction; and if a reserve price is $15,000.50, the reserve price will be rounded up to $15,001. Thus, any CBG with a calculated annual reserve price of less than $0.50 is ineligible for the Phase II auction.
176.
177.
178. A bid submitted at the base clock percentage indicates that the bidder is
179.
180.
181.
182. The base clock percentage in each round will imply, for each performance tier and latency (T+L) combination, a total amount of annual support in dollars for each area available for bidding. The annual support amount implied at the base clock percentage will be the smaller of the reserve price and the annual support amount obtained by using a formula that incorporates the performance tier and latency weights. Specifically:
183. Minimum performance tier bids will have a 65 weight; Baseline performance tier bids will have a 45 weight; Above Baseline performance tier bids will have a 15 weight; and Gigabit performance tier bids will have zero weight. Moreover, high latency bids will have a 25 weight and low latency bids will have zero weight added to their respective performance tier weight. The lowest possible weight for a performance tier and latency combination is 0, and the highest possible weight is 90. Each weight uniquely defines a performance tier and latency (T+L) combination, as shown in the table below.
184. As the formula indicates, the implied support amount for an area cannot exceed an area's reserve price. As long as the base clock percentage remains at or above 100 plus the weight for the tier and latency combination of the bid (100+T+L), the implied annual support for a bid will be equal to the area's reserve price. Therefore, in some rounds when the base clock percentage is above 100, there may be a bid for a given area at a tier and latency combination with implied annual support equal to the reserve price, and another bid for the same area at a higher weighted performance tier and latency combination, with implied support below the area's reserve price. However, once the base clock percentage is decremented below 100, the implied annual support for all area, performance tier, and latency combinations will be below each area's respective reserve price.
185. The formula above (the “implied support formula”) can be used to determine the implied support at any price point percentage by substituting a given percentage for the base clock percentage.
186. The clock auction format with a base clock percentage and weights for performance tier and latency combinations implements the Commission's prior decisions and provides a simple way to compare bids of multiple types.
187.
188.
189. The restriction on overlapping bids by a single bidder will simplify bid strategies for bidders and eliminate the need for the bidding system to use mathematical optimization to consider multiple ways to assign winning bids to a bidder, thus simplifying bid processing. Accordingly, the bidding system will not accept multiple bids by a bidder in a round that include the same area.
190. The Commission prohibits commonly controlled applicants or applicants subject to joint bidding arrangements from selecting any of the same states on their applications. This prohibition will ensure that such entities jointly will not be able to submit overlapping bids for the same geographic areas. These application procedures, together with the requirement that a single bidder place only a single bid on a given area in a round, will reduce the potential for undesirable strategic bidding during the auction.
191.
192.
193. By providing bidders the option to bid at intermediate price points, the Commission can shorten the bidding process by using larger decrements to the base clock percentage without running the risk that a large drop in aggregate implied support from one round to the next will leave a significant amount of the budget unspent. The option to bid at intermediate price point percentages will also allow a bidder to indicate more precisely the minimum amount of support it will accept for an area, and it reduces the likelihood of ties.
194. A bid must specify a percentage that implies a support amount that is one percent or more of an area's reserve price to be acceptable. In other words, the bidding system will only accept a bid for a price point percentage that is at least T+L+1. One percent represents a sufficiently small fraction of the model-derived reserve price to serve as a minimum acceptable bid for bidders with legitimate support needs.
195.
196. Under these procedures, a bidder will specify a package bid by specifying the CBGs in the bid, a performance tier and latency combination for each CBG, a single price point percentage for the bid, and a minimum scale percentage no higher than 75 percent that indicates the bidder's lowest acceptable partial assignment of the package.
197. Every CBG in a package bid must be in the same state, but there is no limit to the total amount of implied support that may be included in a single package. Different CBGs in the bid may have different performance tier and latency combinations. For a given round, a CBG can appear in at most one bid—either a single bid or a package bid—submitted by the bidder.
