Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Economic Development Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Land Management Bureau
Federal Aviation 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; delay of effective date.
On January 19, 2017, we published a final rule amending the select agent and toxin regulations in several ways, including the addition of provisions to address the inactivation of select agents, provisions addressing biocontainment and biosafety, and clarification of regulatory language concerning security, training, incident response, and records. In this document, we are delaying the effective date of that final rule.
The effective date of the final rule published on January 19, 2017 (82 FR 6197), is delayed until March 21, 2017.
Mr. Stephen O'Neill, Chief, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1234; (301) 851–3175.
On January 19, 2017, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published a final rule (82 FR 6197–6210) to amend the select agent and toxin regulations in several ways, including the addition of provisions to address the inactivation of select agents, provisions addressing biocontainment and biosafety, and clarification of regulatory language concerning security, training, incident response, and records. In this document, we are delaying the effective date until March 21, 2017, in accordance with guidance issued January 20, 2017, intended to provide the new Administration an adequate opportunity to review new and pending regulations.
To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment for good cause and the reasons cited above. APHIS finds that notice and solicitation of comment regarding the brief extension of the effective date for the final regulation are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). APHIS also believes that affected entities need to be informed as soon as possible of the extension and its length in order to plan and adjust their implementation process accordingly.
7 U.S.C. 8401; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005–13–30, for all The Boeing Company Model 737–100, –200, and –200C series airplanes. AD 2005–13–30 required repetitive inspections to detect discrepancies of certain fuselage skin panels located just aft of the wheel well, and repair if necessary. This new AD adds new fuselage skin inspections for cracking, inspections to detect missing or loose fasteners and any disbonding or cracking of bonded doublers, permanent repairs of time-limited repairs, related investigative and corrective actions if necessary, and skin panel replacement. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the fuselage skin is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD), and reports of cracks at the chem-milled steps in the fuselage skin. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 23, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 23, 2017.
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 90740–5600; telephone 562–797–1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Jennifer Tsakoumakis, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; phone: 562–627–5264; fax: 562–627–5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2005–13–30, Amendment 39–14167 (70 FR 36829, June 27, 2005) (“AD 2005–13–30”). AD 2005–13–30 applied to all Boeing Model 737–100, –200, and –200C series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
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.
Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (i)(4) of the proposed AD to specify that the exception to the service information is for airplanes on which an operator has a record that a skin panel was replaced with a production skin panel “before” 59,000 total flight cycles, instead of “at or before” 59,000 total flight cycles, because of limit of validity (LOV) issues. Boeing also requested that we revise the condition statement regarding the time the skin panel was replaced in paragraph (m) of the proposed AD from “after” 59,000 total flight cycles to “at or after” 59,000 total flight cycles; and in paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of the proposed AD from “at or before” to “before.” Boeing explained that if a skin panel is replaced at or after 59,000 total flight cycles, no additional safety inspections would be needed due to the LOV. Boeing stated that upon reaching the LOV the airplane will be retired domestically and no longer supported by Boeing.
Boeing also requested that we revise the compliance time for the skin panel replacement in paragraph (i)(4) of the proposed AD to a time approved by the FAA through the alternative method of compliance (AMOC) process instead of the time specified in the service information. Boeing stated that since a Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) representative cannot approve extensions to the compliance times required by an AD, the AMOC approval would have to come from the FAA.
We partially agree with Boeing's requests. We agree to change the identification of the affected airplanes as requested by Boeing in paragraphs (i)(4), (m), (m)(1), and (m)(2) of this AD. These changes will address the LOV issues expressed by Boeing. We do not agree with changing the compliance time from the applicable time for the next inspection as specified in the service information. We have determined that this is an appropriate compliance time and provides an acceptable level of safety. It also provides operators with sufficient information for maintenance planning purposes.
Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (m) of the proposed AD, which specifies replacing the applicable skin panels and doing all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, with replacing the skin panels in accordance with Part 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–53–1065, Revision 3, dated June 30, 2015 (“SASB 737–53–1065, R3”).
We agree with replacing the skin panels in accordance with Part 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737–53–1065, R3. Part 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737–53–1065, R3 adequately specifies the required actions. We have revised paragraph (m) of this AD accordingly.
Boeing requested that we revise paragraphs (j)(1)(ii), (j)(2)(ii), and (k) of the proposed AD by adding the service information paragraph part references. Boeing stated that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD includes the part reference.
We do not agree with Boeing's requests. Paragraph (h) of this AD, in part, specifies the specific service information paragraph reference for doing repairs that are terminating action for the repetitive inspections at the repaired locations only. We determined that this reference is needed for clarity. We do not agree that the other references are needed for clarity. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (l) of the proposed AD to specify that table 6 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737–53–1065, R3 is for post-modification airworthiness limitation inspections at the modified locations. Boeing explained that since airworthiness limitation inspections are required by maintenance and operational rules, it is unnecessary to mandate them in this AD.
We agree with Boeing's request. We have revised paragraph (l) of this AD accordingly.
For airplanes subject to the requirements of paragraph (h) of the proposed AD, Boeing requested that we add a paragraph that specifies that inspections are not required in areas that are spanned by an FAA-approved repair that has met certain conditions. Boeing submitted specific conditions. Boeing stated that its request is to address elimination of inspections for repairs that have been accomplished for damage other than chem-mill cracking.
We do not agree with Boeing's request. Paragraph (h) of this AD specifies to do the applicable inspections and related investigative and corrective actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737–53–1065, R3. This service information already contains the criteria Boeing proposed. Therefore, the criteria do not need to be repeated in this AD. We have not changed 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 AD with the changes described previously, and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed SASB 737–53–1065, R3. The service information describes procedures for inspection and repair of the fuselage skin panels between body station (BS) 727 and BS 1016, and between stringers S–14 and S–25; and also describes procedures for skin panel replacement. 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 9 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs 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 repairs:
According to the manufacturer, 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 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.
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, 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 March 23, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2005–13–30, Amendment 39–14167 (70 FR 36829, June 27, 2005) (“AD 2005–13–30”).
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737–100, –200, and –200C series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the fuselage skin is subject to widespread fatigue damage, and reports of cracks at the chem-milled steps in the fuselage skin. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage skin panels, which could cause rapid decompression of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–53–1065, Revision 3, dated June 30, 2015 (“SASB 737–53–1065, R3”): Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, accomplish actions to correct the unsafe condition (
Except for Group 1 airplanes identified in SASB 737–53–1065, R3: At the applicable times specified in tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737–53–1065, R3, except as required by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, do the applicable inspections to detect cracks in the fuselage skin panels; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737–53–1065, R3, except as required by paragraphs (i)(3) and (i)(4) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in SASB 737–53–1065, R3. Accomplishment of a repair in accordance with “Part 3: Repair” of the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737–53–1065, R3, except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD, is terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this paragraph at the repaired locations only.
(1) Where SASB 737–53–1065, R3 specifies compliance times “after the Revision 3 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance times after the effective date of this AD.
(2) The Condition column of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737–53–1065, R3 refers to airplanes in certain configurations as of the “issue date of Revision 3 of this service bulletin.” However, this AD applies to airplanes in the specified configurations “as of the effective date of this AD.”
(3) Where SASB 737–53–1065, R3 specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions or work instructions, before further flight, repair or perform the work instructions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (i)(4) of this AD.
(4) For airplanes on which an operator has a record that a skin panel was replaced with a production skin panel before 59,000 total flight cycles: At the applicable time for the next inspection as specified in tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737–53–1065, R3, except as provided by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, perform inspections and applicable corrective actions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this AD.
Except for Group 1 airplanes identified in SASB 737–53–1065, R3: Do the applicable actions required by paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes with a time limited repair installed as specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–53–1065, Revision 2, dated April 19, 2001: At the applicable times specified in table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737–53–1065, R3, except as provided by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Do the applicable inspections to detect missing or loose fasteners and any disbonding or cracking of bonded doublers; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737–53–1065, R3, except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in SASB 737–53–1065, R3.
(ii) Make the time limited repair permanent; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737–53–1065, R3, except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Accomplishing the permanent repair required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this AD for the permanently repaired area only.
(2) For airplanes with a time limited repair installed as specified in SASB 737–53–1065, R3: At the applicable times specified in table 4 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737–53–1065, R3, do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Do the applicable inspections to detect missing or loose fasteners and any disbonding or cracking of bonded doublers; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737–53–1065, R3, except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in SASB 737–53–1065, R3.
(ii) Make the time limited repair permanent; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737–53–1065, R3, except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Accomplishing the permanent repair required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraph (j)(2)(i) of this AD for the permanently repaired area only.
Except for Group 1 airplanes identified in SASB 737–53–1065, R3: For airplanes with an existing time limited repair that was made permanent as specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–53–1065, Revision 2, dated April 19, 2001, at the applicable times specified in table 5 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737–53–1065, R3, except as required by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, modify the existing permanent repair; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737–53–1065, R3, except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
Table 6 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737–53–1065, R3 specifies post-modification airworthiness limitation inspections in compliance with 14 CFR 25.571(a)(3) at the modified locations, which support compliance with 14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2). As airworthiness limitations, these inspections are required by maintenance and operational rules. It is therefore unnecessary to mandate them in this AD. Deviations from these inspections require FAA approval, but do not require an alternative method of compliance.
Except for Group 1 airplanes identified in SASB 737–53–1065, R3: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD, replace the applicable skin panels, in accordance with the Part 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737–53–1065, R3. Doing the skin panel replacement required by this paragraph terminates the inspection requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD for that skin panel only, provided the skin panel was replaced with a production skin panel at or after 59,000 total flight cycles.
(1) Before 60,000 total flight cycles, but not before 59,000 total flight cycles.
(2) Within 6,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, but not before 59,000 total flight cycles.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–53–1065, Revision 2, dated April 19, 2001, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2005–13–30.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 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 ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (p) 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, 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) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2005–13–30, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (h) of this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Jennifer Tsakoumakis, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; phone: 562–627–5264; 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) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–53–1065, Revision 3, dated June 30, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Boeing 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 90740–5600; telephone 562–797–1717; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(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; correction.
The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that published in the
This final rule is effective February 16, 2017. The effective date of AD 2016–26–08 remains February 9, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 9, 2017 (82 FR 1172, January 5, 2017).
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4059; fax: (816) 329–4090; email:
Airworthiness Directive 2016–26–08, Amendment 39–18766 (82 FR 1172, January 5, 2017), requires incorporating new revisions into the Limitations section, Chapter 4, of the FAA-approved maintenance program (
As published, in paragraph (f)(6) there is a typographical error to the second reference of the MLG. The published reference is MLB and it is should be MLG.
Although no other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been corrected, we are publishing the entire rule in the
The effective date of this AD remains February 9, 2017.
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 airworthiness directive (AD) is effective February 9, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2014–22–01, 39–18005 (79 FR 67343, November 13, 2014).
This AD applies to PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Models PC–12, PC–12/45, PC–12/47, and PC–12/47E airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs), certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 5: Time Limits.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a need to incorporate new revisions into the Limitations section, Chapter 4, of the FAA-approved maintenance program (
Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (6) of this AD:
(1) Before further flight after February 9, 2017 (the effective date of this AD), insert the following revisions into the Limitations section of the FAA-approved maintenance program (
(i) STRUCTURAL, COMPONENT AND MISCELLANEOUS—AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS, Data module code 12–A–04–00–00–00A–000A–A, dated July 12, 2016, of the Pilatus Model type—PC–12, PC–12/45, PC–12/47 MSN–101–888, Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Document No. 02049, 12–A–AM–00–00–00–I, revision 32, dated July 18, 2016; and
(ii) STRUCTURAL AND COMPONENT LIMITATIONS—AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS, Data module code 12–B–04–00–00–00A–000A–A, dated July 19, 2016, of the Pilatus Model type—PC–12/47E MSN–1001–UP, Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Document No. 02300, 12–B–AM–00–00–00–I, revision 15, dated July 30, 2016.
(2) The new limitations section revisions listed in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD specify the following:
(i) Establish inspections of the MLG attachment bolts,
(ii) Specify replacement of components before or upon reaching the applicable life limit, and
(iii) Specify accomplishment of all applicable maintenance tasks within certain thresholds and intervals.
(3) Only authorized Pilatus Service Centers can do the Supplemental Structural Inspection Document (SSID) as required by the documents in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD because deviations from the type design in critical locations could make the airplane ineligible for this life extension.
(4) If no compliance time is specified in the documents listed in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD when doing any corrective actions where discrepancies are found as required in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this AD, do these corrective actions before further flight after doing the applicable maintenance task.
(5) During the accomplishment of the actions required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, if a discrepancy is found that is not identified in the documents listed in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD, before further flight after finding the discrepancy, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. at the address specified in paragraph (h) of this AD for a repair scheme and incorporate that repair scheme.
(6) Before or upon accumulating 6 years time-in-service (TIS) on the MLG attachment bolts or within the next 3 months TIS after February 9, 2017 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later, inspect the MLG attachment bolts for cracks and corrosion and before further flight take all necessary corrective actions.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(ii) AMOCs approved for AD 2014–22–01, 39–18005 (79 FR 67343, November 13, 2014) are not approved as AMOCs for this AD.
(2)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016–0083, dated April 28, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
(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) STRUCTURAL, COMPONENT AND MISCELLANEOUS—AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS, Data module code 12–A–04–00–00–00A–000A–A, dated July 12, 2016, of the Pilatus Model type—PC–12, PC–12/45, PC–12/47 MSN–101–888, Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Document No. 02049, 12–A–AM–00–00–00–I, revision 32, dated July 18, 2016.
(ii) STRUCTURAL AND COMPONENT LIMITATIONS—AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS, Data module code 12–B–04–00–00–00A–000A–A, dated July 19, 2016, of the Pilatus Model type—PC–12/47E MSN–1001–UP, Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Document No. 02300, 12–B–AM–00–00–00–I, revision 15, dated July 30, 2016.
(3) For PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. service information identified in this AD, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Service Manager, CH–6371 STANS, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 41 619 33 33; fax: +41 (0) 41 619 73 11; Internet:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at
(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; correction.
The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that published in the
This final rule is effective February 21, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 21, 2017 (82 FR 4778, January 17, 2017).
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 90740–5600; telephone: 562–797–1717; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Francis Smith, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Controls Branch, ANM–150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6596; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
Airworthiness Directive 2017–01–09, amendment 39–18776 (82 FR 4778, January 17, 2017), requires modification and installation of components in the main equipment center for certain Model 767–300 and 767–300F series airplanes. For certain airplanes, AD 2017–01–09 also requires modification, replacement, and installation of flight deck air relief system (FDARS) components.
As published, certain service information citations in the preamble and regulatory text were incorrect. The incorrectly specified citation in the preamble and regulatory text was Boeing Service Bulletin 767–27–0244, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2010 (“SB 767–27–0244, R1”); the correct citation is Boeing Service Bulletin 767–21–0244, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2010 (“SB 767–21–0244, R1”).
We reviewed the following service information.
• Boeing Service Bulletin 767–21–0235, dated October 8, 2009; and Revision 1, dated July 29, 2011 (“SB 767–21–0235, R1”). The service information describes procedures for a relay installation and related wiring changes (which change (modify) the 3-way valve control logic for the cooling system for the flight deck display equipment on freighter airplanes).
• Boeing Service Bulletin 767–21–0244, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2010 (“SB 767–21–0244, R1”). The service information describes procedures for changing (modifying) the 3-way valve control logic and installing a cooling system for the flight deck display equipment.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–21A0245, Revision 2, dated September 27, 2013 (“ASB 767–21A0245, R2”); and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–21A0247, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2013 (“ASB 767–21A0247, R1”). The service information describes procedures for changing (modifying) the 3-way valve control logic and main cargo air distribution system (MCADS), and installing an FDARS. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–21A0253, dated October 12, 2012. The service information describes procedures for replacing the existing duct, installing an FDARS, changing (modifying) the 3-way valve control logic, and installing a new altitude switch and pitot tube.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–21A0254, dated June 7, 2013. The service information describes procedures for replacing the duct with a new duct; installing an FDARS (including the installation of mounting brackets, ducts, orifice, outlet valve, and screen); and activating the 3-way valve logic (including modification of the associated wiring and related actions).
• Boeing Service Bulletin 767–31–0073, dated October 12, 1995. The service information describes procedures for installing a maintenance data selection system for the engine indication and crew alerting system.
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 document corrects errors in the citation of certain service information and correctly adds the AD as an amendment to 14 CFR 39.13. Although no other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been corrected, we are publishing the entire rule in the
The effective date of this AD remains February 21, 2017.
Since this action only corrects errors in the citation of certain service information, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, we have determined that notice and public procedures are unnecessary.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective February 21, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767–300 and 767–300F series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in the service information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD. This AD does not apply to The Boeing Company Model 767–300 (passenger) series airplanes.
(1) Boeing Service Bulletin 767–21–0244, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2010 (“SB 767–21–0244, R1”).
(2) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–21A0245, Revision 2, dated September 27, 2013 (“ASB 767–21A0245, R2”).
(3) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–21A0247, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2013 (“ASB 767–21A0247, R1”).
(4) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–21A0253, dated October 12, 2012.
(5) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–21A0254, dated June 7, 2013.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21, Air Conditioning.
This AD was prompted by reports of malfunctions in the flight deck display units, which resulted in blanking, blurring, or loss of color on the display. We are issuing this AD to prevent malfunctions of the flight deck display units, which could affect the ability of the flight crew to read the displays for airplane attitude, altitude, or airspeed, and consequently reduce the ability of the flight crew to maintain control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For Model 767–300F series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–21A0253, dated October 12, 2012: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, in the main equipment center and the area under the left and right sides of the flight deck floor, replace the existing duct with a new duct; install an FDARS (including the installation of mounting brackets, ducts, orifice, outlet valve, and screen); change the 3-way valve logic (including modification of the associated wiring and related actions); and install a new altitude switch and pitot tube; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–21A0253, dated October 12, 2012.
(2) For Model 767–300F series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–21A0254, dated June 7, 2013: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, in the main equipment center and the area under the left and right sides of the flight deck floor, replace the duct with a new duct; install an FDARS (including the installation of mounting brackets, ducts, orifice, outlet valve, and screen); and activate the 3-way valve logic (including modification of the associated wiring and related actions); in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–21A0254, dated June 7, 2013.
(1) For Model 767–300F series airplanes, as identified in ASB 767–21A0245, R2: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, in the main equipment center and the area under the left and right sides of the flight deck floor, change (modify) the 3-way valve control logic and main cargo air distribution system (MCADS), and install an FDARS, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instruction of ASB 767–21A0245, R2, except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD.
(2) For Model 767–300F series airplanes, as identified in ASB 767–21A0247, R1: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, change (modify) the 3-way valve control logic and MCADS, and install an FDARS, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of ASB 767–21A0247, R1.
For Model 767–300 series airplanes that have been converted by Boeing to Model 767–300BCF (Boeing Converted Freighter) airplanes, as identified in SB 767–21–0244, R1: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, change (modify) the 3-way valve control logic and install a flight deck display equipment cooling system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SB 767–21–0244, R1.
For Model 767–300F series airplanes, as identified in ASB 767–21A0245, R2: If the 3 way valve control logic change (modification) specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767–21–0235, dated October 8, 2009; or Revision 1, dated July 29, 2011 (“SB 767–21–0235, R1”); is done prior to or concurrent with the actions required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, operators need to do only the functional test, FDARS installation, and flex duct change, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of ASB 767–21A0245, R2. Operators do not need to do the other actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of ASB 767–21A0245, R2, if the actions in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767–21–0235, dated October 8, 2009; or SB 767–21–0235, R1; are done concurrently. If the functional test fails, before further flight, do corrective actions that are approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
(1) For Groups 1 and 3 airplanes, as identified in ASB 767–21A0245, R2: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, do the relay installation and related wiring changes specified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767–21–0235, dated October 8, 2009; or SB 767–21–0235, R1.
(2) For Group 1 airplanes, as identified in ASB 767–21A0247, R1: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, do the relay installation and related wiring changes specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767–21–0235, dated October 8, 2009; or SB 767–21–0235, R1.
(3) For Model 767–300 series airplanes that have been converted by Boeing to Model 767–300BCF airplanes, as identified in SB 767–21–0244, R1: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD, do all the actions (installation) specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767–31–0073, dated October 12, 1995.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 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 ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m) 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, Seattle ACO, 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.
For more information about this AD, contact Francis Smith, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Controls Branch, ANM–150S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6596; fax:425 917–6590; 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.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on February 21, 2017 (82 FR 4778, January 17, 2017).