198. The use of package bidding is optional: A bidder that is not interested in package bidding can bid for support in individual areas just as though there were no package bidding provisions. The bidding experience for a bidder that chooses not to use package bidding will be no more complicated than if package bidding were not an option. Additionally, the package bidding procedures include measures that minimize complexity. Because all bidders will be limited to placing only one bid on a CBG in a round, and because the implied support amount of a package bid is simply the sum of the implied support amounts of the CBGs in the package—that is, the bidding system does not have any inherent bias toward assigning packages—the option of package bidding does not increase the number of options a bidder has to consider. Bid options regarding packages are also simplified by a constraint on the composition of packages after the clearing round: Once a bidder bids for a package, it can only bid on the same package or smaller subsets of the package in subsequent rounds.
199. To help all bidders—both large and small—understand the bidding procedures related to package bidding, the Bureaus will provide further educational opportunities and materials well in advance of the auction. This should help bidders determine how best to place their bids and whether to make use of package bidding.
200.
201. Specifically, when a bidder places a bid, the bidder may specify a price point percentage that is below the base clock percentage for the round in which the bid is placed. Doing so results in both a bid at the current round's base clock percentage and proxy instructions for bids at lower percentages in subsequent rounds. The bidding system will generate a bid in any subsequent bidding round in which the percentage specified in the proxy instruction (the “proxy bid percentage”) is equal to or below the base clock percentage for the round. If the proxy bid percentage is greater than the base clock percentage of a round but lower than the prior round's base clock percentage, then the bidding system will generate a bid at the proxy bid percentage. If the proxy instruction is not subsequently updated, this will be the last round in which the proxy instruction will automatically place a bid.
202. Bids generated according to proxy instructions will be processed in the same way as any other bids placed in the auction. Proxy instructions may be used for bids for individual areas and for package bids. Proxy instructions will carry forward in rounds after the clearing round for areas that have not been assigned, as long as the proxy bid percentage is still valid. A bidder may override a bid generated according to proxy instruction, cancel, or enter new
203. Bidders are responsible for actively monitoring the status of their bids, including any proxy instructions as well as the overall progress of the auction, using the reports and files available in the bidding system. Providing bidding-related information only through the bidding system assures that non-public information is available only to individuals that are authorized bidders for entities that have been found qualified to bid through the Commission's pre-auction processes. This is consistent with the Commission's anonymous bidding procedures, protects against possible misuse of bidding information, and promotes auction integrity.
204. Proxy bidding instructions will be treated as confidential information and will not be disclosed to the public at any time after the auction concludes because they may reveal private cost information that would not otherwise be made public (
205.
206. The Commission adopts a switching percentage of 20 percent for the second bidding round of the auction only. Therefore, a bidder's activity in the second round of the auction for areas on which it did not bid at the first round's base clock percentage may not exceed 20 percent of its total implied support from bids at the first round's base clock percentage. This change in the switching percentage for the second round gives bidders greater flexibility to shift their bidding as information is revealed about the extent of competition for various areas. In this regard, the ability to switch bidding areas will be most useful in the second round because the greatest amount of new information about bidding across CBGs will be made available after the first round of bidding.
207. The Commission limits the higher switching percentage to the second round, however, to encourage an orderly bidding process that generates reliable information about aggregate cost and competition across areas. Accordingly, for the third and subsequent rounds up until the budget has cleared, the switching percentage will be 10 percent. No switching of areas is permitted after the clearing round, since bidding in any additional round is limited to areas with bids at the previous base clock percentage that have not been assigned.
208.
209. If, instead, the system determines that the total requested support from bids at the base clock percentage has fallen to an amount within the budget, the just-concluded round will be deemed the clearing round, and the bidding system will begin the process of assigning winning bids and determining support amounts using a second price rule. If, in the clearing round, there are multiple bids for any area at the base clock percentage, the bidding system will commence another round of bidding to resolve the competition for support in those areas only.
210. After the clearing round, bidding rounds will continue for these areas at lower base clock percentages until, for each of the contested areas, there is a single lowest bid. The winning bidder for an area will then generally be assigned support at the price point percentage of the second lowest bid.
211. As a result of these bid processing procedures, the bids that can be assigned under the budget in the clearing round and in any later rounds will determine the areas that will be provided support under Phase II. At most, one bid per area will be assigned support. The specifications of that bid, in turn, determine the performance tier and latency combination at which service will be provided to the locations in the eligible census blocks in the area.
212. The bid processing procedures fall into three categories: Before, during, and after the round in which the budget clears. Additional details and examples of bid processing will be provided in the technical guide released by the Bureaus.
213.
214.
215.
216. Until the clearing round, the auction is generally driven by cross-area competition for the budget, and implied support amounts for all areas are reduced in proportion to the reduction in the base clock. In estimating cost, the system does not determine which of the multiple bids competing for support in
217.
218. The system then considers all other bids submitted in the round in ascending order of price point percentage to see if additional bids can be assigned and, considering the bids assigned so far, to determine the highest price point percentage at which the total support cost of the assigned bids does not exceed the budget (the “clearing price point”). Recall that a bid may be placed at any price point percentage equal to or greater than the current base clock percentage and less than the previous round's base clock percentage. Bids at price point percentages above the clearing price point are not assigned.
219. As it considers bids in ascending price point percentage order, the system assigns a bid if no other bid for the same area has already been assigned, as long as the area did not receive any bid at the base clock percentage and the areas to be assigned in a package bid meet the bid's minimum scale percentage. Ties are broken by using the highest pseudo-random number. The bidding system also checks to ensure that sufficient budget is available to assign the bid. If the bidding system encounters a bid that cannot be supported within the remaining budget, it will skip that bid and continue to consider other bids in ascending price point percentage order.
220. To determine whether there is sufficient budget to support a bid as it is considered for assignment, the bidding system keeps a running sum of support costs.
221. At each ascending price point increment, starting at the base clock percentage, the running cost calculation is the sum of support for three types of bids. First, for assigned bids for which there were no other bids for support for their respective areas at price points lower than the currently considered price point percentage, the system calculates the cost of providing support as the amount of support implied by the currently considered price point. Second, for assigned bids for areas that did receive other bids at price points lower than the currently considered price point, support is generally calculated as the amount implied by the next-higher price point at which the area received a bid (where next-higher is relative to the price point of the assigned bid, not the currently considered price point). The only exception to this arises if there is a bid for the area with a bid percentage below the bid percentage of the assigned bid for the area and the former bid cannot be assigned because it is a package bid that does not meet the minimum scale percentage. In that case, the support is calculated as the amount implied by the bid percentage of the assigned bid. Third, areas bid at the base clock percentage that were not assigned in the round are evaluated as they are in the pre-clearing aggregate cost calculation: only one bid per area is included in the calculation, and if there are bids for an area at different performance tier and latency combinations, the calculation uses the bid with the highest implied support amount, all evaluated at the base clock percentage.
222. The bidding system continues to assign bids meeting the assignment criteria in ascending price point order as long as the cost calculation does not exceed the budget. The highest price point at which the running total cost will not exceed the budget is identified as the clearing price point.
223.
224. Bids assigned in the clearing round, when there is also a bid for the area at a price point below the clearing price point, are generally supported at an amount determined by the bid percentage of the lowest unassigned bid for the area. Exceptions are that if the bid percentage of the lowest unassigned bid for the area is less than (
225.
226. Bids at the base clock percentage for unassigned areas will carry over automatically to the next bidding round at the previous round's base clock percentage, since the bidder had previously placed a bid at that percentage. In the round into which the bids are carried forward, a bidder with a carried-forward bid for an area may also bid for support for these areas at the current round's base clock percentage or at intermediate price points. In rounds after the clearing round, a bidder cannot switch to bidding for an area for which it did not bid in the previous round.
227. Although a bid for an unassigned package will carry over at the previous clock percentage, the bidder for such a package may group the bids for the areas in the package into smaller packages and bid on those smaller packages at current round percentages. However, the unassigned remainders of assigned package bids—that is, the areas for which there are competing bids—will carry over as individual area bids. Any bids the bidder places for the remainder areas at the new round percentages must be submitted as individual area bids—that is, the bidder cannot create a new package of any of the unassigned remainders.