(i) Boeing Service Bulletin 767–21–0235, dated October 8, 2009.
(ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 767–21–0235, Revision 1, dated July 29, 2011.
(iii) Boeing Service Bulletin 767–21–0244, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2010.
(iv) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–21A0245, Revision 2, dated September 27, 2013.
(v) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–21A0247, Revision 1, dated April 9, 2013.
(vi) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–21A0253, dated October 12, 2012.
(vii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767–21A0254, dated June 7, 2013.
(viii) Boeing Service Bulletin 767–31–0073, dated October 12, 1995.
(4) 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 90740–5600; telephone: 562–797–1717; Internet:
(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(6) 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:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
In accordance with the Presidential directive in the memorandum from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, dated January 20, 2017, and entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is delaying the effective date of a final rule published in the
The effective date of the EEOC final rule published on January 3, 2017, at 82 FR 654, is delayed from March 6, 2017, to March 21, 2017.
Christopher Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel, (202) 663–4665, or Aaron Konopasky, Senior Attorney-Advisor, (202) 663–4127 (voice), or (202) 663–7026 (TTY), Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (These are not toll free numbers.) Requests for this document in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs at (202) 663–4191 (voice) or (202) 663–4494 (TTY). (These are not toll free numbers.)
On January 3, 2017, the EEOC published a final rule amending 29 CFR 1614.203 to clarify the affirmative action obligations that Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 791, imposes on federal agencies as employers. As clarified in a correction published on January 11, 2017, at 32 FR 3170, the rule was to become effective on March 6, 2017. On January 20, 2017, the White House issued a memorandum instructing Federal agencies to postpone until 60 days after January 20, 2017, the effective dates of any regulations that had been published in the
For the Commission.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
On January 18, 2017, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) published a final rule on Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder Patient Records. That rule is scheduled to take effect on February 17, 2017. In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” published in the
The effective date of the Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder Patient Records final rule, published in the
Danielle Tarino, Telephone number: (240) 276–2857, Email address:
The Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder Patient Records Final Rule updates and modernizes the Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records regulations (42 CFR part 2) to facilitate integration of care and new health care delivery models while protecting the privacy of patients diagnosed, treated, or referred for treatment for a substance use disorder. To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action to delay the rule's effective date, it is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Alternatively, the Department's implementation of this rule without opportunity for public comment, effective immediately upon publication today in the
This notice does not impact the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) also entitled Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder Patient Records and issued on January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5485). The SNPRM proposes for public comment additional provisions beyond those in the final rule to clarify the scope of permissible disclosures to contractors, subcontractors, and legal representatives. The SNPRM comment period will remain unchanged and will close on February 17, 2017.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Final rule; delay of effective date.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces a delay in the effective date of the final rule titled “Possession, Use, and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins, Biennial Review and Enhanced Biosafety Requirements” that published on January 19, 2017. In a companion document published in this issue of the
The effective date for the final rule published January 19, 2017, at 82 FR 6278, is delayed until March 21, 2017.
Dr. Samuel S. Edwin, Director, Division of Select Agents and Toxins, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS A–46, Atlanta, Georgia, 30329. Telephone: 404–718–2000.
On January 19, 2017, HHS/CDC published a final rule titled “Possession, Use, and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins; Biennial Review and Enhanced Biosafety Requirements” (82 FR 6278) with an effective date of February 21, 2017. With this document, HHS/CDC announces a new effective date of March 21, 2017 for this final rule. In a companion document published in this issue of the
HHS/CDC bases this action on the memorandum of January 20, 2017 from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.” This memorandum directed the heads of Executive Departments and Agencies to temporarily postpone for sixty days from the date of the memorandum the effective dates of all regulations that had been published in the
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Final rule.
This rule revises U.S. Department of the Interior regulations implementing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act to provide for annual adjustments of civil penalties to account for inflation under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 and Office of Management and Budget guidance. The purpose of these adjustments is to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties and to further the policy goals of the underlying statutes.
This rule is effective on February 16, 2017.
Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.
On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114–74) (“the Act”). The Act requires Federal agencies to adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through rulemaking and then make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation no later than January 15 of each year.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance for Federal agencies on calculating the catch-up adjustment.
The Department issued an interim final rule providing for calculated catch-up adjustments to civil monetary penalties contained in regulations
OMB recently issued guidance to assist Federal agencies in implementing the annual adjustments required by the Act which agencies must complete by January 15, 2017.
The annual adjustment applies to all civil monetary penalties with a dollar amount that are subject to the Act. This final rule adjusts the following civil monetary penalties contained in the Department regulations implementing NAGPRA for 2017 by multiplying 1.01636 (
Consistent with the Act, the adjusted penalty levels for 2017 will take effect immediately upon the effective date of the adjustment. The adjusted penalty levels for 2017 will apply to penalties assessed after that date including, if consistent with agency policy, assessments associated with violations that occurred on or after November 2, 2015. The Act does not, however, change previously assessed penalties that the Department is collecting or has collected. Nor does the Act change an agency's existing statutory authorities to adjust penalties.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). The RFA does not apply to this final rule because the Office of the Secretary is not required to publish a proposed rule for the reasons explained below in Section III.L.
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A
This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not required.
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion. This rule is excluded from the requirement to prepare a detailed statement because it is a regulation of an administrative nature. (For further information see 43 CFR 46.210(i).) We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
The Act requires agencies to publish annual inflation adjustments by no later than January 15, 2017, and by no later than January 15 each subsequent year, notwithstanding section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553). OMB has interpreted this direction to mean that the usual APA public procedure for rulemaking—which includes public notice of a proposed rule, an opportunity for public comment, and a delay in the effective date of a final rule—is not required when agencies issue regulations to implement the annual adjustments to civil penalties that the Act requires. Accordingly, we are issuing the 2017 annual adjustments as a final rule without prior notice or an opportunity for comment and with an effective date immediately upon publication in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Hawaiian Natives, Historic preservation, Indians—claims, Indians—lands, Museums, Penalties, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons given in the preamble, the Office of the Secretary amends 43 CFR part 10 as follows.
16 U.S.C. 470dd; 25 U.S.C. 9, 3001
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
At the request of La Voz Latina (LVL) and Charles Crawford (Crawford), respectively, the Audio Division amends the FM Table of Allotments, by allotting Channel 278A at San Isidro, Texas, and deleting Channel 278A at Roma, Texas. Channel 278A at San Isidro, Texas, will be the community's second local service. The Audio Division, therefore, grants both LVL's counterproposal and Crawford's “Withdrawal of Expression of Interest.” A staff engineering analysis indicates Channel 278A can be allotted to San Isidro consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Commission's rules with a site restriction 6 kilometers west of the community. The reference coordinates are 26–42–15 NL and 98–29–48 WL.
Effective March 20, 2017.
Adrienne Y. Denysyk, Media Bureau, (202) 418–2700.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 and 339.
(b) * * *
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the following public meeting entitled “Use of the Term `Healthy' in the Labeling of Human Food Products.” The purpose of the public meeting is to give interested persons an opportunity to discuss the use of the term “healthy” in the labeling of human food.
The public meeting will be held on March 9, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. See section III “How to Participate in the Public Meeting” in the
The public meeting will be held at the Hilton Washington DC/Rockville Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our 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
In the
We also recently announced the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Use of the Term `Healthy' in the Labeling of Human Food Products: Guidance to Industry” (81 FR 66527). The guidance advises manufacturers who wish to use the implied nutrient content claim “healthy” to label their food products as provided by our regulations. More specifically, the guidance advises food manufacturers of FDA's intent to exercise enforcement discretion with respect to the implied nutrient content claim “healthy” on foods that have a fat profile of predominantly mono and polyunsaturated fats, but do not meet the regulatory definition of “low fat,” or that contain at least 10 percent of the Daily Value (DV) per reference amount customarily consumed (RACC) of potassium or vitamin D.
In addition, we received a citizen petition asking that we update, among other things, our nutrient content claim regulations to be consistent with current federal dietary guidance (see Docket No. FDA–2015–P–4564 (citizen petition from KIND LLC)). In particular, the petitioners requested that FDA amend the regulation defining the nutrient content claim “healthy” with respect to total fat intake and amend the regulation to emphasize whole foods and dietary patterns rather than specific nutrients.
We are holding the public meeting to give interested parties an opportunity to discuss the use of the term “healthy” in the labeling of human food. At the meeting, following introductory presentations, parties will have an opportunity to participate in their choice of breakout sessions on topics referenced in the notice and related documents and engage in an open comment and question and answer session. We invite interested parties to provide information, share experiences, and raise issues specifically related to the nutrient content claim “healthy,” including (but not limited to): “healthy” as a nutrient-based claim, food component-based claim, or both; “healthy” single definition or definition by category; consumer understanding of and responses to the term “healthy”; and when, if ever, the use of the term “healthy” may be false or misleading. Interested parties may also submit electronic or written comments to the docket by April 26, 2017. The agenda and other documents will be accessible on our FDA public meetings Web site at
In general, the meeting format will include introductory presentations, perspectives panels, and multiple opportunities for individuals to express their opinions at the meeting through oral presentations, participation in breakout sessions, and submission of electronic or written comments (see
Due to limited space and time, we encourage all persons who wish to attend the meeting to register in advance. There is no fee to register for the public meeting, and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited. Onsite registration will be accepted, if space permits, after all preregistered attendees are seated.
Those requesting an opportunity to make an oral presentation during the time allotted for public comment at the meeting should submit a request in advance (see table 1 for details) and provide the specific topic or issue to be addressed. Due to the anticipated high level of interest in presenting public comment and the limited time available, we are allocating 3 minutes to each speaker to make an oral presentation. Speakers will be limited to making oral remarks; there will not be an opportunity to display materials such as slide shows, videos, or other media during the meeting. If time permits, individuals or organizations that did not register in advance may be granted the opportunity to make an oral presentation. We would like to maximize the number of individuals who make a presentation at the meeting and will do our best to accommodate all persons who wish to make a presentation or express their opinions at the meeting.
We encourage persons and groups who have similar interests to consolidate their information for presentation by a single representative. After reviewing the presentation requests, we will notify each participant before the meeting of the approximate time their presentation is scheduled to begin, and remind them of the presentation format (
Table 1 of this document provides information on participation in the public meeting.
Please be advised that as soon as a transcript of the public meeting is available, it will be accessible at
Additionally, we will be video recording the public meeting. Once the recorded video is available, it will be accessible on our FDA public meetings Web site at
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by March 20, 2017. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720–8681.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on the proposed collection. This is a revision of a currently approved collection in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and concerns Retail Store Applications (Forms FNS–252; FNS–252–E; FNS–252–FE; FNS–252–R; FNS–252–2; and FNS–252–C).
Written comments must be received on or before April 17, 2017.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection
All written comments will be open for public inspection at the FNS office located at 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 438, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday).
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Shelly Pierce at
FNS is also responsible for requiring updates to application information and reviewing retail food store applications at least once every five years to ensure that each firm is under the same ownership and continues to meet eligibility requirements. The Act specifies that only those applicants whose participation will “effectuate the purposes of the program” should be authorized.
There are six forms associated with this approved Office of Management and Budget (OMB) information collection number 0584–0008—the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Application for Stores, Forms FNS–252 (English and Spanish) and FNS–252–E (paper and online version respectively); Farmer's Market Application, Form FNS–252–FE; Meal Service Application, Form FNS–252–2; Reauthorization Application, Form FNS–252–R; and the Corporation Supplemental Application, Form FNS–252–C used for individual (chain) stores under a corporation. For new authorizations, the majority of applicants use form FNS–252 or FNS–252–E (paper or online, respectively). FNS is responsible for reviewing retail food store applications at least once every five years to ensure that each firm is under the same ownership and continues to meet eligibility guidelines. In order to accomplish this regulatory requirement, form FNS–252–R is used for reauthorization. In addition to these forms, during authorization or reauthorization, FNS may conduct an on-site store visit of the firm. The store visit of the firm helps FNS confirm that the information provided on the application is correct. An FNS representative or store visit contractor obtains permission to fill in the store visit checklist, photograph the store and asks the store owner or manager about the continued ownership of the store.
Applicants using form FNS–252–E or FNS–252–FE must also first self-register for a Level 1 access account through the USDA eAuthentication system in order to start an online application. USDA eAuthentication facilitates the electronic authentication of an individual.
The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) amended the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) to increase the requirement that certain SNAP authorized food stores have available on a continual basis at least three varieties of items in each of four staple food categories, to a mandatory minimum of seven varieties. The 2014 Farm Bill also amended the Act to increase, for certain SNAP authorized retail food stores, the minimum number of categories which perishable foods are required from two to three. Further, using existing authority in the Act and feedback from a Request for Information that was published in the
FNS seeks to renew the current information collection, and where appropriate, revise the information collection of all SNAP application forms (paper and electronic), in order to clarify and/or reword questions, instructions, and examples as a result of these regulatory changes required by the Act and amended by the Farm Bill. Such changes would include (1) revision to the Food Inventory section; (2) additional inventory stock examples of perishables and varieties of staple food items; (3) additional questions that ask whether the store has a Web site, whether optical scanners are used at the store, the name and address of the financial institution where SNAP deposits will be made, and whether the store offers any incentives or discounts to SNAP recipients; and (4) update assistance materials such as the General and Specific Instruction sections and on-line help screens.
FNS used FY 2016 data in our calculation of burden estimates associated with this information collection as this was the most complete data available to us at this time. Table A below clarifies the burden of this information collection.
The total burden hours associated with this information collection increased by approximately 2.33 minutes. The response time per respondent varies from 1 minute to 14.11 minutes. We estimate the new burden, on average, to be 6.34 minutes per respondent, an increase from 6.11 minutes. There is no recordkeeping burden associated with these forms.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice 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 South Carolina (State) Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Thursday, March 2, 2017, for the purpose of discussing potential projects.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, March 2, 2017 12:00 p.m. EST.
The meeting will be by teleconference. Toll-free call-in number: 888–891–7634, conference ID: 4442689.
Jeff Hinton, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888–891–7634, conference ID: 4442689. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1–800–977–8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by February 24, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA 30303. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (404) 562–7005, or emailed to Regional Director, Jeffrey Hinton at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
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 (FACA), that a planning meeting of the Colorado Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 2:30 p.m. (MST) on Thursday, March 9, 2017, via
Thursday, March 9, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. (MST)
To be held via teleconference:
Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1–888–208–1815, Conference ID: 6280737.
TDD: Dial Federal Relay Service 1–800–977–8339 and give the operator the above conference call number and conference ID.
Malee V. Craft, DFO,
Members of the public may listen to the discussion by dialing the following Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1–888–208–1815; Conference ID: 6280737. Please be advised that before being placed into the conference call, the operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and an email address (if available) prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free phone number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–977–8339 and provide the FRS operator with the Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1–888–208–1815, Conference ID: 6280737. Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, April 10, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13–201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866–1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available 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 Minnesota Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on:
• Friday, February 17, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. CST; and on
• Monday, February 27, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. CST for the purpose of preparing for a public hearing to gather testimony regarding civil rights and policing practices in Minnesota.
The meetings will be held on Friday, February 17, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. CST; and on Monday February 27th at 12:00 p.m. CST.
Public call information:
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. These meetings are available to the public through the following toll-free call-in numbers listed above. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1–800–977–8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the 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 this meeting 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
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 (FACA), that a planning meeting of the New Mexico Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 11:00 a.m. (MST) on Wednesday, March 8, 2017, via teleconference. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss draft outline in preparation of SAC report on Elder Abuse in New Mexico.
Wednesday, March 8, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. (MST)
To be held via teleconference:
Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1–888–946–0720, Conference ID: 6052239.
TDD: Dial Federal Relay Service 1–800–977–8339 and give the operator the above conference call number and conference ID.
Malee V. Craft, DFO,
Members of the public may listen to the discussion by dialing the following Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1–888–946–0720; Conference ID: 6052239. Please be advised that before being placed into the conference call, the operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and an email address (if available) prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free phone number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–977–8339 and provide the FRS operator with the Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1–888–946–0720, Conference ID: 6052239. Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, April 10, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13–201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866–1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
On October 13, 2016, Claremont Flock, a Division of Spectro Coating Corporation, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility within Subzone 27N, in Leominster, Massachusetts.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Salt Lake City Corporation, grantee of FTZ 30, requesting subzone status for the facility of Scott USA, Inc. (Scott USA), located in Ogden, Utah. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on February 10, 2017.
The proposed subzone (7.5 acres) is located at 651 Critchlow Street, #2, Ogden, Utah. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is March 28, 2017. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to April 12, 2017.
A copy of the application 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 FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On October 21, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the seventh administrative review of the antidumping duty order on small diameter graphite electrodes (graphite electrodes) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The Department preliminarily determined that the three manufacturers or exporters of the subject merchandise covered by the review, the Fangda Group, Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd. (Fushun Jinly), and Jilin Carbon Import and Export Company (Jilin Carbon), had no shipments of the subject merchandise during the period of review (POR). No interested party commented on the preliminary results. As a result, the Department has made no changes for the final results of this review.
Effective February 16, 2017.
Irene Gorelik or John Anwesen, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482–6905 or (202) 482–0131, respectively.
This review covers three manufacturers or exporters of the subject merchandise: The Fangda Group,
The merchandise covered by the order includes all small diameter graphite electrodes of any length, whether or not finished, of a kind used in furnaces, with a nominal or actual diameter of 400 millimeters (16 inches) or less, and whether or not attached to a graphite pin joining system or any other type of joining system or hardware. The merchandise covered by the order also includes graphite pin joining systems for small diameter graphite electrodes, of any length, whether or not finished, of a kind used in furnaces, and whether or not the graphite pin joining system is attached to, sold with, or sold separately from, the small diameter graphite electrode. Small diameter graphite electrodes and graphite pin joining systems for small diameter graphite electrodes are most commonly used in primary melting, ladle metallurgy, and specialty furnace applications in industries including foundries, smelters, and steel refining operations. Small diameter graphite electrodes and graphite pin joining systems for small diameter graphite electrodes that are subject to the order are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 8545.11.0010,
The period of review is February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016.
In the
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions for the respondents subject to this review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. The Department has determined that the Fangda Group, Fushun Jinly, and Jilin Carbon had no shipments of subject merchandise; therefore, pursuant to the Department's practice in non-market economy cases, any suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR from these companies will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.
The following cash deposit requirements, which are currently in effect, will remain in effect for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 159.64 percent; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied the non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On April 20, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) received a request for revocation, in part, of the antidumping duty (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) orders on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) and the AD order on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwan (collectively “
Effective February 16, 2017.
Magd Zalok or Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4162 or (202) 482–5193, respectively.
On February 18, 2015, the Department published an AD order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwan, and AD and CVD orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the PRC in the
On November 2, 2016, the Department published the notice of initiation of the requested changed circumstances reviews.
The merchandise covered by these orders are modules, laminates and/or panels consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including building integrated materials. For purposes of these orders, subject merchandise includes modules, laminates and/or panels assembled in the PRC consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells produced in a customs territory other than the PRC.
Subject merchandise includes modules, laminates and/or panels assembled in the PRC consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.
Excluded from the scope of these orders are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS). Also excluded from the scope of these orders are modules, laminates and/or panels assembled in the PRC, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000 mm
Merchandise covered by these orders is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.8030, 8507.20.8040, 8507.20.8060, 8507.20.8090, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030, and
The merchandise covered by this order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates and/or panels consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including building integrated materials.
Subject merchandise includes crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.
Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from cells produced in Taiwan are covered by this order. However, modules, laminates, and panels produced in Taiwan from cells produced in third-country are not covered by this order.
Excluded from the scope of this order are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS). Also excluded from the scope of this order are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000 mm
Further, also excluded from the scope of this order are any products covered by the existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the PRC.
Merchandise covered by this order are currently classified in the HTSUS under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.8030, 8507.20.8040, 8507.20.8060, 8507.20.8090, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030, and 8501.31.8000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
PulseTech requests that the Department revoke the
(1) Less than 300,000 mm
Pursuant to section 751(d)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), and 19 CFR 351.222(g), the Department may revoke an AD or CVD order, in whole or in part, based on a review under section 751(b) of the Act (
The Department's regulations do not specify a deadline for the issuance of the preliminary results of a changed circumstances review, but provide that the Department will issue the final results of review within 270 days after the date on which the changed circumstances review is initiated.
As noted in the
Accordingly, we are notifying the public of our intent to revoke the
Additionally, excluded from the scope of the order are solar panels that are: (1) Less than 300,000 mm
If we make a final determination to revoke the
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of reviews in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Case briefs may be submitted no later than 14 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of publication of this notice.