228. If a proxy instruction is at a price point percentage below the base clock percentage of the previous round, it will continue to apply in rounds after the clearing round under the same conditions that apply to other bids. For package bids made by proxy that are only partially assigned because there are multiple bids at the base clock percentage, the proxy instructions will
229.
230. If there is only one bid for an area in a round in addition to a carried-forward bid or bids, the assigned bid is paid at the base clock percentage for the previous round, consistent with the second-price rule. If an assigned bid is for an area that received more than one bid in the round, the assigned bid is supported at the next higher price point percentage at which there is a bid for the area. The only exception to this arises when there is a bid for the area with a bid percentage below the bid percentage of the winning bid for the area and the former bid cannot be assigned because it is a package bid that does not meet the minimum scale percentage. In that case, the support is calculated as the amount implied by the bid percentage of the winning bid.
231. If there is more than one bid for an area at the current base clock percentage, there will be another bidding round at a lower base clock percentage, with the same restrictions on bids and following the same assignment and pricing procedures. If all bidders for an area with carried forward bids decline to submit lower bids in a subsequent round, the bid with the highest pseudo-random number will be considered first for assignment according to the Commission's tie breaking procedures.
232.
• The base clock percentage for the upcoming round.
• The aggregate cost at the previous round's base clock percentage up until the budget clears.
○ The aggregate cost at the base clock percentage is not disclosed for the clearing round or any later round.
• The bidder's activity, based on all bids in the previous round, and activity based on bids at the base clock percentage.
○ In rounds after the clearing round, the bidder's assigned support and the implied support of its carried-forward bids will be available.
• Summary statistics of the bidder's bidding in the previous round, including:
○ The number of CBGs for which it bid, at the base clock percentage and at other price points, and for which proxy instructions are in effect for future rounds.
○ After the clearing round, CBGs and support amounts it has been assigned and those for which it is still bidding, including a list of its carried-forward bids.
○ A bidder will also have access to a downloadable file with all its bids submitted for each round.
• For all eligible areas in all states, including those in which the bidder was not qualified to bid or is not bidding, whether the number of bidders that placed bids at the previous round's base clock percentage was 0, 1, or 2 or more.
○ The performance tier and latency combinations of the bids are not disclosed.
○ For the clearing round and any subsequent round, bidders are also informed about which areas have been assigned.
233. Prior to each round, the Commission will also make available to individual bidders the implied support amounts, corresponding to the areas and performance tier and latency combinations for which they are eligible to bid. These implied support amounts are calculated at the round's base clock percentage.
234. The Commission balances its interest in providing bidders with sufficient information about the status of their own bids and bidding across all eligible areas to allow them to bid confidently and effectively, while restricting the availability of information that may facilitate identification of bidders placing particular bids, which could potentially lead to undesirable strategic bidding.
235. The Commission will withhold information on the progress of the auction from the general public until after the close of bidding when auction results are announced. Accordingly, during the auction, the public will not have access to such interim information as the current round, base clock percentage, aggregate cost, or any summary statistics on bidding or assigned bids that may reveal or suggest the identities of bidders associated with any specific bids. Although auction participants will have access to information that is needed to inform their bidding, such information will be made publicly available only after the close of the auction in order to help preserve the integrity of the auction while it is in progress.
236. After the close of bidding and announcement of auction results, the Commission will make publicly available all bidding data, except for proxy bidding instructions. This promotes the Commission's interest in a transparent auction process and is consistent with the Commission's typical practice post-auction.
237.
238.
239.
240.
241.
242.
243.
244. In addition, a long-form applicant must certify that it is aware that if it is not authorized to receive support based on its application, the application may be dismissed without further consideration and penalties may apply.
245.
246.
247.
248.
249.
250.
251. Below, the Commission provides guidance on how a long-form applicant can successfully meet the requirement in § 54.315(b)(2)(iv) to provide a description of its technology and system design. Specifically, the Commission describes the types of information it would expect a long-form applicant to include, at a minimum, in a detailed description of its technology and system design in order to demonstrate that it has the technical qualifications to meet its Phase II obligations. The Commission recognizes that because a Phase II support recipient has six years to fully build out its network, the information submitted by the long-form applicant may be based on a preliminary network design that may be modified as the network is built out. The Commission's guidance is informed by the types of information that long-form applicants submitted for rural broadband experiment support during the long-form application stage to demonstrate that they had the technical qualifications to meet the relevant rural broadband experiment public interest obligations. These are also the types of information that the Commission expects a technically qualified long-form applicant will have made preliminary decisions about in order to determine how much support it would need to meet the relevant Phase II auction public interest obligations and also to begin planning how it will meet the required service milestones.
252. A long-form applicant, regardless of the technology (or technologies) it proposes to use, is expected to:
• Describe the proposed last mile architecture(s) and technologies (such architectures and technologies include, for example, wireless licensed or unlicensed, fiber, coaxial cable, satellite, digital subscriber line, hybrids, etc.), middle mile/backhaul topology (
• Describe the network's scalability and features that improve reliability (such as redundancy).
• Indicate whether parts of the network will use the long-form applicant's or another party's existing network facilities, including non-wireless facilities extending from the network to customers' locations. For non-wireless facilities that do not yet exist, the description should indicate whether the new facilities will be aerial, buried, or underground.
• Provide technical information about the methods, “rules of thumb,” and engineering assumptions used to size the capacity of the network's nodes (or gateways) and links. The information provided should demonstrate how the required performance for the relevant performance tier will be achieved during periods of peak usage, assuming a 70 percent subscription rate by the final service milestone.
• Provide a project plan that includes a network build-out schedule that includes but is not restricted to plans for construction of last mile and middle mile facilities. The build-out schedule should show the long-form applicant's projected milestones on an annual basis, including achievement of the interim service milestones described in § 54.310(c) of the Commission's rules and completion of the network by the end of the sixth year of funding authorization. The project plan and included schedule should incorporate detailed information showing how the long-form applicant plans to offer, to at least 95 percent of the required number of locations in each relevant state, voice and broadband service meeting the relevant performance requirements when the system is complete. The project plan and included schedule should also incorporate the long-form applicant's plans for monitoring and maintaining the performance of the service for the duration of the 10-year support term.
253. The network diagram, which must be certified by a professional engineer, should:
• Identify all wireline and wireless segments of the proposed networks.
• Uniquely identify (i) major network nodes including their manufacturer and model, as well as their functions, locations, and throughput/capacity; (ii) access nodes or gateways, including their technology, manufacturer and model, location, and throughput/capacity; and (iii) major inter-nodal links (not last mile), and their throughput/capacity.
• Indicate how many locations will be offered service from each access node or from each gateway, and which performance tier or tiers will be supported at each access node.
• Indicate what parts of the network will be new deployment and what parts will use the long-form applicant's or another party's existing network facilities.
• Identify specialized nodes used in providing voice service.
• Explain how nodes or gateways are connected to the internet backbone and Public Switched Telephone Network.
254. Additionally, a long-form applicant that proposes to use terrestrial fixed wireless technologies should:
• Explain, with technical detail, how the proposed spectrum can meet or exceed the relevant performance requirements at peak usage periods.
• Provide the calculations used, for each performance tier and frequency band, to design the last mile link budgets in both the upload and download directions at the cell edge, using the technical specifications of the expected base station and customer premise equipment.
• Provide coverage maps for the planned and/or existing networks that will be used to meet the Phase II public interest obligations, indicating where the upload and download speeds will meet or exceed the relevant performance tier speed(s). The coverage maps should be provided for each interim and final service milestone and should display the required service areas and target locations (or a representation thereof).
• Describe the underlying propagation model used to prepare the coverage maps and how the model incorporates the operating spectrum, antenna heights, distances, digital elevation, and clutter resolutions.
• Describe, for each relevant performance tier and latency combination, the base station equipment that the long-form applicant plans to use.
• Describe the planned customer premise equipment configuration.