The Department intends to issue the final results of these changed circumstances reviews, which will include its analysis of any written comments received, no later than 270 days after the date on which these reviews were initiated.
If, in the final results of these reviews, the Department continues to determine that changed circumstances warrant the revocation of the
The current requirement for cash deposits of estimated AD and CVD duties on all entries of subject merchandise will continue unless they are modified pursuant to the final results of these changed circumstances reviews.
These preliminary results of reviews and notice are in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221 and 19 CFR 351.222.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announces that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Advisory Board will hold an open meeting on March 7, 2017.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, March 7, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held at the Department of Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building, 1401 Constitution Avenue, Auditorium, Washington, DC 20230. Please note admittance instructions in the
Cheryl L. Gendron, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899–4800, telephone number (301) 975–2785, email:
The MEP Advisory Board is authorized under Section 3003(d) of the America COMPETES Act (Pub. L. 110–69), as amended by the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Improvement Act, Public Law 114–329 sec. 501 (2017), and codified at 15 U.S.C. 278k(m), in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. The Hollings MEP Program (Program) is a unique program, consisting of centers in each state in the United States and Puerto Rico with partnerships at the state, federal, and local levels. The MEP Advisory Board provides the NIST Director with: (1) Advice on the activities, plans, and policies of the Program; (2) assessments of the soundness of the plans and strategies of the Program; and (3) assessments of current performance against the plans of the Program.
Background information on the MEP Advisory Board is available at
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the MEP Advisory Board will hold an open meeting on Tuesday, March 7, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. This meeting will focus on several topics. The MEP Advisory Board will receive an update on Hollings MEP programmatic operations, as well as provide guidance and advice to Hollings MEP senior management on the drafting of the 2017–2022 Strategic Plan. The MEP Advisory Board will also provide input to Hollings MEP on developing protocols that will connect user facilities, research, and technologies at NIST and other federal laboratories with the help of the Hollings MEP national network to support small and mid-size manufacturers, and make recommendations on the establishment of a Hollings MEP Learning Organization. This encompasses an effort to strengthen connections by sharing best practices and building Working Groups and Communities of Practice for furtherance of the Hollings MEP Program's mission. The final agenda will be posted on the MEP Advisory Board Web site at
Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the MEP Advisory Board's business are invited to request a place on the agenda. Approximately 15 minutes will be reserved for public comments at the end of the meeting. Speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received but is likely to be no more than three to five minutes each. The exact time for public comments will be included in the final agenda that will be posted on the MEP Advisory Board Web site at
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) and its advisory entities will hold public meetings.
The Pacific Council and its advisory entities will meet March 7–13, 2017. The Pacific Council meeting will begin on Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 9 a.m., reconvening at 8 a.m. each day through Monday, March 13, 2017. All meetings are open to the public, except a closed session will be held from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m., Wednesday, March 8 to address litigation and personnel matters. The Pacific Council will meet as late as necessary each day to complete its scheduled business. To view Instructions for attending the meeting via live stream broadcast see
The Pacific Council and its advisory entities will hold the meetings, at the Hilton Vancouver Hotel, 301 West Sixth Street, Vancouver, Washington; telephone 360–993–4500.
Mr. Chuck Tracy, Executive Director; telephone: 503–820–2280 or 866–806–7204 toll-free; or access the Pacific Council Web site, at
The March 7–13, 2017 meeting of the Pacific Council will be streamed live on the internet. The broadcasts begin initially at 9 a.m. Pacific Time (PT) Wednesday, March 8, 2017 and continue at 8 a.m. daily through Monday, March 13, 2017. Broadcasts end daily at 6 p.m. PT or when business for the day is complete. Only the audio portion and presentations displayed on the screen at the Pacific Council meeting will be broadcast. The audio portion is listen-only; you will be unable to speak to the Pacific Council via the broadcast. To access the meeting online please use the
The following items are on the Pacific Council agenda, but not necessarily in this order. Agenda items noted as “Final Action” refer to actions requiring the Council to transmit a proposed fishery management plan, proposed plan amendment, or proposed regulations to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, under sections 304 or 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Additional detail on agenda items, Council action, advisory entity meeting times, and meeting rooms are described in Agenda Item A.4, Proposed Council Meeting Agenda, and will be in the advance March 2017 briefing materials and posted on the Pacific Council Web site, at
Advisory body agendas will include discussions of relevant issues that are on the Pacific Council agenda for this meeting, and may also include issues that may be relevant to future Council meetings. Proposed advisory body agendas for this meeting will be available on the Pacific Council Web site
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Pacific Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council 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 Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Pacific Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt, at 503–820–2280, ext. 411 (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public hearings and Webinar.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold five public hearings and Webinar to solicit public comments on Draft Amendment 46; the Gray
The meetings and Webinar will convene Monday, March 6, 2017; starting at 6 p.m. and will adjourn on Wednesday, March 15, 2017, no later than 9 p.m., to view the agenda see
The public hearings will be held in Destin and St. Petersburg, FL, Corpus Christi and Galveston, TX, and Spanish Fort, AL.
Douglas Gregory, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348–1630.
The agenda for the following five hearings and Webinar are as follows: Council staff will brief the public on the results of the gray
The schedule is as follows:
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the Webinar.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the
Section 302(j) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that Council members appointed by the Secretary, Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) members appointed by a Council under Section 302(g)(1), or individuals nominated by the Governor of a State for possible appointment as a Council member, disclose their financial interest in any Council fishery. These interests include harvesting, processing, lobbying, advocacy, or marketing activity that is being, or will be, undertaken within any fishery over which the Council concerned has jurisdiction, or with respect to an individual or organization with a financial interest in such activity. The authority to require this information and reporting and filing requirements has not changed. Revision: NOAA Fisheries is in the process of conducting minor revisions to the form by adding clearer instructions and clarifying some of the questions asked to ensure the questions are consistent with the regulatory requirements. Revisions will also include a specific check box to indicate that a Council nominee, and not a member, is completing the form.
The Secretary is required to submit an annual report to Congress on action taken by the Secretary and the Councils to implement the disclosure of financial interest and recusal requirements, including identification of any conflict of interest problems with respect to the Councils and SSCs and recommendations for addressing any such problems.
The Act further provides that a member shall not vote on a Council decision that would have a significant and predictable effect on a financial interest if there is a close causal link between the Council decision and an expected and substantially disproportionate benefit to the financial interest of the affected individual relative to the financial interest of other participants in the same gear type or sector of the fishery. However, an affected individual who is declared ineligible to vote on a Council action may participate in Council deliberations relating to the decision after notifying the Council of his/her recusal and identifying the financial interest that would be affected.
The form has been revised to increase clarity for the respondents. No new information is being requested.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This collection also provides a voluntary opportunity for Gulf of Alaska (GOA) individual fishing quota (IFQ) sablefish fishermen to use a gear that physically protects caught sablefish from depredation by whales. That option, the use of pot longline gear, currently exists in sablefish IFQ fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management areas. Potential benefits of pot longline gear for sablefish fishing include: Mitigation of whale interaction with fishing gear, reduced mortality of seabirds, reduced bycatch of non-target fish species, reduced overall halibut mortality when targeting sablefish, and better accounting of total sablefish fishing mortality.
Whales are able to strip hooked fish from hook-and-line gear, which reduces the amount of sablefish caught by fishermen. As such, whale depredation represents undocumented fishing mortality.
Many seabird species are attracted to fishing vessels in order to forage on bait, offal, discards, and other prey made available by fishing operations. These interactions can result in direct mortality for seabirds if they become entangled in fishing gear or strike the vessel or fishing gear while flying.
Each vessel must use mandatory logbooks (see OMB Control No. 0648–0213 and 0648–0515) when participating in a longline pot fishery. When the number of pots deployed by a vessel is self-reported through logbooks, the use of pot tags provides an additional enforcement tool to ensure
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the City of Kodiak (the City) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during construction activities associated with pile driving and removal and down hole drilling activities in Kodiak, Alaska.
This Authorization is effective from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.
Laura McCue, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On August 15, 2016, NMFS received an application from the City for the taking of marine mammals incidental to the Kodiak transient float replacement project (Project) in Kodiak, Alaska. On October 17, 2016 NMFS received a revised application with updated take numbers. NMFS determined that the application was adequate and complete on October 21, 2016. Subsequent to NMFS accepting the application, changes were made to the injury zones, take numbers, and shutdown zones. The City provided a memo to NMFS on November 1, 2016 noting these changes. This memo, along with the City's application, and other supporting documents can be found on our Web site at
The City will conduct in-water construction work (
Activities included as part of the Project with the potential to take marine mammals include vibratory and impact pile-driving operations and use of a down-hole drill/hammer to install piles in bedrock. Take by Level B harassment of individuals of six species is anticipated to result from the specified activity.
On August 4, 2016, NMFS released its Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Guidance). This new guidance established new thresholds for predicting auditory injury, which equates to Level A harassment under the MMPA. The transient float project used this new guidance when determining the injury (Level A) zones.
The City plans to replace its existing transient float located in Kodiak's Near Island Channel. The purpose of this project is to replace the transient float with one that meets modern standards for vessel mooring and public safety for the next 50 years. The existing float has structural issues due to failing walers, stringers, and bullrails. Due to these structural problems, the float's capacity has been reduced. The existing float needs to be replaced due to its poor condition and reduced capacity. The planned action includes in-water construction, including the removal of the existing timber float and its associated timber and steel piles, and installation of the replacement float and steel piles. The replacement float will be located within nearly the same footprint as the existing facility; however, the overall float length will be shortened to improve all around accessibility within City right-of-way limits. A detailed description of the planned Project is provided in the
Pile installation and extraction associated with the Project is scheduled to begin in January 2017 and end in March 2017. Pile installation and removal will take approximately 57 hours and is expected to take place over a period of 12 days (not necessarily consecutive days). To minimize impacts to pink salmon fry (
The 2.5-month long construction period accounts for the time required to mobilize materials and resources, remove and replace piles, remove the existing float, and install the new float, abutment, gangway, electrical components, and other safety features. The 2.5-month long construction period also accounts for potential delays in material deliveries, equipment maintenance, inclement weather, and shutdowns that could occur if marine mammals come within disturbance zones associated with the project area. However, the City has requested an authorization for up to one year of construction activities in case unforeseen construction delays occur.
Pile extraction, pile driving, and drilling will occur intermittently over the work period, from minutes to hours at a time (Table 1 in the City's application). The planned transient float replacement project will require an estimated 12 days total of pile extraction and installation, including eight hours of vibratory extraction and installation, 48 hours of down-hole drilling, and less than one hour of impact hammering. Timing will vary based on the weather, delays, substrate type (the rock is layered and is of varying hardness across the site, so some holes will be drilled quickly and others may take longer), and other factors.
The Kodiak transient float is located in the City of Kodiak, Alaska, at 57.788162° N. −152.400287° W., in Near Island Channel in the Gulf of Alaska (See Figures 1–3 in the City's Application). The transient float provides moorage for vessels from villages as well as from the commercial fishing fleet located in Near Island Channel, which separates downtown Kodiak from Near Island (Figure 1–2 in the City's application). The channel is approximately 200 meters (m) (656 feet (ft)) wide and 15 m (50 ft) deep in the project area. In the project footprint, the shoreline along the Transient Float is heavily armored with riprap (see Figure 4 of the City's application) and impervious surfaces directly abut the shoreline adjacent to the float. The channel is located within Chiniak Bay which opens to the Gulf of Alaska.
The project is located in a busy industrial area (Figure 3 of the City's application). Channel Side Services' seafood packing facility is located approximately 25 m (82 ft) east of the float and Petro Marine Services floating fuel dock is located approximately 20 m (66 ft) west of the float. Pier 1, the Alaska Marine Highway Ferry dock, is located 100 m (328 ft) southwest of the float and Trident Seafood's shore-based seafood processing plant is located approximately 175 m (574 ft) to the southwest (See Figure 3 in the City's application). When in operation, Trident's plant receives numerous commercial fishing vessels daily for offloading and processing of catch.
The planned action for this IHA request includes in-water construction, including the removal of the existing timber float and its associated steel piles (19 12-inch steel piles), and installation of the replacement float and steel piles (12 24-inch steel piles). The replacement float will be located within nearly the same footprint as the existing facility; however, the overall float length will be shortened to improve all around accessibility within City right-of-way limits. The planned transient float project will require an estimated 58 hours over 12 days total of pile extraction and installation, including approximately eight hours of vibratory extraction and installation, 48 hours of down-hole drilling, and less than one hour of impact hammering. In water construction activities are expected to occur over 2.5 months.
While work is conducted in the water, anchored barges will be used to stage construction materials and equipment. The existing piles, fixed pier, float and gangway will be removed and disposed of properly and the new float will be installed.
It is estimated that it will take 10 minutes of vibratory pile-driving and 4 hours of down-hole drilling per pile for installation, and 20 minutes of vibratory pile-driving per pile for extraction. For the installation of 12 piles, this is an estimated 2 hours of total time using active vibratory equipment and 48 hours of total time using down-hole drilling. For the in-water extraction of 19 piles, this is an estimated 6.33 hours of total time using active vibratory equipment. Two piles will remain in place, and two piles to be removed are above the high tide line. No temporary piles are associated with this project.
The 24-inch steel piles will be driven 3–4.6 m (10–15 ft) through sediment and drilled another 3 m (10 ft) into bedrock. The sequence for installing the 24-inch piles will begin with insertion through overlying sediment with a vibratory hammer for about eight minutes per pile. Next, a hole will be drilled in the underlying bedrock by using a down-hole drill. A down-hole drill is a drill bit that drills through the sediment and a pulse mechanism that functions at the bottom of the hole, using a pulsing bit to break up the harder materials or rock to allow removal of the fragments and insertion of the pile. The head extends so that the drilling takes place below the pile. Drill cuttings are expelled from the top of the pile as dust or mud. It is estimated that drilling piles through the layered bedrock will take about four hours per pile. Finally, the vibratory hammer will be used again to finish driving the piles into bedrock, for approximately two minutes per pile (Table 1).
Although impact pile-driving is not expected for this project, the contractor may choose to impact proof the piles after down-hole drilling. In this case, two to five blows of an impact hammer will be used to confirm that piles are set into bedrock, for an expected maximum time of three minutes of impact hammering per pile. When the impact hammer is employed for proofing, a pile cap or cushion will be placed between the impact hammer and the pile.
A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to the City was published in the
Marine waters near Kodiak Island support many species of marine mammals, including pinnipeds and cetaceans; however, the number of species regularly occurring near the project area is limited. Steller sea lions (
The effects of underwater noise from construction activities for the Project have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action area. The
The primary impacts to marine mammal habitat are associated with elevated sound levels produced by vibratory and impact pile driving and removal in the area, and down-hole drilling. However, other potential impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible. The Project would not result in permanent impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals, such as haulout sites, but may have potential short-term impacts to food sources and minor impacts to the immediate substrate during installation and removal of piles during the Project. These potential effects are discussed in detail in the
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, “and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking” for certain subsistence uses.
For the Project, the City worked with NMFS on the following mitigation measures to minimize the impacts to marine mammals in the project vicinity. The primary purposes of these mitigation measures are to minimize sound levels from the activities, and to monitor marine mammals within designated zones of influence corresponding to NMFS' current Level A and B harassment thresholds. The Level B zones are depicted in Table 5 found later in the
1. Independent observers (
2. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer.
3. Other observers (that do not have prior experience) may substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience.
4. Where a team of three or more observers are required, one observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an observer.
5. NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
Qualified MMOs are trained biologists, and need the following additional minimum qualifications:
(a) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the
(b) Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols
(c) Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors
(d) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations
(e) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior.
(f) Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone will be monitored for 30 minutes to ensure that it is clear of marine mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (
If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during the course of pile driving operations, activity will be halted and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or 30 minutes have passed without re-detection of large cetaceans (
Observers will record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven. Observations made outside the shutdown zone will not result in shutdown; that pile segment will be completed without cessation, unless the animal approaches or enters the shutdown zone, at which point all pile driving activities will be halted, as described below. Please see Appendix B of the City's application for details on the marine mammal monitoring plan developed by the City with NMFS' cooperation.
If a marine mammal is present within the Level A harassment zone, ramping up will be delayed until the animal(s) leaves the Level A harassment zone. Activity will begin only after the MMO has determined, through sighting, that the animal(s) has moved outside the Level A harassment zone.
If a Steller sea lion, harbor seal, harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise, humpback whale, or killer whale is present in the Level B harassment zone, ramping up will begin and a Level B take will be documented. Ramping up will occur when these species are in the Level B harassment zone whether they entered the Level B zone from the Level A zone, or from outside the project area.
If any marine mammal other than Steller sea lions, harbor seals, harbor porpoises, Dall's porpoise, humpback whale, or killer whales is present in the Level B harassment zone, ramping up will be delayed until the animal(s) leaves the zone. Ramping up will begin only after the MMO has determined, through sighting, that the animal(s) has moved outside the harassment zone.
For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving (using,
Any marine mammal documented within the Level B harassment zone will constitute a Level B take (harassment), and will be recorded and reported as such. Nominal radial distances for disturbance zones are shown in Table 4. Given the size of the disturbance zone for down-hole drilling, it is impossible to guarantee that all animals will be observed or to make comprehensive observations of fine-scale behavioral reactions to sound, and only a portion of the zone (
In order to document observed incidents of harassment, monitors record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The observer's location, as well as the location of the pile being driven or removed, is known from a GPS. The location of the animal is estimated as a distance from the observer, which is then compared to the location from the pile. It may then be estimated whether the animal was exposed to sound levels constituting incidental harassment on the basis of predicted distances to relevant thresholds in post-processing of observational and acoustic data, and a precise accounting of observed incidences of harassment created. This information may then be used to extrapolate observed takes to reach an approximate understanding of actual total takes.
Level B take of grey whales and fin whales is not requested and will be avoided by shutting down before individuals of these species enter the Level B zones.
Mitigation measures to ensure availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses are discussed later in this document (see
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of the mitigation measures included
• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammal species or stocks;
• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:
1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of pile driving and down-hole drilling, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals will be exposed to received levels of pile driving and down-hole drilling, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of pile driving and down-hole drilling, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.
6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's mitigation measures and other measures considered by NMFS, we have determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. The City submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA application. It can be found in Appendix B of their application.
Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:
1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;
2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to levels of pile driving and down-hole drilling that we associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS), or Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS);
3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:
Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);
Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);
Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;
4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.
The City will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of activity. All MMOs will be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. As discussed previously, the City will monitor the shutdown zone and disturbance zone before, during, and after pile driving. The MMOs and the City authorities will meet to determine the most appropriate observation platform(s) for monitoring during pile installation and extraction.
Based on our MMO requirements, the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan will implement similar procedures as those described in the
We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other pieces of information, the City will record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the City will attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidents of take. We require that, at a minimum, the following information be collected on the sighting forms:
• Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
• Construction activities occurring during each observation period;
• Weather parameters (
• Water conditions (
• Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;
• Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile driving activity;
• Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
• Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
• Other human activity in the area.
The City will provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within 90 days of the conclusion of the construction work. The report will include marine mammal observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity during pile driving days, and will also provide descriptions of any behavioral responses to construction activities by marine mammals and a complete description of all mitigation shutdowns and the results of those actions and an extrapolated total take estimate based on the number of marine mammals observed during the course of construction. A final report must be submitted within thirty days following resolution of comments on the draft report. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA, such as serious injury or mortality (
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities will not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with the City to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The City will not be able to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that the City discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
The report will include the same information identified in the paragraph above. Activities will be able to continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with the City to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.
In the event that the City discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
All anticipated takes will be by Level B harassment resulting from vibratory pile driving and removal, impact pile driving, or down-hole drilling. Level B harassment may result in temporary changes in behavior. Note that injury, serious injury, and lethal takes are not expected, and are not authorized, for these activities due to the mitigation and monitoring measures that are expected to minimize the possibility of such take.
If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior (
Upland work can generate airborne sound and create visual disturbance that could potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals (specifically, pinnipeds) that are hauled out or at the water's surface with heads above the water. However, because there are no regular haul-outs in close proximity to the Kodiak transient float, NMFS believes that incidents of incidental take resulting from airborne sound or visual disturbance are unlikely.
The City has requested authorization for the incidental taking of small numbers, by Level B harassment, of harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise, killer whale, humpback whale, Steller sea lion, and harbor seal near the project area that may result from impact and vibratory pile driving, vibratory pile removal, and down-hole drilling construction activities associated with the transient float project.
The calculation for estimating marine mammal exposures to underwater noise is:
In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the extent of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then consider the sound field in combination with information about marine mammal density or abundance in the project area. We first provide information on applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals before describing the information used in estimating the sound fields, the available marine
We use the following generic sound exposure thresholds (Table 5) to determine when an activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a take by behavioral harassment (Level B) might occur.
We use NMFS' new acoustic criteria (NMFS 2016a, 81 FR 51694; August 4, 2016) to determine sound exposure thresholds to determine when an activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a take by injury, in the form of PTS, might occur.
The sound field in the project area is the existing ambient noise plus additional construction noise from the Project. The primary components of the project expected to affect marine mammals is the sound generated by impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving, vibratory pile removal, and down-hole drilling.
After vibratory hammering has installed the pile through the overburden to the top of the bedrock layer, the vibratory hammer will be removed, and the down-hole drill will be inserted through the pile. The head extends below the pile and the drill rotates through soils and rock. The drilling/hammering takes place below the sediment layer and, as the drill advances, below the bedrock layer as well. Underwater noise levels are relatively low because the impact is taking place below the substrate rather than at the top of the piling, which limits transmission of noise through the water column. Additionally, there is a drive shoe welded on the bottom of the pile, and the upper portion of the bit rests on the shoe, which aids in advancement of the pile as drilling progresses. When the proper depth is achieved, the drill is retracted and the pile is left in place. Impact hammering typically generates the loudest noise associated with pile driving, but for the transient float project, use will be limited to a few blows per 24-inch steel pile.
Several factors are expected to minimize the potential impacts of pile-driving and drilling noise associated with the project:
Sound will dissipate relatively rapidly in the shallow waters over soft seafloors in the project area (NMFS 2013). St. Herman Harbor (Figure 2 in the application), where the Dog Bay float is located, is protected from the transient float construction noise by land projections and islands, which will block and redirect sound. Near Island and Kodiak Island, on either side of Near Island Channel, prevent the sound from travelling underwater to the north, south, and southeast, restricting the noise to most of the channel; however a narrow band of noise may extend to Woody Island, approximately 3.75 kilometers (km) to the East.
The project includes vibratory removal of 12-inch timber and steel piles; and vibratory installation and down-hole drilling of permanent 24-inch steel piles. Each 24-inch pile may also be subject to a few blows from an impact hammer for proofing. No data are available for vibratory removal of piles, so it will be conservatively assumed that vibratory removal of piles will produce the same source level as vibratory installation.
SPLs for this project were used from the nearby Pier 1 Kodiak ferry terminal measurements of 24-in steel piles from JASCO 2016 (Warner and Austin 2016). The ferry terminal is approximately 100 m from the transient float, and therefore has similar environmental conditions, and the project used the same installation methods and same size piles, making this a good proxy. Vibratory driving had a measured source level (SL) of 183.8 dB rms at one meter. Down-hole drilling had a measured SL of 192.5 dB at one meter. Impact pile driving had a measured SL of 205.9 at one meter.
Underwater Sound Propagation Formula—Pile driving generates underwater noise that can potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals in the project area. Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
NMFS typically recommends a default practical spreading loss of 15 dB per tenfold increase in distance. However, for this analysis for the transient float project area, a TL of 21.9Log(R/10) (
Distances to the harassment isopleths vary by marine mammal type and pile extraction/driving tool. The isopleth for Level A harassment are summarized in Table 3, and the isopleths for Level B harassment are summarized in Table 4. The Zone of Influence ZOIs will be rounded up to the nearest 10, 100, or 1,000 meters for the transient float project.
Note that the actual area ensonified by pile driving activities is significantly constrained by local topography relative to the total threshold radius. The actual ensonified area was determined using a straight line-of-sight projection from the anticipated pile driving locations. Distances to the underwater sound isopleths for Level A and Level B harassment zones are illustrated respectively in Figures 15–17 in the City's application.
The method used for calculating potential exposures to impact and vibratory pile driving noise for each threshold was estimated using local marine mammal data sets, monitoring reports from previous projects in the same vicinity, best professional judgment from state and federal agencies, and data from take estimates on similar projects with similar actions. All estimates are conservative and include the following assumptions:
• All pilings installed at each site will have an underwater noise disturbance equal to the piling that causes the greatest noise disturbance (
• Exposures were based on estimated work hours. Numbers of days were based on an average production rate of eight hours of vibratory driving/extraction, 48 hours of down-hole drilling, and less than one hour of impact driving. Note that impact driving is likely to occur only on days when vibratory driving occurs.
• In absence of site specific underwater acoustic propagation modeling, the practical spreading loss model was used to determine the ZOI.
Steller sea lions are common in the project area and may be encountered daily. Pinniped population estimates are typically made when the animals are hauled out and available to be counted. There have been numerous counts of Steller sea lions in this area over the past few years. Aerial surveys from 2004 through 2006 indicated peak winter (October–April) counts at the Dog Bay float ranging from 27 to 33 animals (Wynne
It is assumed that Steller sea lions may be present every day, and also that take will include multiple harassments of the same individual(s) both within and among days, which means that these estimates are likely an overestimate of the number of individuals.
An estimated total of 480 Steller sea lions (40 sea lions / day * 12 days of pile installation or extraction) could be exposed to noise at the Level B harassment level during vibratory and impact pile driving (Table 6).
The attraction of sea lions to the seafood processing plant increases the possibility of individual Steller sea lions occasionally entering the Level A harassment zone (the largest injury zone is 5.5 m during down-hole drilling); however a minimum 10 m shutdown will be in effect for all construction methods, thereby eliminating the potential for Level A harassment. No Level A take is authorized for Steller sea lions.
Harbor seals are expected to be encountered in low numbers within the project area. However, based on the known range of the South Kodiak stock, 13 single sightings during 110 days of monitoring of the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project, and occasional sightings during monitoring of projects at other locations on Kodiak Island, it is assumed that harbor seals could be present every day. This analysis conservatively assumes that harbor seals could be present on any one day during the 12 days of pile installation and removal. Using this number, it is estimated that 48 harbor seals could be exposed to noise at the Level B harassment level during in-water construction activities (Table 6). We assumed three harbor seals (the maximum number of seals observed during the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project over 110 days of monitoring) may be seen in Near Island Channel for 36 takes, and included an additional one seal per day that may be present in the larger 120 dB zone for an additional 12 seals.
The shutdown zone for harbor seals is 50 m for all construction methods. Because this shutdown zone covers the entire injury zone (10 m for impact and vibratory, and 50 m for down-hole drilling), Level A harassment can be avoided. No Level A take is authorized for harbor seals.
Harbor porpoises are expected to be encountered in low numbers within the project area. Based on the known range of the Gulf of Alaska stock, 6 sightings of singles or pairs only during 110 days of monitoring of the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements project, and occasional sightings during monitoring of projects at other locations on Kodiak Island, it is assumed that harbor porpoises could be present every day. Dahlheim (2009, 2015) states that the average group size of harbor porpoise is between one and two individuals. To be conservative, we assumed groups of two animals may be seen on any given day. NMFS will authorize 24 Level B takes (two animals on 12 days) of harbor porpoises by exposure to underwater noise over the duration of construction activities (Table 6).
A shutdown zone of 100 m will be established for all construction methods for harbor porpoise. The largest injury zone is 64.6 m (rounded to 100 m) for this species; therefore, level A take can be avoided. No Level A take is authorized for harbor porpoise.
Dall's porpoises are expected to be encountered within the project area rarely. Although no sightings of Dall's porpoise occurred during 110 days monitoring of the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project, the project area is within the known range of the Gulf of Alaska stock and they have been observed at other locations on Kodiak Island. This project also includes a narrow band that will be ensonified extending to Woody Island, where Dall's porpoise may be present. There is minimal information on group sizes of this species in the Kodiak area. Dahlheim (2009) noted mean group size of Dall's porpoise in Southeast Alaska between the spring and fall of 1991–2007 ranged from 2.51 to 5.46 animals, with average group sizes between 2.77 and 3.55. OBIS SEAMAP states that
No Level A takes are requested for this species. No Level A take is expected since Dall's porpoise are uncommon in the area, preferring deeper waters, and there will be a 100 m shutdown for all construction methods for Dall's porpoise to further reduce the likelihood of injury.
Killer whales are expected to be in the Kodiak harbor area sporadically from January through April and to enter the project area in low numbers. Four killer whale pods were observed during 110 days of monitoring for the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project with the largest pod size of 7 individuals. NMFS estimates that a pod of 7 individual whales may enter the project area on half of the days during the 12 days of pile installation and removal. NMFS therefore will authorize 42 Level B takes (7 killer whales / visit * 6 days) of killer whales by exposure to underwater noise over the duration of construction activities. This increased from the proposed IHA after reconsideration of how often this species may be in the action area, which may be more often than suggested in the proposed IHA. No Level A take is requested under this authorization, since the injury zones are very small (10 m for all methods), and it is unlikely a killer whale will come that close to the piles. NMFS also expects that construction could be shut down before the whales enter the Level A harassment area.
Humpback whales are rare in the action area. One solitary animal was observed in March 2016 during 110 days monitoring of the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project. Conservatively, it assumed that one individual could be present in the area on half of the days of in-water construction. NMFS will therefore authorize six Level B takes (Table 6). Because humpback whales are rare in the area, and there will be a 100 m shutdown in place that covers the injury zones (10 m for impact and vibratory, and 100 m for down-hole drilling), no Level A takes are authorized for this species.
Based on Wade
Negligible impact is “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to all the species listed in Table 6, given that the anticipated effects of this pile driving project on marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature. There is no information about the size, status, or structure of any species or stock that would lead to a different analysis for this activity, else species-specific factors would be identified and analyzed.
Pile extraction, pile driving, and down-hole drilling activities associated with the reconstruction of the transient float, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) from underwater sounds generated from pile driving and drilling. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in the ensonified zone when in-water construction is under way.
The takes from Level B harassment will be due to potential behavioral disturbance. No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activity and measures designed to minimize the possibility of serious injury to marine mammals. These noise exposures may cause behavioral modification to a small number of each affected marine mammal species. However, the City's activities are fairly localized and of short duration, and the noise exposures are therefore expected to be localized and short-term. The entire project area is limited to the transient float area and its immediate surroundings with only a
No important feeding and/or reproductive areas for marine mammals are known to be near the action area. The project activities will not modify existing marine mammal habitat, nor will they result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat designated for any threatened or endangered species. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
Sea lions are common in the Kodiak harbor area, and the possibility exists that some of these sea lions are already hearing-impaired or deaf (Wynne 2014). Fishermen have been known to protect their gear and catches by using “seal bombs” in an effort to disperse sea lions away from fishing gear. The use of seal bombs requires appropriate permits from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Sound levels produced by seal bombs are well above levels that are known to cause TTS (temporary loss of hearing), and PTS (partial or full loss of hearing) in marine mammals (Wynne 2014).
Sea lions in the Kodiak harbor area are habituated to fishing vessels and are skilled at gaining access to fish. It is likely that some of the same animals follow local vessels to the nearby fishing grounds and back to town. It is possible that these sea lions are also hearing-impaired or deaf due to seal bombs, although no studies have been published to confirm this. It is not known how a hearing-impaired or deaf sea lion would respond to typical mitigation efforts at a construction site such as ramping up of pile-driving equipment. It is also unknown whether a hearing-impaired or deaf sea lion would avoid pile-driving activity, or whether such an animal might approach closely, without responding to or being impacted by the noise level. However, there will be a minimum 10 m shutdown for all pile driving, to avoid additional exposure.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (
In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the following factors: (1) The possibility of non-auditory injury, serious injury, or mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior; (3) the short duration of in-water construction activities (12 days), and; (4) the presumed efficacy of the mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable impact. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activity will have only short-term effects on individuals. The specified activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the City's Project will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Table 7 presents the number of animals that could be exposed to received noise levels that could cause Level B harassment for the work at the transient float project site. Our analysis shows that between <1 percent—7.16 percent of the populations of affected stocks that could be taken by harassment. Therefore, the numbers of animals authorized to be taken for all species are considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations even if each estimated taking occurred to a new individual—an extremely unlikely scenario. For pinnipeds, especially Steller sea lions, occurring in the vicinity of the transient float, there will almost certainly be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day, and these takes are likely to occur only within some small portion of the overall regional stock.
Based on the analysis contained herein NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
Alaska Natives have traditionally harvested subsistence resources in the Kodiak area for many hundreds of years, particularly Steller sea lions and harbor seals. No traditional subsistence hunting areas are within the project vicinity, however; the nearest haulouts and rookeries for Steller sea lions and harbor seals are the Long Island, Cape Chiniak, and Ugak Island haul-outs and the Marmot Island rookery, many miles away. These locations are, respectively 4, 13, 25 and 28 nautical miles distant from the project area. Since all project activities will take place within the immediate vicinity of the transient float site, the project will not have an adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence use at locations farther away. No disturbance or displacement of sea lions or harbor seals from traditional hunting areas by activities associated with the transient project is expected. No changes to availability of subsistence resources will result from transient float replacement project activities.
The City contacted the Alaska Harbor Seal Commission and the Steller sea lion Commission. Neither Commission had concerns about the impacts of this activity on native Alaska subsistence hunts.
There are two marine mammal species that are listed as endangered under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the study area: The western North Pacific (WNP) DPS and Mexico DPS of humpback whale and the western DPS of Steller sea lion. The project location is also within critical habitat of two major Steller sea lion haulouts closest to the project area: Long Island and Cape Chiniak, which are approximately 4.6 nautical miles (8.5 kilometers) and 13.8 nautical miles (25.6 kilometers) away from the project site, respectively. There are no rookeries within 20 miles of the project location. The NMFS Alaska Regional Office Protected Resources Division issued a Biological Opinion on February 7, 2017 under Section 7 of the ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to the City under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the NMFS Permits and Conservation Division. The Biological Opinion concluded that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of western DPS Steller sea lions or the Mexico DPSs of humpback whales, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify western DPS Steller sea lion critical habitat.
NMFS prepared an EA and analyzed the potential impacts to marine mammals that would result from the City's construction project. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed in February 2017. A copy of the EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is available upon request (see
Proposed collection; comment request.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites comments on a proposed extension of an information collection: Initial Patent Applications.
Written comments must be submitted on or before April 17, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to the attention of Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450; by telephone at 571–272–7728; or by email at
The USPTO is required by Title 35 of the United States Code, including 35 U.S.C. 131, to examine applications for patents. The USPTO administers the patent statutes through various rules in Chapter 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, including 37 CFR 1.16 through 1.84. Each patent applicant must provide sufficient information to allow the USPTO to properly examine the application to determine whether it meets the criteria set forth in the patent statues and regulations for issuance as a
The following types of patent applications are covered under the present information collection:
In addition, the present collection covers petitions to accept an unintentionally delayed priority or benefit claim, petitions under 37 CFR 1.47 (pre-Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)) to accept a filing by other than all of the inventors or a person not the inventor, petitions under 37 CFR 1.6(g) to accord an application under 37 CFR 1.495(b) a receipt date, and papers filed under 37 CFR 1.41(c), 1.41(a)(2) (pre-AIA), 1.48(d), 1.53(c)(2), and 1.53(c)(2) (pre-Patent Law Treaty (PLT) (AIA)) (the particular items covered under this collection are identified in more detail at Table 1 below).
Most applications for patent, including new utility, design, and provisional applications, can be submitted to the USPTO through EFS–Web. EFS–Web is the USPTO's system for electronically filing of patent correspondence and is accessible via the Internet on the USPTO Web site. The Legal Framework for EFS-Web, available at
There are 69 forms in this collection. This total incudes versions of the inventor's oath and declaration forms that were created to comply with the changes resulting from the AIA,
By mail, hand delivery, or facsimile (except that, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.6(d), the items covered under this collection that may be submitted by facsimile are limited to the petitions and the papers filed under 37 CFR 1.41(c), 1.41(a)(2) (pre-AIA), 1.48(d), 1.53(c)(2), and 1.53(c)(2) (pre-PLT (AIA))). Most of these items can also be submitted through EFS-Web.
There is no maintenance, operation, capital start-up, or recordkeeping costs associated with this information collection. However, this collection does have annual (non-hour) costs in the form of postage and drawing costs, as well as filing fees.
Although the USPTO prefers that the items in this collection be submitted electronically, the items may be submitted by mail through the United States Postal Service (USPS). The USPTO estimates that the average cost for sending a patent application by Priority Mail Express® will be $19.99 and that up to 14,441 may be mailed to the USPTO, resulting in $288,675.59 in the postage costs.
The USPTO estimates that the petitions and other papers covered under this collection, if submitted by mail, will be sent by first-class mail; a postage rate of $0.94. The USPTO estimates that up to 301 submissions may be mailed per year, thus resulting in $282.94 in first-class mailing costs.
Patent applicants can submit drawings with the applications covered under this collection. As a basis for estimating the drawing costs, the USPTO expects that all applicants will have their drawings prepared by patent illustration firms. Estimates for the drawings can vary greatly, depending on the number of figures that need to be produced, the total number of pages for the drawings, and the complexity of the drawings. Because there are many variables involved, the USPTO is using the average of the cost ranges found for the application drawings to derive the estimated cost per sheet that is then used to calculate the total drawing costs.
The utility, plant, and design continuation and divisional applications use the same drawings as the initial filings, so they are not included in these totals. The continuation-in-part applications may use some of the same drawings as the initial applications and some new drawings may be submitted, so those numbers are included in these estimates. The drawings for the continued prosecution applications also are included in the drawing cost totals.
The USPTO estimates that total drawing costs is $608,610,280. The break-down of costs for utility, design, plant, and provisional drawings is broken down in table 2 below.
In this collection, there is also an annual (non-hour) cost burden in the way of filing fees. Many of the fees had previously been housed within information collection 0651–0072 (America Invents Act Section 10 Patent Fee Adjustments), but these fees have been returned to this collection. The total estimated filing costs for this collection is $586,369,200 and is detailed in table 3 below.
The USPTO estimates that the total annual (non-hour) respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of postage costs, drawing costs, and filing fees is estimated to be approximately $1,164,394,638.53 per year.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the USPTO's request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Comments are invited on:
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of filing dates for special election.
Kansas has scheduled a Special General Election on April 11, 2017, to fill the U.S. House of Representatives seat in the 4th Congressional District vacated by Representative Mike Pompeo.
Committees required to file reports in connection with the Special General Election on April 11, 2017, shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report, and a 30-day Post-General Report.
Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694–1100; Toll Free (800) 424–9530.
All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the Kansas Special General Election shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on March 30, 2017, and a 30-day Post-General Report on May 11, 2017. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
Note that these reports are in addition to the campaign committee's regular quarterly filings. (See charts below for the closing date for each report).
Political committees filing on a semi-annual basis in 2017 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the Kansas Special General Election by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the Kansas Special General Election will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.
Additional disclosure information in connection with the Kansas Special Election may be found on the FEC Web site at
Principal campaign committees, party committees and Leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special elections must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of $17,900 during the special election reporting periods. (See charts below for closing date of each period.) 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v), (b).
On behalf of the Commission.
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of adjustments to contribution and expenditure limitations and lobbyist bundling disclosure threshold.
As mandated by provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (“the Act”), the Federal Election Commission (“the Commission”) is adjusting certain contribution and expenditure limitations and the lobbyist bundling disclosure threshold set forth in the Act, to index the amounts for inflation. Additional details appear in the supplemental information that follows.
Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463; (202) 694–1100 or (800) 424–9530.
Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. 30101–46, coordinated party expenditure limits (52 U.S.C. 30116(d)(3)), certain contribution limits (52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(1)(A) and (B), and (h)), and the disclosure threshold for contributions bundled by lobbyists (52 U.S.C. 30104(i)(3)(A)) are adjusted periodically to reflect changes in the consumer price index.
Under 52 U.S.C. 30116(c), the Commission must adjust the expenditure limitations established by 52 U.S.C. 30116(d) (the limits on expenditures by national party committees, state party committees, or their subordinate committees in connection with the general election campaign of candidates for Federal office) annually to account for inflation. This expenditure limitation is increased by the percent difference between the price index, as certified to the Commission by the Secretary of Labor, for the 12 months preceding the beginning of the calendar year and the price index for the base period (calendar year 1974). 52 U.S.C. 30116(c).
Both the national and state party committees have an expenditure limitation for each general election held to fill a seat in the House of Representatives in states with more than one congressional district.