255. Additionally, a long-form applicant that proposes to use primarily satellite technologies should:
• Describe how many satellites that are in view simultaneously from any specific location will be required to meet the relevant Phase II public interest obligations.
• Describe how many uplink and downlink gateway antenna beams will be required on each satellite, and the capacity of each beam in megabits per second.
• Describe how many uplink and downlink user antenna beams will be required on each satellite, and the capacity of each beam in megabits per second.
• Describe how the gateway capacity is connected to user beams on the satellite, in terms of beams and data capacity per beam.
• Describe whether the capacity on the uplink and downlink beams would be able to be reallocated once a satellite commences operation, if the subscription rate is less than 70 percent in one beam but more than 70 percent in another beam.
256.
257.
258. A long-form applicant must also certify that the description of the spectrum access is accurate and that it will retain such access for at least 10 years after the date on which it is authorized to receive support. Applications will be reviewed to assess the reasonableness of the certification.
259.
260.
261.
262.
263. In addition, a long-form applicant will be required to provide with the letter of credit an opinion letter from legal counsel clearly stating, subject only to customary assumptions, limitations, and qualifications, that, in a proceeding under the Bankruptcy Code, the bankruptcy court would not treat the letter of credit or proceeds of the letter of credit as property of the long-form applicant's bankruptcy estate, or the bankruptcy estate of any other bidder-related entity requesting issuance of the letter of credit, under section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code.
264.
265. In the event of an auction default, the Commission will impose a base forfeiture per violation of $3,000 subject to adjustment upward or downward based on the criteria set forth in the Commissions forfeiture guidelines, as adopted in the Phase II Auction Order. A violation is defined as any form of default with respect to the minimum geographic unit eligible for bidding. In other words, there shall be separate violations for each CBG assigned in a bid. To ensure that the amount of the base forfeiture is not disproportionate to the amount of a winning bidder's bid, the total base forfeiture is limited to five percent of the bidder's total assigned support for the bid for the support term.
266.
Responses to these questions and any supporting documentation will be withheld from public disclosure.
Answer on a nationwide basis:
Has the applicant previously deployed consumer broadband networks (Yes/No)? If so, identify the date range for when broadband service was offered and in which state(s) service was offered. What specific last mile and interconnection (backhaul) technologies were used? Provide an estimate of how many subscribers are currently served. (If the applicant is no longer providing service in any state, estimate the number of customers that were served at the beginning of the last full year that the applicant did provide service.) What services (
Answer for each state the applicant selected in its application:
1. Which network architectures and technologies will be used in the applicant's proposed deployment? How will voice services be provided? How will broadband internet access service be provided?
2. What are the relevant industry standards, if any, for the last-mile technologies in the applicant's proposed deployment? If the applicant is proposing to use non-standard technologies, the applicant should identify which vendor(s) and product(s) are being considered, and provide links to the vendors' websites and to publicly available technical specifications of the product(s). (If technical specifications for the non-standard technologies are not available on a vendor's website, they may be submitted with this application.) Regardless of whether the applicant proposes to use standard or non-standard technologies—what capabilities of this technology and proposed network will enable performance tier (speed and usage allowance), latency and (where applicable) voice service mean opinion score (MOS) requirements to be met?
3. Can the applicant demonstrate that the technology and the engineering design will fully support the proposed performance tier, latency and voice service requirements for the requisite number of locations during peak periods (Yes/No)? What assumptions about subscription rate and peak period data usage is the applicant making in this assertion? Describe concisely the information that can be made available to support this assertion.
4. Can the applicant demonstrate that all the network buildout requirements to achieve all service milestones can be met (Yes/No)? The applicant will be required to submit a detailed project plan in the long-form application if it is named as a winning bidder. Describe concisely the information that the applicant would make available in such a detailed project plan.
5. For the proposed performance tier and latency combination, can the applicant demonstrate that potential vendors, integrators and other partners are able to provide commercially available and fully compatible network equipment/systems, interconnection, last mile technology and customer premise equipment (CPE) at cost consistent with applicant's buildout budget and in time to meet service milestones (Yes/No)? Describe concisely the information and sources of such information that the applicant could make available to support this response.