Both the national and state party committees have an expenditure limitation for a general election held to fill a seat in the Senate or in the House of Representatives in states with only one congressional district.
The Act requires inflation indexing to: (1) The limitations on contributions made by persons under 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(1)(A) (contributions to candidates) and 30116(a)(1)(B) (contributions to national party committees); and (2) the limitation on contributions made to U.S. Senate candidates by certain political party committees at 52 U.S.C. 30116(h).
The limitation at 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(1)(A) is to be in effect for the two-year period beginning on the first day following the date of the general election in the preceding year and ending on the date of the next regularly scheduled election. Thus the $2,700 figure above is in effect from November 9, 2016, to November 6, 2018. The limitations under 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(1)(B) and 30116(h) shall be in effect beginning January 1st of the odd-numbered year and ending on December 31st of the next even-numbered year. Thus the new contribution limitations under 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(1)(B) and 30116(h) are in effect from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018.
The Act requires certain political committees to disclose contributions bundled by lobbyists/registrants and lobbyist/registrant political action committees once the contributions exceed a specified threshold amount. 52 U.S.C. 30104(i)(1), (3)(A). The Commission must adjust this threshold amount annually to account for inflation. The disclosure threshold is increased by multiplying the $15,000 statutory disclosure threshold by 1.19052, the difference between the price index, as certified to the Commission by the Secretary of Labor, for the 12 months preceding the beginning of the calendar year and the price index for the base period (calendar year 2006). The resulting amount is rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.
On behalf of the Commission.
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of filing dates for special election.
California has scheduled a Special General Election on April 4, 2017, to fill the U.S. House of Representatives seat in the 34th Congressional District vacated by Representative Xavier Becerra. Under California law, a majority winner in a special election is declared elected. Should no candidate achieve a majority vote, a Special Runoff Election will be held on June 6, 2017, between the top two vote-getters.
Political committees participating in the California special elections are required to file pre- and post-election reports. Filing deadlines for these reports are affected by whether one or two elections are held.
Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694–1100; Toll Free (800) 424–9530.
All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the California Special General and Special Runoff Elections shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on March 23, 2017; a 12-day Pre-Runoff Report on May 25, 2017; and a 30-day Post-Runoff Report on July 6, 2017. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
If only one election is held, all principal campaign committees of candidates in the Special General Election shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on March 23, 2017; and a 30-day Post-General Report on May 4, 2017. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
Note that these reports are in addition to the campaign committee's regular quarterly filings. (See charts below for the closing date for each report).
Political committees filing on a semi-annual basis in 2017 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the California Special General Election and/or Special Runoff Election by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the California Special General or Special Runoff Election will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.
Additional disclosure information in connection with the California Special Election may be found on the FEC Web site at
Principal campaign committees, party committees and Leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special elections must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of $17,900 during the special election reporting periods. (See charts below for closing date of each period.) 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v), (b).
On behalf of the Commission.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by March 20, 2017.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395–5806 OR, Email:
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an amendment to the notice of meeting of the Pediatric Advisory Committee. This meeting was announced in the
Marieann Brill, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5154, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240–402–3838, email:
In the
On March 6, 2017, the PAC will meet to discuss the following products (listed by FDA Center):
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to the advisory committees.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, announces plans to submit a new Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate below or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before April 17, 2017.
Submit your comments to
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0990–New–60D for reference.
The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.
OS specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to provide
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Dr. Sherry Mills, Director, Office of Extramural Programs, OER, NIH, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 350, Bethesda, MD 20892, or call non-toll-free number (301) 435–2729, or Email your request, including your address to:
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 1911.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice.
The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternative Compliance (COAC) was issued for the TUG CLAYTON W MORAN. We are issuing this notice because its publication is required by statute.
The Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued on January 30th, 2017.
For information or questions about this notice call or email Mr. Kevin Miller, First District Towing Vessel/Barge Safety Specialist, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (617) 223–8272, email
The United States is signatory to the International Maritime Organization's International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), as amended. The special construction or purpose of some vessels makes them unable to comply with the light, shape, and sound signal provisions of the 72 COLREGS. Under statutory law
The Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, certifies that the TUG CLAYTON W MORAN is a vessel of special construction or purpose, and that, with respect to the position of the navigation and towing lights, it is not possible to comply fully with the requirements of the provisions enumerated in the 72 COLREGS, without interfering with the normal operation of the vessel. The Commandant further finds and certifies that the sidelights (13′ 5.25″ from the vessel's side mounted on the pilot house) and stern/towing lights (3′ 5.75″ aft of frame 20 mounted on top of the pilot house) are in the closet possible compliance with the applicable provisions of the 72 COLREGS and that full compliance with the 72 COLREGS would not significantly enhance the safety of the vessel's operation.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR. 81.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
This notice advises the public that the quarterly Internal Revenue Service interest rates used to calculate interest on overdue accounts (underpayments) and refunds (overpayments) of customs duties will remain the same from the previous quarter. For the calendar quarter beginning January 1, 2017, the interest rates for overpayments will be 3 percent for corporations and 4 percent for non-corporations, and the interest rate for underpayments will be 4 percent for both corporations and non-corporations. This notice is published for the convenience of the importing public and U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel.
Kara N. Welty, Revenue Division, Collection and Refunds Branch, 6650 Telecom Drive, Suite #100, Indianapolis, Indiana 46278; telephone (317) 614–4614.
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1505 and Treasury Decision 85–93, published in the
The interest rates are based on the Federal short-term rate and determined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury on a quarterly basis. The rates effective for a quarter are determined during the first-month period of the previous quarter.
In Revenue Ruling 2016–28, the IRS determined the rates of interest for the calendar quarter beginning January 1, 2017, and ending on March 31, 2017. The interest rate paid to the Treasury for underpayments will be the Federal short-term rate (1%) plus three percentage points (3%) for a total of four percent (4%) for both corporations and non-corporations. For corporate overpayments, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (1%) plus two percentage points (2%) for a total of three percent (3%). For overpayments made by non-corporations, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (1%) plus three percentage points (3%) for a total of four percent (4%). These interest rates are subject to change for the calendar quarter beginning April 1, 2017, and ending June 30, 2017.
For the convenience of the importing public and U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel the following list of IRS interest rates used, covering the period from before July of 1974 to date, to calculate interest on overdue accounts and refunds of customs duties, is published in summary format.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information or new collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until April 17, 2017.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0117 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS–2010–0014. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529–2140, Telephone number (202) 272–8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies 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 agency's 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
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Northwest Colorado Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The Northwest Colorado RAC has scheduled its 2017 meetings for March 2, June 1, August 24 and December 7 from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. with public comment periods at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. A specific agenda for each meeting will be available prior to the meeting at
The March 2 meeting will be in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, at the Glenwood Springs Community Center, 100 Wulfsohn Road; the June 1 meeting will be in Meeker, Colorado, at the Meeker Public Library, 490 Main St.; the August 24 meeting will be in Walden, Colorado, at the Whattenberg Center on the Jackson County Fairgrounds, 686 County Road 42; the December 7 meeting will be in Craig, Colorado, at the Clarion Inn, 300 South Colorado Highway 13.
David Boyd, Public Affairs Specialist, Colorado Northwest District, 2300 River Frontage Road, Silt, CO 81652; (970) 876–9008. 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, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The Northwest Colorado RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of public land issues in northwestern Colorado. Topics of discussion during Northwest Colorado RAC meetings may include management of the Greater Sage-Grouse, working group reports, recreation, fire management, land use planning, invasive species management, energy and minerals management, travel management, wilderness, wild horse herd management, land exchange proposals, cultural resource management, and other issues as appropriate. These meetings are open to the public. Subcommittees under this RAC may meet this year regarding travel management in the White River Field Office. Active subcommittees report to the RAC at each council meeting. Subcommittee meetings are open to the public. More information is available at
On February 13, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed modification to a Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in
The original Consent Decree was entered on March 13, 2014, and resolved civil claims under the Clean Air Act at the Defendant's three carbon black manufacturing facilities located in Louisiana and Texas. The Consent Decree imposed various pollution control requirements on Defendant's facilities, including requirements related to sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter emissions. At the Canal and Ville Platte facilities in Louisiana, these pollution control requirements included, among other requirements, installation of Wet Gas Scrubber (“WGS”) systems designed to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, and Selective Catalytic Reduction (“SCR”) systems to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions. The WGS systems are also expected to result in an
The parties to the Consent Decree have agreed to certain modifications to the Decree that reflect a more refined understanding of the ancillary particulate matter reductions expected from the sulfur dioxide controls, and associated scheduling delays. The modifications would extend the deadlines for installing controls by six-and-a-half months at the Canal facility and by nine months at the Ville Platte facility, and would establish a process for Cabot to petition EPA for an alternative particulate matter limit to reflect the ancillary particulate reductions expected from the sulfur dioxide controls.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed modifications to 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 proposed modifications to the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $4.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 1992–6: Sale of Individual Life Insurance or Annuity Contracts by a Plan,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 20, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–EBSA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202–395–5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–4129, TTY 202–693–8064 (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the information collection requirements contained in the Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption (PTE) applicable to the sale of individual life insurance or annuity contracts by a plan (PTE 1992–6). More specifically, PTE 1992–6 exempts from the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1101
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• 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;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• 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,
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
The National Science Board (NSB), 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 meetings for the transaction of NSB business as follows:
February 21, 2017 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:20 p.m., and February 22, 2017 from 8:15 a.m. to 2:20 p.m. EST.
These meetings will be held at the NSF headquarters, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1235, Arlington, VA 22230. All visitors must contact the Board Office (call 703–292–7000 or send an email to
Public meetings and public portions of meetings will be webcast. To view the meetings, go to
Please refer to the NSB Web site for additional information. Meeting information and schedule updates (time, place, subject matter, and status of meeting) may be found at
The NSB is conducting a pilot project to provide some flexibility around meeting times during the February 2017 meetings. After the first meeting of each day, actual meeting start and end times will be allowed to vary by as much as (but no more than) 15 minutes in either direction. As an example, if a 10:00 meeting finishes at 10:45, the meeting scheduled to begin at 11:00 may begin at 10:45 instead. Similarly, the 10:00 meeting may be allowed to run over by as much as 15 minutes if the meeting chair decides the extra time is warranted. The next meeting will start no later than 11:15. No meeting will start more than 15 minutes away from its originally scheduled start.
NSB is implementing this pilot to improve the quality of NSB and committee discussions, and to make more effective and efficient use of NSB members' limited in-person meeting time. In prior meetings, the NSB has experienced unusable time after short meetings, and has rushed the discussion of important matters to meet the clock.
After the meeting day has begun, please arrive at the NSB boardroom or check the webcast 15 minutes before the scheduled start time of the meeting you wish to observe. Members of the public are invited to provide feedback on the scheduling flexibility pilot. Contact:
Brad Guttierez,
Nadine Lymn,
Portions open; portions closed.
Pursuant to Title 10 of the
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed within 30 days after publication of this notice in the
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed with the NRC electronically in accordance with NRC's E-Filing rule promulgated in August 2007, 72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007. Information about filing electronically is available on the NRC's public Web site at
In addition to a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene, written comments, in accordance with 10 CFR 110.81, should be submitted within thirty days after publication of this notice in the
The information concerning this import license amendment application follows.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to Title 10 of the
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed within 30 days after publication of this notice in the
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed with the NRC electronically in accordance with NRC's E-Filing rule promulgated in August 2007, 72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007. Information about filing electronically is available on the NRC's public Web site at
In addition to a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene, written comments, in accordance with 10 CFR 110.81, should be submitted within thirty days after publication of this notice in the
The information concerning this application for an export license follows.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The 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 modify its fee schedule applicable to the Exchange's equities platform to add a new footnote 19, entitled “NBBO Setter Tiers.” Under the proposed new tiers, orders that establish a new National Best Bid or Offer (“NBBO”) and which are appended with fee code B, V or Y, would receive an additional rebate ranging from $0.0001 to $0.0004 per share. The Exchange proposes to add three NBBO Setter Tiers, as set forth below.
• Tier 1 would provide an additional rebate of $0.0001 in qualifying orders where a Member has a Setter Add TCV
• Tier 2 would provide an additional rebate of $0.0002 in qualifying orders where a Member has a Setter Add TCV of at least 0.10%.
• Tier 3 would provide an additional rebate of $0.0004 in qualifying orders where a Member has a Setter Add TCV of at least 0.15%.
The Exchange also proposes to update the Fee Codes and Associated Fees table accordingly, appending footnote 19 to Fee Codes B, V and Y.
The Exchange notes that the proposed the NBBO Setter Tiers are additive rebates, and thus, can be combined with other incentives and structures offered by the Exchange. For instance, while the standard rebate for an execution yielding fee code V is $0.0020 per share, a Member with an ADAV
The Exchange notes that it previously has offered NBBO Setter Tiers (as well as an NBBO “Joiner Tier” for orders that did not set but joined the NBBO), but eliminated these tiers effective May 1,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
In particular, the Exchange believes the adoption of the NBBO Setter Tiers under footnote 19 is a reasonable means to encourage Members to not only increase their liquidity on the Exchange but also to contribute to the market quality of the Exchange by offering aggressively priced liquidity. The Exchange further believes that the proposed tiers represent an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges because the thresholds necessary to achieve the tiers encourage Members to add additional liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange further believes that the NBBO Setter Tiers are not unreasonably discriminatory as they are equally available to all Members.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe the proposed tiers will impose an undue burden on competition because the Exchange will uniformly offer the additional rebates to all qualifying Members. In fact, the Exchange believes the proposed tiers enhance competition, as they are intended to increase the competitiveness of and draw additional volume to the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes the proposed tiers enhance competition because they are intended to incentivize Members to submit aggressively price liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change represents a significant departure from the Exchange's current pricing structure, but instead, is merely another incentive offered by the Exchange to encourage Members to contribute to the growth of the Exchange. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the BZX Options fee schedule to: (i) Modify the definitions of fee codes RQ and RR to include routing to MIAX Pearl LLC (“MIAX PEARL”) and to increase the fee for fee code RR; (ii) reduce the required criteria for the Market Maker Non-Penny Pilot Add Volume Tier 3 under footnote 7; and (iii) remove all fees for Mini Options.
The Exchange's current approach to routing fees is to set forth in a simple manner certain sub-categories of fees that approximate the cost of routing to other options exchanges based on the cost of transaction fees assessed by each venue as well as costs to the Exchange for routing (
First, the Exchange proposes to modify the description of fee codes RQ and RR in connection with the upcoming launch of MIAX PEARL. Currently, fee code RR is appended to Customer
Second, the Exchange proposes to increase the fee for fee code RR from $1.00 per contract to $1.10 per contract to account for the cost of routing to MIAX Pearl. The Exchange does not propose to amend the fee for fee code RQ. The Exchange anticipates that the proposed fee structure will approximate the cost of routing orders to MIAX Pearl. The Exchange is proposing the charges set forth above to maintain a simple and fair fee schedule with respect to routing fees that approximate the total cost of routing, including Routing Costs.
The Exchange determines the liquidity adding rebate that it will offer Members using a tiered pricing structure. Currently, the Exchange offers rebates ranging from $0.45 and $0.65 per share for Market Maker
Mini Options
The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed rule change on February 1, 2017.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
As explained above, the Exchange generally attempts to approximate the cost of routing to other options exchanges, including other applicable costs to the Exchange for routing. The Exchange believes its proposed fees are equitable and reasonable by taking into account Routing Costs based on the rates charged by MIAX PEARL. The Exchange believes that a pricing model based on approximate Routing Costs is a reasonable, fair and equitable approach to pricing. Specifically, the Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt routing fees to MIAX PEARL is fair, equitable and reasonable because the fees are generally an approximation of the anticipated cost to the Exchange for routing orders to MIAX PEARL. The Exchange notes that routing through the Exchange is voluntary. The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee structure for orders routed to and executed at MIAX PEARL is fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory in that it applies equally to all Members.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to modify the required criteria of the Market Maker Non-Penny Pilot Add Volume Tier 3 is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,
The Exchange believes it is equitable, reasonable, and not unfairly discriminatory to delete fees for Mini Options from its fee schedule because the Mini Options listed and traded on BZX Options expired in January 2017 and no other series of Mini Options currently trade nor will any new series of Mini Options be trading on BZX Options. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes will make the fee schedule clearer and eliminate potential investor confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general, protecting investors and the public interest.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed routing fee will not impose an undue burden on competition because the Exchange will uniformly assess the routing fee on all Members. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes represent a significant departure from routing fees offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value or if they view the proposed fee as excessive. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change to the Exchange's tiered pricing structure burdens competition, but instead, enhances competition as it is intended to increase the competitiveness of the Exchange. Further, excessive fees for participation would serve to impair an exchange's ability to compete for order flow and members rather than burdening competition. Lastly, the Exchange believes removing fees for Mini Options from its fee schedule will not have impact on competition as it is simply designed to eliminate potential investor confusion by eliminating fees for products no longer available on the Exchange.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice of Meeting of Securities and Exchange Commission Dodd-Frank Investor Advisory Committee.
The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee, established pursuant to Section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, is providing notice that it will hold a public meeting. The public is invited to submit written statements to the Committee.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, March 9, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. until 11:55 a.m. (ET). Written statements should be received on or before March 9, 2017.
The meeting will be held in Multi-Purpose Room LL–006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at
Use the Commission's Internet submission form (
Send an email message to
Send paper statements to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
Statements also will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Room 1503, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
Marc Oorloff Sharma, Chief Counsel, Office of the Investor Advocate, at (202) 551–3302, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
The meeting will be open to the public, except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an administrative work session during lunch. Persons needing special accommodations to take part because of a disability should notify the contact person listed in the section above entitled
The agenda for the meeting includes: Remarks from Commissioners; a discussion regarding SEC investor research initiatives, the FINRA 2016 Financial Capability Study, and academic research on financial literacy; a discussion regarding unequal voting rights of common stock; a report on the nonpublic administrative work session; and a nonpublic administrative work session during lunch.
On December 22, 2016, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rules 11140 (Transactions in Securities “Ex-Dividend,” “Ex-Rights” or “Ex-Warrants”), 11150 (Transactions “Ex-Interest” in Bonds Which Are Dealt in “Flat”), 11210 (Sent by Each Party), 11320 (Dates of Delivery), 11620 (Computation of Interest), and IM–11810 (Sample Buy-In Forms), to conform to the Commission's proposed amendment to Rule 15c6–1(a) under the Act that would shorten the standard settlement cycle for most broker-dealer transactions from T+3 to T+2.
Exchange Rule 11140(b)(1) concerns the determination of normal ex-dividend and ex-warrants dates for certain types of dividends and distributions. Currently, with respect to cash dividends or distributions, or stock dividends, and the issuance or distribution of warrants, which are less than 25% of the value of the subject security, if the definitive information is received sufficiently in advance of the record date, the date designated as the “ex-dividend date” is the second business day preceding the record date if the record date falls on a business day, or the third business day preceding the record date if the record date falls on a day designated by Nasdaq Regulation as a non-delivery day. Under the proposal, the “ex-dividend date” would be the first business day preceding the record date if the record date falls on a business day, or the second business day preceding the record date if the record date falls on a day designated by Nasdaq Regulation as a non-delivery date.
Exchange Rule 11150(a) concerns the determination of normal ex-interest dates for certain types of transactions. Currently, all transactions, except “cash” transactions, in bonds or similar evidences of indebtedness which are traded “flat” are “ex-interest” on the second business day preceding the record date if the record date falls on a business day, on the third business day preceding the record date if the record date falls on a day other than a business day, and on the third business day preceding the date on which an interest payment is to be made if no record date has been fixed. Under the proposal, these transactions would be “ex-interest” on the first business day preceding the record date if the record date falls on a business day, on the second business day preceding the record date if the record date falls on a day other than a business day, and on the second business day preceding the date on which an interest payment is to be made if no record date has been fixed.
Exchange Rules 11210(c) and (d) set forth “DK” procedures using “Don't Know Notices” and other forms of notices, respectively.
The Exchange proposes similar changes to Exchange Rule 11210(d). Exchange Rule 11210(d) currently provides that, when a party to a transaction sends a comparison or confirmation of a trade, but does not receive a comparison or confirmation or a signed DK from the contra-member by the close of four business days following the date of the transaction, the party may use the procedures set forth in the rule. The Exchange proposes to shorten the “four business days” time period to one business day. Exchange Rule 11210(d)(5) currently provides that if the confirming member does not receive a response in the form of a notice from the contra-member by the close of four business days after receipt of the confirming member's notice, such shall constitute a DK and the confirming member shall have no further liability. The Exchange proposes to shorten the “four business days” time period to two business days.
Exchange Rule 11320 prescribes delivery dates for various types of transactions. Exchange Rule 11320(b) currently provides that in connection with a transaction “regular way,” delivery is made at the office of the purchaser on, but not before, the third business day following the date of the transaction. Under the proposal, delivery would be required to be made on, but not before, the second business day following the date of the transaction. Exchange Rule 11320(c) currently provides in part that, in connection with a transaction “seller's option,” delivery may be made by the seller on any business day after the third business day following the date of transaction and prior to the expiration of the option, provided the seller delivers at the office of the purchaser, on a business day preceding the day of delivery, written notice of intention to deliver. Under the proposal, delivery may be made by the seller on any business day after the second business day following the date of the transaction and prior to expiration of the option.
Exchange Rule 11620 governs the computation of interest. Exchange Rule 11620(a) currently provides in part that, in the settlement of contracts in interest-paying securities other than for “cash,” there shall be added to the dollar price interest at the rate specified in the security, which shall be computed up to but not including the third business day following the date of the transaction. Under the proposal, the interest would be computed up to but not including the second business day following the date of the transaction.
Exchange Rule IM–11810(i)(1)(A) sets forth the circumstances under which a receiving member may deliver a Liability Notice to the delivering member as an alternative to the close-out procedures set forth in Exchange Rule IM–11810(a)–(g). Currently, when the parties to a contract are not both participants in a registered clearing agency that has an automated service for notifying a failing party of the liability that will be attendant to a failure to deliver, the notice must be issued using written or comparable electronic media having immediate receipt capabilities “no later than one business day prior to the latest time and the date of the offer or other event” in order to obtain the protection provided by the rule. Under the proposal, the notice must be “sent as soon as practicable but not later than two hours prior to the cutoff time set forth in the instructions on a specific offer or other event” in order to obtain the protection provided by the rule.
The Exchange represents that it will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in an Equity Regulatory Alert, which date would correspond with the industry-led transition to a T+2 standard settlement, and the effective date of the Commission's proposed amendment to Rule 15c6–1(a) under the Act.
After careful review of the proposed rule change and the comments, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission notes that the proposal would amend Exchange rules to conform to the amendment that the Commission has proposed to Rule 15c6–1(a) under the Act
For the reasons noted above, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 22, 2016, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE” 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 Exchange proposes to amend the Supplementary Material to ISE Rule 1901, titled “Order Protection”, in connection with a system migration to Nasdaq INET technology.
Pursuant to Supplementary Material .02 to ISE Rule 1901, when the automatic execution of an incoming order would result in an impermissible trade-through, the Exchange exposes such order at the current NBBO to all Exchange members for a time period not to exceed one second.
The Exchange states that it intends to begin implementation of the proposed rule change in tandem with its technology migration to Nasdaq INET architecture which will occur on a symbol by symbol basis.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act because, in the event of a trading halt, terminating the exposure period without execution provides certainty to market participants with respect to how their interest will be handled.
For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 16, 2016, ISE Gemini, LLC (“ISE Gemini” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Exchange proposes to amend various Exchange rules to reflect the ISE Gemini system migration to a Nasdaq INET technology.
The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Gemini Rule 702 (Trading Halts) to conform the treatment of orders and quotes on the Exchange to Phlx Rule 1047(f). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 702(a)(2) by providing that during a halt the Exchange will maintain existing orders on the book but not existing quotes. Pursuant to the revision, during the halt, the Exchange will accept orders and quotes and, for such orders and quotes, process cancels and modifications. Currently, the Exchange maintains existing orders
The Exchange represents that its proposal to maintain existing orders on the book but not existing quotes during a halt on the Exchange would provide market participants with clarity as to the manner in which interest will be handled by the system.
The Exchange proposes to replace existing ISE Gemini Rule 703A (Trading During Limit Up-Limit Down States in Underlying Securities) with proposed ISE Gemini Rule 702(d).
The Commission believes that the proposed Rule 702(d) would provide certainty to market participants regarding the manner in which Limit up-Limit Down states would impact the opening process as well as Market Orders and Stop Orders. The Commission believes that the rejection of Market Orders (including elected Stop Orders) is reasonably designed to potentially prevent executions of un-priced orders during times of significant volatility.
The Exchange proposes to amend certain rules to account for the impact of a trading halt on the Exchange's auction mechanisms. First, the Exchange proposes to amend ISE Gemini Rule 723 (Price Improvement Mechanism for Crossing Transactions) regarding the manner in which a trading halt will impact an order entered into the Price Improvement Mechanism (“PIM”). Today, if a trading halt is initiated after an order is entered into the PIM, the Exchange terminates such auction and eligible interest is executed.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to terminate the PIM auction, Block Order Mechanism, Facilitation Mechanism, and Solicited Order Mechanism and not execute eligible interest when a trading halt occurs will provide certainty to participants regarding how their interest will be handled.
The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Gemini Rule 711 (Acceptance of Quotes and Orders) by adopting a new mandatory risk protection entitled Market Order Spread Protection.
The Exchange believes, and the Commission concurs, that the proposed Market Order Spread Protection would help mitigate risks associated with trading errors and help reduce the number of executions at dislocated prices.
Today, ISE Gemini offers a Price Level Protection that places a limit on the number of price levels at which an incoming order or quote to sell (buy) would be executed automatically when there are no bids (offers) from other exchanges at any price for the options series.
The Exchange represents that it will set the Acceptable Trade Range at levels to ensure that it is triggered infrequently.
The Exchange represents that the Acceptable Trade Range should prevent the system from experiencing dramatic price swings by preventing the market from moving beyond set thresholds.
The Exchange proposes to eliminate the Primary Market Maker (“PMM”) order handling and opening obligations in ISE Gemini Rule 803(c).
The Exchange represents that PMMs' current obligations are no longer necessary due to the introduction of the Acceptable Trade Range and proposed changes to the Exchange's opening process.
The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .03 to ISE Gemini Rule 803 to eliminate Back-Up PMMs. Today, any ISE Gemini member that is approved to act in the capacity of a PMM may voluntarily act as a Back-Up PMM in an options series in which it is quoting as a Competitive Market Maker (“CMM”).
The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Gemini Rule 804 (Market Maker Quotations) to establish default parameters for certain risk functionality. The Exchange currently offers a risk protection mechanism for market maker quotes that removes a member's quotes in an options class if a specified number of curtailment events occur during a set time period (“Market Maker Speed Bump”).
The Exchange proposes to amend the Supplementary Material at .03 to ISE Gemini Rule 804 (Market Maker Quotations) to adopt an anti-internalization rule. Today, ISE
The Exchange represents that the proposal is designed to assist market makers in reducing trading costs from unwanted executions potentially resulting from the interaction of executable interest from the same firm performing the same market making function.
The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Gemini Rule 715 (Types of Orders) to remove minimum quantity orders in subpart (q).
The Exchange states that the removing the minimum quantity order type would simplify functionality available on the Exchange and reduce the complexity of its order types.
Currently, ISE Gemini rules provide for the use of Directed Orders
The Exchange represents that it proposes to delay the implementation of the Directed Order and Qualified Contingent Cross Order functionalities on ISE Gemini to provide the Exchange additional time to rebuild the required technology on the new platform.
For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 15, 2016, 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”)
The Exchange proposes to adopt Rules 14T (Non-Regular Way Settlement Instructions for Orders); Dealings and SettlementsT (Rules 45–299C); 64T (Bonds, Rights and 100-Share-Unit Stocks); 235T (Ex-Dividend, Ex-Rights); 236T (Ex-Warrants); 257T (Deliveries After “Ex” Date); 282.65T (Failure to Deliver and Liability Notice Procedures); and Section 703.02T (part 2) of the Listed Company Manual (Stock Split/Stock Rights/Stock Dividend Listing Process) in order to conform the Exchange's rulebook to the Commission's proposed amendment to Rule 15c6–1(a) under the Act, which would shorten the standard settlement cycle from T+3 to T+2 for most broker-dealer transactions.
Exchange Rule 14 defines “non-regular way” settlement instructions as instructions that allow for settlement other than “regular way” (
The Exchange proposes similar changes to Exchange rules related to Dealing and Settlements. Exchange rules related to Dealing and Settlements define “regular way” as “due on the third business day following the day of the contract.” Proposed Exchange Rule Dealing and SettlementsT would replace “third business day” with “second business day.”
Similarly, Exchange Rule 64(a) defines “regular way” as “for delivery on the third business day following the day of the contract.” Proposed Exchange Rule 64T(a) would replace “third business day” with “second business day.” Exchange Rule 64(a)(ii) currently provides that on the second and third business days preceding the final day for subscription, bids and offers in rights to subscribe shall be made only “next day.” To conform with the move to a T+2 settlement cycle, proposed Exchange Rule 64T(a)(ii) would delete the reference to the third business day preceding the final day for subscription, because in a T+2 settlement cycle, bids and offers in rights to subscribe on that day would simply be subject to “regular way” settlement. Under Current Rule 64(c), all “seller's option” trades, for delivery between 2 and 60 business days, should be reported to the tape only in calendar days. The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 64T(c) to replace the reference to “two” with a reference to “three.”
Exchange Rule 235 provides that transactions in stocks, except those made for “cash” as prescribed in Exchange Rule 14, shall be ex-dividend or ex-rights on the second business day preceding the record date fixed by the corporation or the date of the closing of transfer books. The Exchange proposes in Exchange Rule 235T to change “second business day preceding” to “business day preceding.” The current Exchange Rule 235 further provides that, if the record date or closing of transfer books occurs upon a day other than a business day, Exchange Rule 235 shall apply for the third preceding business day. The Exchange proposes to change “third preceding business day” to “second preceding business day” in proposed Exchange Rule 235T.
Exchange Rule 236 pertaining to ex-warrants similarly provides that transactions in securities that have subscription warrants attached, except those made for cash, shall be ex-warrants on the second business day preceding the date of expiration of the warrants, except that when the date of expiration occurs on a day other than a business day, the transactions shall be ex-warrants on the third business day preceding the date of expiration. The Exchange proposes to adopt proposed Exchange Rule 236T and change the warrant period to the business day preceding expiration of the warrants instead of the second business day. Under proposed Exchange Rule 236T, when warrant expiration does not occur on a business day, the ex-warrant period will begin on the second business day preceding the expiration date instead of on the third business day.
Exchange Rule 257 prescribes that the time frame for delivery of dividends or rights for securities sold before the “ex” date but delivered after the record date must occur within three days after the record date. Proposed Exchange Rule 257T would shorten the time frame to two days.
Subdivision (1)(A) of Supplementary Material .65 to current Exchange Rule 282 provides that, when a liability notice is sent by parties to a contract who are not both participants in a Qualified Clearing Agency that has an automated service for notifying a failing party of the liability that will be attendant to a failure to deliver, that notice must be issued no later than one business day prior to the latest time and the date of the offer or other event in order to obtain the protection provided under Exchange Rule 282. The Exchange proposes to amend the Supplementary Material so that Exchange Rule 282.65T(1)(A) would provide that, to obtain the protection provided by Exchange Rule 282, the receiving member organization must send the liability notice to the delivering member organization as soon as practicable but not later than two hours prior to the cutoff time set forth in the instructions on a specific offer or other event.
Finally, Section 703.02 (part 2) of the Listed Company Manual prescribes that a distribution of less than 25% of a company's common stock is traded “ex” on or after the second business day after the record date. This procedure is based on the Exchange's current three-day delivery rule in which contracts made on the Exchange for the purchase and sale of securities are settled by delivery on the third business day after the contract is made, unless other terms of settlement are specified at the time the contract is made. The Exchange proposes to adopt Section 703.02T (part 2) to provide that a distribution of less than 25% of a company's common stock is traded “ex” on and after the business day prior to the record date.
The Exchange proposes to adopt the rules but delay making the rules operative until the compliance date of any amendment to Rule 15c6–1(a) under the Act that the Commission adopts. The Exchange proposes to add preambles to each amended rule, and to the rule it would replace, to provide that (1) the existing rule will remain operative until the Exchange files separate proposed rule changes as necessary to establish the operative date of the revised rule, to delete the current rule and proposed preamble, and to remove the preamble text from the revised rule; and (2) in addition to filing the necessary proposed rule changes, the Exchange will announce via Information Memo the operative date of the deletion of the current rule and implementation of the proposed rule designated with a T.
After careful review of the proposed rule change and the comments, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange.
As noted above, the Commission received two comment letters on the proposed rule change.
The Commission notes that the proposal would amend the Exchange's rules to conform to the amendment that the Commission has proposed to Rule 15c6–1(a) under the Act
For the reasons noted above, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and to protect investors and the public interest.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Section I, entitled “Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in SPY,” and Section II, entitled “Multiply Listed Options Fees”
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Section I, entitled “Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in SPY,” to (i) amend the Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity which is paid to Specialists
(ii) increase the Specialist, Market Maker, Firm,
The Exchange also proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Section II, entitled “Multiply Listed Options Fees,” to: (i) Remove the applicability of note 2 in the Pricing Schedule and thereby increase the Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm electronic Complex Orders in non-Penny Pilot Options; (ii) amend the lower transaction fee for Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm electronic Complex Orders in Penny Pilot Options; and (iii) amend the transaction fee assessed to Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm electronic Complex Orders in non-Penny Pilot Options if they are under Common Ownership with another member or member organization or an Appointed OFP of an Affiliated Entity that qualifies for Customer Rebate Tiers 4 or 5 in Section B of the Pricing Schedule.
Section I of the Pricing Schedule contains fees and rebates applicable to options overlying Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts/SPDRs (“SPY”).
Today, Simple Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity are paid as noted below to Specialists and Market Makers adding the requisite amount of electronically executed Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order contracts per day in a month in SPY:
All other market participants do not receive a SPY Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity. The Exchange proposes to amend the Simple Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity which are paid to Specialists and Market Makers by reducing the number of tiers from 6 tiers to 5 tiers. The Exchange proposes to amend Tier 2 to reduce the Rebate for Adding Liquidity from $0.20 to $0.18 per contract. The Exchange proposes to amend Tier 3 to reduce the Rebate for Adding Liquidity from $0.25 to $0.21 per contract. The monthly volume per day for Tiers 2 and 3 are not being amended. With respect to Tier 4, the Exchange proposes to amend the monthly volume per day from 20,000 to 34,999 contracts to 20,000 to 49,999 contracts. The Exchange proposes to increase the Tier 4 rebate from $0.30 to $0.31 per contract. The Exchange proposes to eliminate current Tier 5. The Exchange proposes to rename Tier 6 to be new Tier 5. No other amendments are proposed to new renamed Tier 5.
The Exchange also proposes to rename the column entitled “Monthly Volume” as “Average Daily Volume (“ADV”).” The Exchange believes that this title more accurately describes the manner in which the rebate is calculated, which is adding the requisite amount of electronically executed Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order contracts per day in a month in SPY, as noted in Part A of Section I of the Pricing Schedule. This proposed change does not impact the manner in which the Exchange calculates these rebates today.
The Exchange's proposal for the Simple Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity which are paid to Specialists and Market Makers would be as follows:
The Exchange also proposes to amend the Simple Order Fees for Removing Liquidity in SPY for Specialists, Market Makers, Firms, Broker Dealers and Professionals by increasing the fees from $0.47 to $0.48 per contract. The Customer
The Exchange proposes to amend its Complex Order Fees for Removing Liquidity in SPY for Specialists and Market Makers by increasing the fees from $0.40 to $0.43 per contract. The Exchange would not increase the fees for Firms, Broker-Dealers or Professionals; those fees will remain at $0.50 per contract. Today, Customers are not assessed a Complex Order Fee for Removing Liquidity. Despite the increased fee, the Exchange believes that its fees for Complex Orders in SPY remain competitive.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm electronic Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Complex Orders. Today, the Exchange assesses Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms an electronic Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Complex Orders of $0.35 per contract. The Exchange proposes to increase the Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm electronic Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Complex Orders to $0.40 per contract. Despite the increase to this fee, the Exchange believes the Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for electronic Complex Order transactions remain competitive. Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms will continue to be offered a discounted rate as compared to Simple Orders.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Complex Orders. Today, the Exchange assesses Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms an electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Complex Orders of $0.35 per contract. The Exchange is proposing to remove the applicability of note 2 in the Pricing Schedule from the non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms. With this proposal, Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Complex Orders would be increased to $0.75 per contract because the reduced rate would no longer apply. Members may still lower this rate if they qualified for the reduced rebate offered in note 3 in the Pricing Schedule, which note is also being amended with this proposal as noted below. As proposed, the Options Transaction Charge for Simple and Complex Order electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges would be the same fee of $0.75 per contract fee.
The Exchange also proposes to amend its Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges by amending note 3 in the Pricing Schedule. Today, note 3 provides that any member or member organization under Common Ownership with another member or member organization or an Appointed OFP of an Affiliated Entity that qualifies for Customer Rebate Tiers 4 or 5 in Section B of the Pricing Schedule
Finally, the Exchange is adding a period at end of the sentence in footnote 3 to correct a typographical error.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers' . . . .”
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Simple Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity which are paid to Specialists and Market Makers by reducing the number of tiers from 6 tiers to 5 tiers and reducing the Tier 2 rebate to $0.18 per contract, reducing the Tier 3 rebate to $0.21 per contract, amending the Tier 4 monthly volume to 20,000 to 49,999 contracts per day and the rebate to $0.31 per contract, eliminating Tier 5 and renaming Tier 6 to new Tier 5 is reasonable because the Exchange believes that the proposed five tier rebate structure will incentivize market participants to add a greater amount of Specialist and Market Maker liquidity in SPY on the Exchange to obtain higher rebates. A Specialist or Market Maker would continue to receive a rebate with this proposal provided they execute one electronic Simple Order SPY contract.
In some cases, the rebate will be lower. When 2,500 to 4,999 electronic Simple Order SPY contracts per day are added, the SPY Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity for Specialists and Market Makers will be $0.18 per contract as compared to $0.20 per
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Simple Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity which are paid to Specialists and Market Makers by reducing the number of tiers from 6 tiers to 5 tiers and reducing the Tier 2 rebate to $0.18 per contract, reducing the Tier 3 rebate to $0.21 per contract, amending the Tier 4 monthly volume to 20,000 to 49,999 contracts per day and the rebate to $0.31 per contract, eliminating Tier 5 and renaming Tier 6 to new Tier 5 is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to rename the column entitled “Monthly Volume” as “Average Daily Volume (“ADV”)” is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the title more accurately describes the manner in which the rebate is calculated, which is adding the requisite amount of electronically executed Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order contracts per day in a month in SPY, as noted in Part A of Section I of the Pricing Schedule. This proposed change does not impact the manner in which the Exchange calculates these rebates today.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Simple Order Fees for Removing Liquidity for Specialists, Market Makers, Firms, Broker Dealers and Professionals by increasing the fees from $0.47 to $0.48 per contract is reasonable because despite the increased fee, the Exchange believes that its fees for Simple Orders in SPY remain competitive. The Customer Simple Order Fee for Removing Liquidity is not being amended and will remain at $0.45 per contract. Also, the increase in the Simple Order Fees for Removing Liquidity will continue to support the rebate structure proposed herein, which as stated above, attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of Specialists and Market Makers in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Simple Order Fees for Removing Liquidity for Specialists, Market Makers, Firms, Broker Dealers and Professionals by increasing the fees from $0.47 to $0.48 per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all participants would continue to be assessed a similar fee, except for Customers. The Exchange believes that assessing Customers a lower fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Customer orders bring valuable liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits other market participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and 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's proposal to amend its Complex Order Fees for Removing Liquidity for Specialists and Market Makers by increasing the fees from $0.40 to $0.43 per contract is reasonable because despite the increased fee, the Exchange believes that its fees for Complex Orders in SPY remain competitive. Also, Specialists and Market Makers continue to be assessed a lower fee as compared to Firms, Broker-Dealers or Professionals; who are assessed $0.50 per contract.
The Exchange's proposal to amend its Complex Order Fees for Removing Liquidity for Specialists and Market Makers by increasing the fees from $0.40 to $0.43 per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Unlike other market participants, Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to amend its Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm electronic Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Complex Orders from $0.35 per contract to $0.40 per contract is reasonable because despite the increase to this fee, the Exchange believes the Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for electronic Complex Order transactions remain competitive. Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms and will continue to be offered a discounted rate as compared to Simple Orders which will continue to be assessed $0.48 per contract.