6. Can the applicant describe how the network will be maintained and services provisioned (Yes/No)? Can the applicant demonstrate that it can provide internally developed operations systems for provisioning and maintaining the
7. If the applicant is using satellite technologies, describe concisely the total satellite capacity available and possible methods the applicant will utilize to assign bandwidth and capacity for each spot beam.
267.
268.
269.
270. Following the release of the Phase II FNPRMs and Phase II Orders, the Commission released the
271. The document establishes procedures for awarding Phase II support in Auction 903 through a multi-round, reverse auction, the minimum geographic area for bidding in the auction, aggregating eligible areas into larger geographic units for bidding, setting reserve prices, capping the amount of support per location provided to extremely high-cost census blocks, and the availability of application and auction information to bidders and to the public during and after the auction. The document also establishes detailed bidding procedures for conducting Auction 903 using a descending clock auction format, including bid collection, clock prices, bid format, package bidding format, proxy bidding, bidder activity rules, bid processing, and how support amounts are determined.
272. To implement the rules adopted by the Commission in the Phase II Orders for the pre-auction process, the document establishes specific procedures and requirements for applying to participate and becoming qualified to bid in Auction 903, including designating the state(s) and performance tier/latency combinations in which an applicant intends to bid, and providing operational and financial information designed to allow the Commission to assess the applicant's qualifications to meet the Phase II public interest obligations for each area for which it seeks support. The document also sets forth information that a winning bidder will be required to submit in its post-auction long-form application in order to become authorized to receive Phase II support.
273. Accordingly, the procedures established in the document are consistent with the Phase II Orders and the prior regulatory flexibility analyses set forth in this proceeding, and no changes to the Commission's earlier analyses are required.
274.
275.
276. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the auction procedures proposed in this proceeding.
277.
278. As noted above, FRFAs were incorporated into the Phase II Orders. In those analyses, the Commission described in detail the small entities that might be significantly affected. In the document, the Commission hereby incorporates by reference the descriptions and estimates of the number of small entities from the previous FRFAs in the Phase II Orders.
279.
280.
281. The analysis of the Commission's efforts to minimize the possible significant economic impact on small entities as described in the previous Phase II Orders FRFAs are hereby incorporated by reference. In addition, in establishing the bidding and application procedures for Auction 903, the Commission anticipates the challenges faced by small entities. Specifically, the bidding procedures established in the document are designed to facilitate the participation of qualified service providers of all kinds, including small entities, in the Phase II program, and to give all bidders, including small entities, the flexibility to place bids that align with their intended network construction or expansion, regardless of the size of their current network footprints. For example, the Commission will use CBGs containing one or more eligible census blocks as the minimum geographic area for bidding in the auction in order to provide bidders, including small providers, with flexibility to target their intended areas of network expansion or construction without significantly complicating the bidding process. To help ensure that all bidders—both large and small—understand the bidding procedures, including those related to package bidding, the Bureaus will
282. Furthermore, the pre-auction application procedures set forth in the document are intended to require applicants to submit enough information to permit the Commission to determine their qualifications to participate in Auction 903, without requiring so much information that it is cost-prohibitive for any entity, including small entities, to participate. For example, the Commission adopts a modified version of the proposal in the
283. Finally, recognizing that some entities may be new to Commission auctions, the Commission announces the types of materials and other information the Commission will make available to help educate parties that have not previously applied to participate or bid in a Commission auction. Specifically, the Bureaus will compile and release a guide that provides further technical and mathematical detail regarding the bidding, assignment, and support amount determination procedures. Two online tutorials will be available to serve as references for potential applicants and bidders, and two workshops/webinars will be held. Additionally, a mock auction will be conducted that will enable all qualified bidders, including small entities, to become familiar with the CAF II Bidding System and to practice submitting bids prior to the auction. By providing these resources, the Commission seeks to minimize any economic impact on small entities and help all entities—both large and small—fully understand the bidding and application procedures. The Bureaus also plan to work with the Commission's Office of Communications Business Opportunities to engage with small providers.
284.
| 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 |