The Exchange's proposal to amend its Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm electronic Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Complex Orders from $0.35 per contract to $0.40 per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms would be uniformly assessed $0.40 per contract. Specialists and Market Makers would continue to be assessed a lower electronic Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge of $0.22 per contract. Unlike other market participants, Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to continue to offer Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms the opportunity to reduce electronic Complex Orders in Penny Pilot Options as compared to non-Penny Pilot Options because the Exchange seeks to incentivize Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms to execute Complex Penny Pilot Options orders. Also, lowering the electronic Options Transaction Charges for Complex Orders, as compared to Simple Orders is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange desires to continue to incentivize these market participants to transact Complex Orders on the Exchange. The fees will be applied uniformly to all market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to amend its Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Complex Orders by removing the applicability of note 2 in the Pricing Schedule and increasing the fee to $0.75 per contract is reasonable because Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms transacting electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges would be uniformly assessed a fee of $0.75 per contract for Simple and Complex Orders. Members may still lower this rate if they qualified for the reduced rebate offered in note 3 in the Pricing Schedule, which note is also being amended with this proposal. Despite the inapplicability of note 2, the Exchange believes the non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for electronic Complex Order transactions remain competitive.
The Exchange's proposal to amend its Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Complex Orders by removing the applicability of note 2 in the Pricing Schedule and increasing the fee to $0.75 per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms transacting electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges would be uniformly assessed a fee of $0.75 per contract for Simple and Complex Orders. Specialists and Market Makers would continue to be assessed a lower electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge of $0.25 per contract. Unlike other market participants, Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to amend note 3 in the Pricing Schedule to increase the amount a member or member organization under Common Ownership with another member or member organization or an Appointed OFP of an Affiliated Entity that qualifies for Customer Rebate Tiers 4 or 5 in Section B of the Pricing Schedule will be assessed and increase the Professional, Broker-Dealer or Firm electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge of from $0.60 to $0.65 per contract is reasonable because Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms may continue to qualify for a lower rate. Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms that do not qualify for Customer Rebate Tiers 4 or 5 in Section B of the Pricing Schedule would continue to pay an electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge of $0.75 per contract. While amendment reduces the savings, the Exchange will continue to offer Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms that qualify by sending the requisite order flow to the Exchange a lower transaction fee. In addition, attracting Customer order flow benefits all market participants with increased order flow with which to interact.
The Exchange's proposal to amend note 3 in the Pricing Schedule to increase the amount a member or member organization under Common Ownership with another member or member organization or an Appointed OFP of an Affiliated Entity that qualifies for Customer Rebate Tiers 4 or 5 in Section B of the Pricing Schedule will be assessed and increase the Professional, Broker-Dealer or Firm electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge of [sic] from $0.60 to $0.65 per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because these market participants are subject to the highest transaction fees of $0.75 per contract.
The Exchange's proposal to correct the typographical error in footnote 3 is
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
In terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange believes that its proposed rebates and fees continue to remain competitive in SPY and Multiply Listed Options. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Simple Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity which are paid to Specialists and Market Makers by reducing the number of tiers from 6 tiers to 5 tiers and reducing the Tier 2 rebate to $0.18 per contract, reducing the Tier 3 rebate to $0.21 per contract, amending the Tier 4 monthly volume to 20,000 to 49,999 contracts per day and the rebate to $0.31 per contract, eliminating Tier 5 and renaming Tier 6 to new Tier 5 does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to rename the column entitled “Monthly Volume” as “Average Daily Volume (“ADV”)” does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the title more accurately describes the manner in which the rebate is calculated, which is adding the requisite amount of electronically executed Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order contracts per day in a month in SPY, as noted in Part A of Section I of the Pricing Schedule. This proposed change does not impact the manner in which the Exchange calculates these rebates today.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Simple Order Fees for Removing Liquidity for Specialists, Market Makers, Firms, Broker Dealers and Professionals by increasing the fees from $0.47 to $0.48 per contract does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because all participants would continue to be assessed a similar fee, except for Customers. The Exchange believes that assessing Customers a lower fee does not impose a burden on intra-market competition because Customer orders bring valuable liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits other market participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and 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's proposal to amend its Complex Order Fees for Removing Liquidity for Specialists and Market Makers by increasing the fees from $0.40 to $0.43 per contract does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition. Unlike other market participants, Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to amend its Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm electronic Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Complex Orders from $0.35 per contract to $0.40 per contract does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms would be uniformly assessed
The Exchange's proposal to amend its Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Complex Orders by removing the applicability of note 2 in the Pricing Schedule and increasing the fee to $0.75 per contract does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms transacting electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges would be uniformly assessed a fee of $0.75 per contract. Specialists and Market Makers would continue to be assessed a lower electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge of $0.25 per contract. Unlike other market participants, Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants.
The Exchange believes that it does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition to continue to offer Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms the opportunity to reduce electronic Complex Orders in non-Penny Pilot Options as compared to Penny Pilot Options because the Options Transaction Charges for non-Penny Pilot Options are higher. Also, only lowering the electronic Options Transaction Charges for Complex Orders, as compared to Simple Orders does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange desires to continue to incentivize these market participants to transact Complex Orders on the Exchange.
The Exchange's proposal to amend note 3 in the Pricing Schedule to increase the amount a member or member organization under Common Ownership with another member or member organization or an Appointed OFP of an Affiliated Entity that qualifies for Customer Rebate Tiers 4 or 5 in Section B of the Pricing Schedule will be assessed and increase the Professional, Broker-Dealer or Firm electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge of from $0.60 to $0.65 per contract does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because these market participants are subject to the highest transaction fees of $0.75 per contract.
The Exchange's proposal to correct the typographical error in footnote 3 does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because it correct [sic] a grammatical error.
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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 15, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT” 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 Exchange proposes to adopt Equities Rules 14T—Equities (Non-Regular Way Settlement Instructions for Orders); 64T—Equities (Bonds, Rights and 100-Share-Unit Stocks); 235T—Equities (Ex-Dividend, Ex-Rights); 236T—Equities (Ex-Warrants); 257T—Equities (Deliveries After “Ex” Date); 282.65T—Equities (Failure to Deliver and Liability Notice Procedures); and Sections 510T (Three Day Delivery Plan) and 512T (Ex-Dividend Procedure) of the NYSE MKT Company Guide, in order to conform the Exchange's rulebook to the Commission's proposed amendment to Rule 15c6–1(a) under the Act, which would shorten the standard settlement cycle from T+3 to T+2 for most broker-dealer transactions.
Exchange Rule 14—Equities defines “non-regular way” settlement instructions as instructions that allow for settlement other than “regular way” (
Similarly, Exchange Rule 64(a)—Equities defines “regular way” as “for delivery on the third business day following the day of the contract.” Proposed Exchange Rule 64T(a)—Equities would replace “third business day” with “second business day.”
Exchange Rule 235—Equities provides that transactions in stocks, except those made for “cash” as prescribed in Exchange Rule 14—Equities, shall be ex-dividend or ex-rights on the second business day preceding the record date fixed by the corporation or the date of the closing of transfer books. The Exchange proposes in Exchange Rule 235T—Equities to change “second business day preceding” to “business day preceding.” The current Exchange Rule 235—Equities further provides that, if the record date or closing of transfer books occurs upon a day other than a business day, Exchange Rule 235 shall apply for the third preceding business day. The Exchange proposes to change “third preceding business day” to “second preceding business day” in proposed Exchange Rule 235T—Equities.
Exchange Rule 236—Equities pertaining to ex-warrants similarly provides that transactions in securities that have subscription warrants attached, except those made for cash, shall be ex-warrants on the second business day preceding the date of expiration of the warrants, except that when the date of expiration occurs on a day other than a business day, the
Exchange Rule 257—Equities prescribes that the time frame for delivery of dividends or rights for securities sold before the “ex” date but delivered after the record date must occur within three days after the record date. Proposed Exchange Rule 257T—Equities would shorten the time frame to two days.
Subdivision (1)(A) of Supplementary Material .65 to current Exchange Rule 282—Equities provides that when a liability notice is sent by parties to a contract who are not both participants in a Qualified Clearing Agency that has an automated service for notifying a failing party of the liability that will be attendant to a failure to deliver, that notice must be issued no later than one business day prior to the latest time and the date of the offer or other event in order to obtain the protection provided under Exchange Rule 282—Equities. The Exchange proposes to amend the Supplementary Material so that Exchange Rule 282.65T(1)(A)—Equities would provide that, to obtain the protection provided by Exchange Rule 282– Equities, the receiving member organization must send the liability notice to the delivering member organization as soon as practicable but not later than two hours prior to the cutoff time set forth in the instructions on a specific offer or other event.
Section 510 of the Exchange's Company Guide provides that all transactions effected on the Exchange (unless otherwise specified) will be settled in three business days. Additionally, Section 510 states that a “regular way” transaction is due for settlement by delivery of the securities against payment on the third business day after the transaction date. Section 510 also provides an example stating that a “regular way” transaction made on a Friday is due for settlement on Wednesday of the following week and that a transaction on Monday is due for settlement on Thursday of the same week. The Exchange proposes in Section 510T to replace both references to “three business days” with a reference to “two business days.” Proposed Section 510T would also amend the example provided in Section 510 by changing “Wednesday” to “Tuesday” and “Thursday” to “Wednesday.”
Section 512 of the Exchange's Company Guide provides that transactions in stocks (except those made for “cash”) are ex-dividend on the second business day preceding the record date, unless the record date selected is not a business day, in which case the stock will be quoted ex-dividend on the third preceding business day. Proposed Section 512T would shorten these time frames to the business day preceding the record date and the second business day preceding the record date, respectively.
The Exchange proposes to adopt the rules but delay making the rules operative until the compliance date of any amendment to Rule 15c6–1(a) under the Act that the Commission adopts. The Exchange proposes to add preambles to each amended rule, and to the rule it would replace, to provide that (1) the existing rule will remain operative until the Exchange files separate proposed rule changes as necessary to establish the operative date of the revised rule, to delete the current rule and proposed preamble, and to remove the preamble text from the revised rule; and (2) in addition to filing the necessary proposed rule changes, the Exchange will announce via Information Memo the operative date of the deletion of the current rule and implementation of the proposed rule designated with a T.
After careful review of the proposed rule change and the comments, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange.
As noted above, the Commission received two comment letters on the proposed rule change.
The Commission notes that the proposal would amend the Exchange's rules to conform to the amendment that the Commission has proposed to Rule 15c6–1(a) under the Act
For the reasons noted above, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and to protect investors and the public interest.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 98 to provide that, while on the Trading Floor, Designated Market Makers (“DMM”) must trade DMM securities at their assigned stock trading post location and may not trade any security that is a related product of their DMM securities. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 98 to provide that, while on the Trading Floor, DMMs must trade DMM securities at their assigned stock trading post location and may not trade any security that is a related product of their DMM securities.
Rule 98 governs the operation of a DMM unit and paragraph (c)(3) of that rule specifies restrictions on trading for member organizations operating a DMM unit. More specifically, Rule 98(c)(3)(B) provides that, while on the Trading Floor
(i) Except as provided for in Rule 36.30,
(ii) except as provided for in Rules 36.30, may not communicate with individuals or systems responsible for making trading decisions for related products or for away-market trading in their assigned DMM securities.
(iii) shall not have access to customer information or the DMM unit's position in related products.
Accordingly, under current Rule 98, while on the Trading Floor, DMMs may only trade DMM securities and, thus, may not trade any other securities, including securities that are related products to their DMM securities.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 98 to remove restrictions to DMM operations on the Trading Floor that are unrelated to the unique role of DMMs at the Exchange. Specifically, as described in Rule 104, DMMs have specified obligations with respect to their DMM securities and have access to specified non-public order information regarding their DMM securities.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 98(c)(3)(B)(i) to provide that, while on the Trading Floor, employees of the DMM unit may trade DMM securities only on or through the systems and facilities of the Exchange at the DMM unit's assigned stock trading post location and as permitted by Exchange rules. Because the proposed rule would no longer specify the only securities that a DMM is permitted to trade, the Exchange proposes to delete the clause “except as provided for in Rule 36.30.” The Exchange also proposes to add new Rule 98(c)(3)(B)(ii) to provide that while on the Trading Floor of the Exchange, employees of the DMM unit may not trade any security that is a related product of its DMM securities. The Exchange would renumber current Rules 98(c)(3)(B)(ii) and (iii) as new Rules 98(c)(3)(B)(iii) and (iv).
As a result of these proposed changes, DMMs would no longer be restricted from trading securities that are unrelated to DMM securities while on the Trading Floor. However, the proposed amendments would continue to require that, while on the Trading Floor, DMMs would not be able to trade any securities that are related products to DMM securities. The proposed amendment would also add a new requirement that DMMs may only trade their DMM securities at their assigned stock trading post.
The proposed rule change would allow Exchange DMMs that are also NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”) DMMs to continue to operate. Currently, NYSE MKT's cash equities trading operations share a Floor with the Exchange.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is designed to be pro-competitive because it would remove a restriction unique to DMMs, as specified in Rule 98, that limits which securities a DMM may trade while on the Trading Floor. No other member that trades on the Floor is subject to similar restrictions and the restrictions that the Exchange proposes to remove are unrelated to the DMM's unique role at the Exchange vis-à-vis their DMM securities. The proposed amendment would also promote competition because it would facilitate NYSE DMMs to be able to continue supporting their NYSE MKT DMM operations once NYSE MKT transitions to be a fully automated trading market.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's data fees at Rule 7026 to raise the monthly Enterprise License fee for distribution of an Enhanced Display Solution from $30,000 to $33,500, as described further below.
While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed amendments to be operative on February 1, 2017.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to raise the monthly Enterprise License fee for distribution of an Enhanced Display Solution from $30,000 to $33,500, and to correct a cross reference to Rule 7023.
An Enhanced Display Solution (“EDS”) provides a display of Nasdaq depth-of-book data—data feeds with price quotations at more than one price level, such as TotalView, OpenView and Level 2—with the capability of connecting to an Application Programming Interface (“API”). The API allows Subscribers to export the depth-of-book data to a display application of their choosing, provided that the Distributor controls access to the application, monitors its use, and prevents redistribution of the data, either externally or internally.
The Enterprise License fee allows Distributors to purchase an EDS for professional subscribers at a fixed monthly per-subscriber rate. The current fee of $30,000 per month permits the distribution of Nasdaq depth-of-book data to an unlimited number of professional subscribers at a monthly per-subscriber rate of $70 for TotalView and Level 2, and a monthly per-subscriber rate of $6 for OpenView. The monthly per-subscriber fees for Distributors that elect not to purchase an EDS Enterprise License fee are $74 for TotalView and Level 2 and $6 for OpenView, as provided in Rule 7026(a)(1)(B). All Distributors who purchase an EDS, whether or not an Enterprise License is purchased, must pay the distributor fees set forth in Rule 7026(a)(1)(A). The Enterprise License is designed to provide a lower fee to the largest Distributors of depth-of-book data to encourage distribution of such data.
The Exchange proposes to raise the monthly EDS Enterprise License fee from $30,000 to $33,500, and to correct a cross reference to Rule 7023.
The proposed increase in the monthly EDS Enterprise License fee is reasonable in light of the value of EDS to Distributors and Subscribers, which has increased significantly due to technological advances that have occurred since EDS was introduced in January of 2012, particularly for those Distributors with sufficient volume to purchase an Enterprise License.
The key feature of EDS—the capability of connecting to an API—allows the Subscriber to transfer Nasdaq data to any number of applications. When EDS was first introduced, data was transferred to relatively simple applications, such as spreadsheets. Since 2012, EDS has become more valuable as the use of the API has moved from spreadsheets to complex analytic tools, enhancing the value of EDS to both Subscribers and Distributors.
Distributors that purchase EDS through the Enterprise License are among the greatest beneficiaries of EDS because they have the largest number of Subscribers. They are also in the best position to bear the cost of an increase in the price of EDS because of that larger subscriber base.
In summary, the price increase is justified by the increasing value of EDS to Distributors that purchase an Enterprise License.
Nasdaq also proposes to correct a cross reference to Rule 7023 (Nasdaq Depth-of-Book Data).
On January 5, 2012, the Exchange filed with the Commission a proposal to amend Rule 7026 to offer an optional
Although the Exchange has changed Rule 7026 since then, it has not yet updated the reference to the Enterprise License fees. The cross reference provided under Rule 7026(a)(1)(A), establishing that Distributors subscribing to certain enterprise depth capped fees will be exempt from paying the EDS Distributor Fee, currently points to a section under Rule 7023 which provides a definition for the TotalView data feed, and not to the Enterprise License fees that would allow a Distributor to be exempt from paying the EDS distributor fee. The Exchange therefore proposes to correct that cross reference to Rule 7023(c) (Enterprise License Fees), and to modify the language to make the reference clearer, without changing its application.
The EDS Enterprise License—and the entire EDS program—is entirely optional in that Nasdaq is not required to offer it and Distributors are not required to pay for it. Distributors and Subscribers can discontinue its use at any time and for any reason, including an assessment of the fees charged.
The proposed change does not raise the cost of any other Nasdaq product, except to the extent that it increases the total cost of purchasing depth-of-book data for those who obtain such data through an EDS Enterprise License.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers. . . .”
The Exchange believes that the proposal to raise the monthly EDS Enterprise License fee from $30,000 to $33,500 is fair and equitable in accordance with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, and not unreasonably discriminatory in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. As described above, the proposed fee increase reflects the increasing value of EDS to Distributors and Subscribers, particularly those Distributors with sufficient volume to purchase an Enterprise License. Moreover, Enterprise License fees are constrained by the Exchange's need to compete for order flow, and are subject to competition from other exchanges and among broker-dealers for customers. If Nasdaq is incorrect in its assessment, there is no barrier to block a competitor from entering the market with a substantially similar product.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes are an equitable allocation and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will apply the same fee to all similarly-situated Subscribers.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
The proposed fee will raise the monthly EDS Enterprise License fee from $30,000 to $33,500. The EDS Enterprise License is used to distribute TotalView, Level 2, and OpenView, Nasdaq's depth-of-book products. The question of whether the prices of depth-of-view products are constrained by competitive forces was examined in 2016 by an Administrative Law Judge in a petition filed by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association for a review of certain actions by Self-Regulatory
Market forces specifically constrain the EDS Enterprise License fee in three respects. First, the EDS Enterprise License is one element of the total cost of purchasing depth-of-book data. Firms make purchasing decisions based on the total cost of interacting with the Exchange and, if the price of the EDS Enterprise License were set above competitive levels, competition for order flow would be harmed. Second, Distributors may elect to purchase EDS through per-subscriber fees in lieu of an Enterprise License, or may reduce their purchases of Nasdaq proprietary data. Third, the competition among Distributors for Subscribers provides another constraint on the cost of the EDS Enterprise License.
Depth-of-book data fees are constrained by competition among exchanges and other entities seeking to attract order flow. Order flow is the “life blood” of the exchanges. Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their order flow, including self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) markets, as well as internalizing broker-dealers (“BDs”) and various forms of alternative trading systems (“ATSs”), including dark pools and electronic communication networks (“ECNs”). Each SRO market competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities (“TRFs”) compete to attract internalized transaction reports. The existence of fierce competition for order flow implies a high degree of price sensitivity on the part of BDs, which may readily reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues.
The level of competition and contestability in the market for order flow is demonstrated by the numerous examples of entrants that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and BATS/Direct Edge. A proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume. For a variety of reasons, competition from new entrants, especially for order execution, has increased dramatically over the last decade.
Each SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD that competes for order flow is permitted to produce proprietary data products. Many currently do or have announced plans to do so, including NYSE, NYSE Amex, NYSE Arca, BATS, and IEX. This is because Regulation NMS deregulated the market for proprietary data. While BDs had previously published their proprietary data individually, Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and BDs to produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before possible. Order routers and market data vendors can facilitate production of proprietary data products for single or multiple BDs. The potential sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless.
The markets for order flow and proprietary data are inextricably linked: A trading platform cannot generate market information unless it receives trade orders. As a result, the competition for order flow constrains the prices that platforms can charge for proprietary data products. Firms make decisions on how much and what types of data to consume based on the total cost of interacting with Nasdaq and other exchanges. The cost of EDS is one factor in this total platform analysis. A supracompetitive price for the EDS Enterprise License has the potential to impair competition for order flow, and the need to compete effectively for order flow will constrain its price.
An Enterprise License is one among several methods of purchase available to EDS Distributors. If the price of the EDS Enterprise License were to become too high, Distributors would use another purchase option, such as per-subscriber fees.
The total cost of Nasdaq depth-of-book data relative to other options also functions as an effective constraint. If the total price of depth-of-book data, including the EDS Enterprise License, were to become too high, Distributors would be able to purchase similar data from a competitor such as NYSE or BATS, or curtail their purchases of other Nasdaq products.
The availability of alternative payment methods to purchase EDS, as well as the availability of depth-of-book data from other sources, will act as effective constraints on the price of the EDS Enterprise License.
Distributors who purchase the EDS Enterprise License are in competition for Subscribers. If the price of the Enterprise License were set above competitive levels, the Distributors that purchase that license would be at a disadvantage relative to their competitors. As such, they may lower costs by paying per-subscriber fees, curtailing their purchases of Nasdaq products, or purchasing depth-of-book data from one of Nasdaq's competitors. The competition among Distributors for Subscribers therefore provides another constraint on the cost of the EDS Enterprise License.
In summary, market forces constrain the price of the EDS Enterprise License through competition for order flow, the availability of other methods of delivery for depth-of-book data, and in the competition among Distributors for Subscribers. For these reasons, the Exchange has provided a substantial basis demonstrating that the fee is equitable, fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory, and therefore consistent with and in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 8, 2016, the 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”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposal. 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.1, Hours of Trading, Interpretations and Policies .01, to cease trading on the Exchange's System as of February 1, 2017. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, is a registered national securities exchange under Section 6 of the Exchange Act
The Exchange's trading volumes are extremely low. Currently, the Exchange currently [sic] has approximately 0.02% of market share among national securities exchanges. In addition, the Exchange's affiliates New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”), and NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) have migrated, or are migrating, to Pillar, 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.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend .01, Interpretations and Policies, under Rule 11.1 to delete “Reserved” and add the following text: “Cessation of Trading on the Exchange: The Exchange shall cease trading on the System as of February 1, 2017. All Exchange Rules will remain in full force and effect through and after February 1, 2017.”
After trading ceases as described herein, the Exchange will remain registered as a national securities exchange and continue discharging its obligations as a self-regulatory organization including, among other things, completing all open regulatory matters relating to trading on the System up to and including the close of business on February 1, 2017. The Exchange notes that it is not the Designated Examining Authority (“DEA”) for any of its ETP Holders and that there are no NYSE National-only ETP Holders,
Upon filing this proposed rule change, the Exchange will no longer accept new ETP applications or further consider any pending applications, and will promptly notify its ETP Holders through an [sic] Regulatory Circular that the Exchange will terminate the ETP status of all ETP Holders as of the close of business on February 1, 2017.
This proposed rule change is not intended to affect the ownership structure of the Exchange or alter any of the Exchange's self-regulatory responsibilities.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system because allowing the Exchange to cease trading on its legacy system would facilitate the Exchange's transition to Pillar, an integrated trading technology platform designed to reduce complexity and enhance consistency, performance, and resiliency. The Exchange believes that trading on Pillar will result in more efficient processing of transactions and promote harmonized order types and messaging on the Exchange and across its affiliates, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system and ultimately benefitting all market participants.
Further, the Exchange notes that its parent company, NYSE Group, Inc., announced on January 17, 2017, its intention to cease Exchange trading operations immediately following the close of the Transaction. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that ETP Holders have had sufficient time prior to the [sic] February 1, 2017 to determine the exchanges and trading venues to which they will direct orders after that date and to make necessary adjustments to their respective trading systems. In addition, all ETP Holders will be
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 decision to cease trading activity as of February 1, 2017 will result in one less operational trading venue for equity securities. The Exchange notes that there are numerous stock exchanges and other trading venues available to market participants to trade equity securities, including the Exchange's affiliates. The Exchange currently has approximately 0.02% of market share among national stock exchanges. In light of the low trading volume on the Exchange and the ability of ETP Holders to trade equity securities on other venues, the Exchange does not believe that its proposal will have any substantial competitive impact.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6) normally does not become operative before 30 days from the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii),
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. Such waiver will allow the Exchange to cease trading on the System as of February 1, 2017, before market open.
The Exchange has represented that (i) ETP Holders have had sufficient time to determine to which exchanges and trading venues they may direct orders after trading ceases on the Exchange and to make necessary adjustments to their respective trading systems; (ii) the Exchange will advise all ETP Holders that the Exchange will terminate their ETP status as of February 1, 2017; and (iii) the Exchange, as of the date of filing the instant proposed rule change, had approximately 0.02% of market share among national securities exchanges. For these reasons, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing with the Commission.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Section IV, entitled “Other Transaction Fees.” Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend its subsidy program, the Market Access and Routing Subsidy or “MARS,” for Phlx members that provide certain order routing functionalities
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Phlx proposes to amend its subsidy program, MARS, which pays a subsidy to Phlx members that provide certain order routing functionalities to other Phlx members and/or use such functionalities themselves. Generally, under MARS, Phlx pays participating Phlx members to subsidize their costs of providing routing services to route orders to Phlx. The Exchange believes that MARS will continue to attract higher volumes of electronic equity and ETF options volume to the Exchange from non-Phlx market participants as well as Phlx members with the proposed amendments.
Today, to qualify for MARS, a Phlx member's order routing functionality would be required to meet certain criteria.
Today, a MARS Payment would be made to Phlx members that have System Eligibility and have routed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts daily in a month, which were executed on Phlx. For the purpose of qualifying for the MARS Payment, Eligible Contracts include Firm,
Phlx members that have System Eligibility and have executed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts in a month are paid rebates today as follows:
The Exchange proposes to modify Tier 2 to require an ADV of 27,500 contracts. As proposed, Tier 2 would pay a reduced rebate of $0.08 on all executed Eligible Contracts which are routed to Phlx through a participating Phlx member's System and meet the
As is the case today, no payment will be made with respect to orders that are routed to Phlx, but not executed.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .”
The Exchange believes that lowering the Tier 2 ADV to 27,500 contracts and paying a lower MARS Payment of $0.08 while offering two new tiers for ADV of 32,500 and 40,000 contracts, which pay rebates of $0.10 and $0.12, respectively, is reasonable because all qualifying Phlx members may qualify, provided they meet the qualifications for MARS. The proposed tiers should attract higher volumes of electronic equity and ETF options volume to the Exchange, which will benefit all Phlx members by offering greater price discovery, increased transparency, and an increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange. The expanded MARS Payments should enhance the competitiveness of the Exchange, particularly with respect to those exchanges that offer their own front-end order entry system or one they subsidize in some manner. The amendment to add new Tiers 3 and 4 will incentivize Phlx members to achieve an even higher rebate, provided the Phlx member is eligible for MARS. Further, the tier structure will allow Phlx members to price their services at a level that will enable them to attract order flow from market participants who would otherwise utilize an existing front-end order entry mechanism offered by the Exchange's competitors instead of incurring the cost in time and money to develop their own internal systems to be able to deliver orders directly to the Exchange's System.
The Exchange believes that lowering the Tier 2 ADV to 27,500 contracts and paying a lower MARS Payment of $0.08 while offering two new tiers for ADV of 32,500 and 40,000 contracts, which pay rebates of $0.10 and $0.12, respectively, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly pay all Phlx members the rebates specified in the proposed MARS Payment tiers provided the Phlx member has executed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed MARS Payments offered by the Exchange are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because any qualifying Phlx member that offers market access and connectivity to the Exchange and/or utilize such functionality themselves may earn the MARS Payment for all Eligible Contracts.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the
The Exchange believes that lowering the Tier 2 ADV to 27,500 contracts and paying a lower MARS Payment of $0.08 while offering two new tiers for ADV of 32,500 and 40,000 contracts, which pay rebates of $0.10 and $0.12, respectively, does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange will uniformly pay all Phlx members the rebates specified in the proposed MARS Payment tiers provided the Phlx member has executed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed MARS Payments offered by the Exchange are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because any qualifying Phlx member that offers market access and connectivity to the Exchange and/or utilizes such functionality themselves may earn the MARS Payment for all Eligible Contracts.
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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 16, 2016, ISE Gemini, LLC (“ISE Gemini” 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 Exchange proposes to delete the entirety of current ISE Gemini Rule 701 and replace the current Exchange opening process with an opening process reflected in proposed ISE Gemini Rules 701 and 715(t).
Currently, a Primary Market Maker (“PMM”) initiates the “trading rotation” in a specified options class.
Pursuant to ISE Gemini Rule 701(b), the opening rotation for each class of options is held promptly following the opening of the market for the underlying security.
Currently, in connection with a trading rotation, ISE Gemini Rule 701(c) specifies how transactions may be effected in a class of options after the end of normal trading hours. A trading rotation may be employed whenever the Exchange concludes that such action is appropriate in the interests of a fair and orderly market.
At the outset, the Exchange proposes to adopt a new order type, “Opening Sweep”, for the new opening process.
The first part of the Opening Process determines what constitutes “eligible interest”. The Exchange proposes that eligible interest during the Opening Process
Market Maker Valid Width Quotes and Opening Sweeps received starting at 9:25 a.m. Eastern Time, or 7:25 a.m. Eastern Time for U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, are included in the Opening Process.
The Exchange proposes that the Opening Process for an option series will be conducted pursuant to proposed Rules 701(f)–(j) on or after 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time, or on or after 7:30 a.m. Eastern Time for U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, if: (1) The ABBO,
For all options, the underlying security, including indexes, must be open on the primary market for a certain time period as determined by the Exchange for the Opening Process to commence.
Proposed Rule 701(c)(3) states that the PMM assigned to a particular equity option must enter a Valid Width Quote not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index. The PMM assigned to a particular U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option must enter a Valid Width Quote not later than one minute after the announced market opening.
Proposed Rule 701(d) states that the procedure described in proposed Rule 701 will be used to reopen an options series after a trading halt.
Under proposed Rule 701(e), the Exchange will first see if the option series will open for trading with a BBO. If there are no opening quotes or orders that lock or cross each other and no routable orders locking or crossing the ABBO, the system will open with an opening quote by disseminating the Exchange's best bid and offer among quotes and orders (“BBO”), unless all three of the following conditions exist: (i) A Zero Bid Market;
A “Quality Opening Market” is a bid/ask differential applicable to the best bid and offer from all Valid Width Quotes defined in a table to be determined by the Exchange and published on the Exchange's Web site.
If all three of the conditions described above exist, the Exchange will calculate an Opening Quote Range (“OQR”) pursuant to proposed Rule 701(i) (described below) and conduct the Price Discovery Mechanism (“PDM”) pursuant to proposed Rule 701(j) (described below).
If there are Valid Width Quotes or orders that lock or cross each other, the system will try to open with a trade. Proposed Rule 701(h), however, provides that the Exchange will open the option series with a trade of Exchange interest only at the Opening Price, if any of the following conditions occur: (1) The Potential Opening Price (described below) is at or within the best of the highest bid and the lowest offer among Valid Width Quotes (“Pre-Market BBO”)
To undertake the above described process, the Exchange will calculate the Potential Opening Price by taking into consideration all Valid Width Quotes and orders (including Opening Sweeps and displayed and non-displayed portions of Reserve Orders), except All-or-None Orders that cannot be satisfied, and identify the price at which the
Under proposed Rule 701(g)(1), when two or more Potential Opening Prices would satisfy the maximum quantity criterion and leave no contracts unexecuted, the system would take the highest and lowest of those prices and takes the mid-point. If such mid-point cannot be expressed as a permitted minimum price variation, the mid-point will be rounded to the minimum price variation that is closest to the closing price for the affected series from the immediately prior trading session. If there is no closing price from the immediately prior trading session, the system will round up to the minimum price variation to determine the Opening Price.
If two or more Potential Opening Prices for the affected series would satisfy the maximum quantity criterion and leave contracts unexecuted, the Opening Price will be either the lowest executable bid or highest executable offer of the largest sized side.
If the Exchange has not opened with a BBO or trade pursuant to proposed Rule 701(e) or (h), the Exchange will conduct a PDM pursuant to proposed Rule 701(j) to determine the Opening Price. According to the Exchange, the purpose of the PDM is to satisfy the maximum number of contracts possible by applying wider price boundaries and seeking additional liquidity.
Before conducting a PDM, however, the Exchange will calculate the OQR under proposed Rule 701(i). The OQR, which is used during PDM, is an additional boundary designed to limit the Opening Price to a reasonable price and reduce the potential for erroneous trades during the Opening Process.
To determine the minimum value for the OQR, an amount, as defined in a table to be determined by the Exchange, will be subtracted from the highest quote bid among Valid Width Quotes on the Exchange and on the away market(s), if any, except as provided in proposed Rule 701(i)(3) and (4).
The Exchange will use the OQR to help calculate the Opening Price. For example, if there is more than one Potential Opening Price possible where no contracts would be left unexecuted, any price used for the mid-point calculation, pursuant to proposed Rule 701(g)(1), that is outside of the OQR will be restricted to the OQR on that side of the market.
Furthermore, during PDM, the Exchange will take into consideration the away market prices in calculating the Potential Opening Price. For example, if there is more than one Potential Opening Price possible where no contracts would be left unexecuted and the price used for the mid-point calculation is an away market price, pursuant to proposed Rule 701(g)(3), the system will use the away market price as the Potential Opening Price.
After the OQR is calculated, the system will broadcast an Imbalance Message for the affected series
Proposed Rule 701(j)(2), states that any new interest received by the system will update the Potential Opening Price. If during or at the end of the Imbalance Timer, the Opening Price is at or within the OQR, the Imbalance Timer will end and the system will open with a trade at the Opening Price if the executions consist of Exchange interest only without trading through the ABBO and without trading through the limit
If the option series has not opened pursuant to proposed Rule 701(j)(2) described above, the system will concurrently: (i) Send a second Imbalance Message with a Potential Opening Price that is bounded by the OQR (and would not trade through the limit price(s) of interest within the OQR which is unable to be fully executed at the Opening Price) and includes away market volume in the size of the imbalance to participants; and (ii) initiate a Route Timer, not to exceed one second.
Proposed Rule 701(j)(3)(iii) provides that, if no trade occurs pursuant to proposed ISE Gemini Rule 701(j)(3)(ii), when the Route Timer expires, if the Potential Opening Price is within the OQR (and would not trade through the limit price(s) of interest within the OQR that is unable to be fully executed at the Opening Price), the system will determine if the total number of contracts displayed at better prices than the Exchange's Potential Opening Price on away markets (“better priced away contracts”) would satisfy the number of marketable contracts available on the Exchange. The Exchange will then open the option series by routing and/or trading on the Exchange, pursuant to proposed Rule 701(j)(3)(iii) paragraphs (A) through (C).
Proposed Rule 701(j)(3)(iii)(A) provides if the total number of better priced away contracts would satisfy the number of marketable contracts available on the Exchange on either the buy or sell side, the system will route all marketable contracts on the Exchange to such better priced away markets as an Intermarket Sweep Order (“ISO”) designated as Immediate-or-Cancel (“IOC”) order(s) and determine an opening BBO that reflects the interest remaining on the Exchange. The system will price any contracts routed to away markets at the Exchange's Opening Price. The Exchange states that routing away at the Exchange's Opening Price is intended to achieve the best possible price available at the time the order is received by the away market.
Proposed Rule 701(j)(3)(iii)(B) provides if the total number of better priced away contracts would not satisfy the number of marketable contracts on the Exchange, the system will determine how many contracts it has available at the Opening Price. If the total number of better priced away contracts plus the number of contracts available at the Exchange's Opening Price would satisfy the number of marketable contracts on the Exchange on either the buy or sell side, the system will contemporaneously route, based on price/time priority of routable interest, a number of contracts that will satisfy such away market interest, and trade available contracts on the Exchange at the Opening Price. The system will price any contracts routed to away markets at the better of the Opening Price or the order's limit price pursuant to proposed Rule 701(j)(vi)(C)(3)(ii). The Exchange states that this proposed rule is designed to maximize execution of interest on the Exchange or away markets.
Proposed Rule 701(j)(3)(iii)(C) provides if the total number of better priced away contracts plus the number of contracts available at the Opening Price plus the contracts available at away markets at the Exchange's Opening Price would satisfy the number of marketable contracts on the Exchange, either the buy or sell side, the system will contemporaneously route, based on price/time priority, a number of contracts that will satisfy such away market interest (pricing any contracts routed to away markets at the better of the Opening Price or the order's limit price), trade available contracts on the Exchange at the Opening Price, and route a number of contracts that will satisfy interest at other markets at prices equal to the Opening Price. The Exchange states that routing at the better of the Opening Price or the order's limit price is intended to achieve the best possible price available at the time the order is received by the away market and that routing at the order's limit price ensures that the order's limit price is not violated.
Proposed Rule 701(j)(4) provides that the system may send up to two additional Imbalance Messages
Proposed Rule 701(j)(5) describes the process that occurs if the steps described above have not resulted in an opening of the options series. After all additional Imbalance Messages have been broadcasted pursuant to proposed Rule 701(j)(4), the system will open the series by executing as many contracts as possible by: (i) Routing to away markets at prices better than the Opening Price for their disseminated size; (ii) trading available contracts on the Exchange at the Opening Price bounded by the OQR (without trading through the limit price(s) of interest within the OQR which is unable to be fully executed at the Opening Price); and (iii) routing contracts to away markets at prices equal to the Opening Price at their disseminated size. In forced opening, the system will price any contracts routed to away markets at the better of the Opening Price or the order's limit price. Any unexecuted contracts from the imbalance not traded or routed will be cancelled back to the entering participant if they remain unexecuted and priced through the Opening Price.
Proposed Rule 701(j)(6) provides the system will execute orders at the Opening Price that have contingencies (such as without limitation, All-or-None, and Reserve Orders) and non-routable orders such as “Do-Not-Route” or “DNR” Orders,
Proposed Rule 701(j)(6)(i) provides the system will cancel: (i) Any portion
Proposed Rule 701(k) provides that during the opening of the option series, where there is an execution possible, the system will give priority first to Market Orders,
The Exchange states that it intends to begin implementation of the proposed rule change in first quarter of 2017.
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 delete in its entirety the current opening process and replace it with an opening rotation similar to the process in place on its affiliated exchange, Phlx. In making this change, the Exchange delineates, unlike in the current, more opaque rule, detailed steps of the opening process. By providing more clearly each sequence of the opening process, the Commission notes that the proposed rule helps market participants understand how the new opening rotation will operate. To that extent, the new opening process may promote transparency, reduce the potential for investor confusion, and assist market participants in deciding whether to participate in ISE Gemini's opening rotation. Further, if they do participate in the new opening process, the proposed rule may help provide market participants with the confidence and certainty as to how their orders or quotes will be processed.
Further, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade by seeking to ensure that option series open in a fair and orderly manner. For example, the Commission notes that the proposed rule change is designed to mitigate the effects of the underlying security's volatility as the overlying option series undergoes the opening rotation. Specifically, the proposed rule provides for a range of no less than 100 milliseconds and no more than 5 seconds in order to ensure that the Exchange has the ability to adjust the period for which the underlying must be open on the primary market before the opening process commences. Moreover, the Commission notes that the proposed rule provides an orderly process for handling eligible interests during the opening rotation, while seeking to avoid opening executions at suboptimal prices. For instance, the new process ensures that the Exchange will not open with the Exchange's BBO if there is a Zero Bid Market, no ABBO, and no Quality Opening Market. Likewise, the Exchange will not open an option series with a trade unless one following conditions is met: (1) The Potential Opening Price is at or within the Pre-Market BBO and the ABBO; (2) the Potential Opening Price is at or within the non-zero bid ABBO if the Pre-Market BBO is crossed; or (3) where there is no ABBO, the Potential Opening Price is at or within the Pre-Market BBO which is also a Quality Opening Market. Finally, while the new opening process attempts to maximize the number of contracts executed on the Exchange during such rotation, including by seeking additional liquidity, if necessary, the Commission notes that the new opening process, unlike the current process, takes into consideration away market interests and ensures that better away prices are not traded through. For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that GarMark SBIC Fund, L.P., One Landmark Square, Floor 6 Stamford, CT 06901, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concerns, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business
The proposed transaction is brought within the purview of § 107.730 of the Regulations because CAbi, LLC. will be using financing proceeds from GarMark SBIC Fund, L.P., in part to discharge obligations to GarMark Partners II, L.P. which is an Associate of GarMark SBIC Fund, L.P., as defined at § 107.50 due to common management.
Therefore, the proposed transaction is considered self-deal pursuant to 13 CFR 107.730 and requires a regulatory exemption. Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction within fifteen days of the date ofthis publication to Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202–632–6471; email: