Federal Register Vol. 82, No.26,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 26 (February 9, 2017)

Page Range9967-10254
FR Document

82_FR_26
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 10026 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
82 FR 10099 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; OneChicago, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Fraudulent ActsPDF
82 FR 10123 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Add New MSRB Rule G-49, on Transactions Below the Minimum Denomination of an Issue, to the Rules of the MSRB, and To Rescind Paragraph (f), on Minimum Denominations, From MSRB Rule G-15PDF
82 FR 10024 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 9987 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Oregon Advisory Committee; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 9974 - Onshore Oil and Gas Operations; Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases; Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1, Approval of OperationsPDF
82 FR 9986 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Georgia Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss Potential Civil Rights Topics of StudyPDF
82 FR 10030 - Information Collection: “Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Well Logging”PDF
82 FR 9994 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 10174 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “A World Full of Emotions: Ancient Greece, 700 BC-200 AD” ExhibitionPDF
82 FR 10177 - Watco Holdings, Inc.-Continuance in Control Exemption-Jacksonville Port Terminal Railroad, L.L.C.PDF
82 FR 9996 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 10175 - Jacksonville Port Terminal Railroad-Operation Exemption-The Jacksonville Port AuthorityPDF
82 FR 9978 - Safety Zones; Ice Covered Waterways in the Fifth Coast Guard DistrictPDF
82 FR 10176 - The Indiana Rail Road Company-Trackage Rights Exemption-CSX Transportation, Inc.PDF
82 FR 9993 - Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (Judicial Proceedings Panel); Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
82 FR 10185 - Quarterly Publication of Individuals, Who Have Chosen To Expatriate, as Required by Section 6039GPDF
82 FR 10184 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
82 FR 10217 - Proposed Collection: Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
82 FR 9986 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Wyoming Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 9985 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meetings of the West Virginia Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 9985 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Virginia Advisory Committee To Discuss Potential Projects of StudyPDF
82 FR 10219 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple IRS Information Collection RequestsPDF
82 FR 9983 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 9984 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 10218 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple IRS Information Collection RequestsPDF
82 FR 10018 - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions ReceivedPDF
82 FR 10222 - Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Frameworks for Migratory Bird Hunting RegulationsPDF
82 FR 9972 - Safety Zone; Operational Equipment Test; Bellingham Bay; Bellingham, WAPDF
82 FR 10177 - Projects Rescinded for Consumptive Uses of WaterPDF
82 FR 10177 - Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of WaterPDF
82 FR 10031 - Source Materials License No. SUC-1593, Amendment 2, Davy Crockett Depleted Uranium at Various United States Army InstallationsPDF
82 FR 10027 - In the Matter of Curtis ThompsonPDF
82 FR 10033 - New Postal ProductsPDF
82 FR 10026 - Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate From China; Supplemental Schedule for the Subject InvestigationsPDF
82 FR 10022 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
82 FR 10025 - Prospective Grant of Exclusive Patent License: Inhibition of Plasmodial Surface Anion Channels for the Treatment or Prevention of MalariaPDF
82 FR 10010 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10299, WestBridge Bank and Trust Company, Chesterfield, MissouriPDF
82 FR 10002 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
82 FR 10004 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
82 FR 10000 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
82 FR 10003 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
82 FR 10000 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
82 FR 10179 - Notice of Funding Availability for the Small Business Transportation Resource Center (SBTRC) ProgramPDF
82 FR 10012 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
82 FR 10010 - iSpring Water Systems, LLC; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public CommentPDF
82 FR 9991 - Renewal of Currently Approved Information Collection; Comment Request; Limited Access Death Master File Systems Safeguards Attestation FormsPDF
82 FR 9969 - International Affairs; Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention ActPDF
82 FR 9967 - Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation AdjustmentsPDF
82 FR 9999 - Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 9998 - ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Wisconsin South Expansion ProjectPDF
82 FR 9999 - Notice of Public Comment Session Schedule Change for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline, Supply Header Project, and Capacity Lease ProposalPDF
82 FR 10086 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading Shares of the Bitcoin Investment Trust under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201PDF
82 FR 10034 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Consolidated Audit TrailPDF
82 FR 10117 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To (1) Implement the Margin Proxy, (2) Modify the Calculation of the Coverage Charge in Circumstances Where the Margin Proxy Applies, and (3) Make Certain Technical CorrectionsPDF
82 FR 10105 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Chapter 9PDF
82 FR 10101 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.PDF
82 FR 10147 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Adopt Chapter 9PDF
82 FR 10059 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Partial Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4512 (Customer Account Information) and Adopt FINRA Rule 2165 (Financial Exploitation of Specified Adults), as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1PDF
82 FR 10130 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Mercury, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Chapter 9PDF
82 FR 10047 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rules 4.5 Through 4.16 To Implement the Compliance Rule Regarding the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit TrailPDF
82 FR 10073 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt the FINRA Rule 6800 Series (Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rule)PDF
82 FR 10159 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rules Regarding the CAT NMS PlanPDF
82 FR 10143 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 519A, Risk Protection Monitor for Orders Entered via the FIX Interface (“RPM-FIX”), and Exchange Rule 519B, Risk Protection Monitor for Orders Entered via the MEO Interface (“RPM-MEO”)PDF
82 FR 10070 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New Type of Logical Port Known as a Purge PortPDF
82 FR 10102 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New Type of Logical Port Known as a Purge PortPDF
82 FR 10008 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request (3064-0112, -0125, -0127 & -0175)PDF
82 FR 10004 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewals; Comment Request (3064-0019, -0061, -0087 & -0143)PDF
82 FR 10007 - Update to Notice of Financial Institutions for Which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Has Been Appointed Either Receiver, Liquidator, or ManagerPDF
82 FR 10008 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership of 10393, Creekside Bank, Woodstock, GeorgiaPDF
82 FR 10007 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10372 Mountain Heritage Bank, Clayton, GeorgiaPDF
82 FR 10007 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10197 Old Southern Bank, Orlando, FloridaPDF
82 FR 10007 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10272, Coastal Community Bank, Panama City Beach, FloridaPDF
82 FR 10007 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10484, First Community Bank of Southwest Florida, Fort Myers, FloridaPDF
82 FR 10008 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10206, Key West Bank, Key West, FloridaPDF
82 FR 9987 - International Affairs; U.S. Fishing Opportunities in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Regulatory AreaPDF
82 FR 9973 - Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Colorado; Delay of Effective DatePDF
82 FR 10014 - Notice of MeetingsPDF
82 FR 10015 - Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment From the Fresenius Medical Care PSO, LLCPDF
82 FR 10015 - Scientific Information Request on Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Narrative and Systematic Review of Definitions and Methods in Clinical Research StudiesPDF
82 FR 10021 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 10023 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 10024 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 10020 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 10024 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 10024 - National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 10023 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 10021 - National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 10020 - National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 10178 - Award Management Requirements-Final Circular; Buy America Handbook-Conducting Pre-Award and Post Delivery Audits for Rolling Stock Procurements; Delay of Effective Dates for Guidance DocumentsPDF
82 FR 9975 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian IslandsPDF
82 FR 10025 - Notice of an Open Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Water InformationPDF
82 FR 9975 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To List Two Guitarfishes as Threatened Under the Endangered Species ActPDF
82 FR 9967 - National Organic Program (NOP); Organic Livestock and Poultry PracticesPDF
82 FR 9970 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Youngs Bay, Astoria, ORPDF
82 FR 10174 - Notice of Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 10175 - Notice of Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 10173 - California Disaster #CA-00257PDF

Issue

82 26 Thursday, February 9, 2017 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Meetings: Subcommittees, 10014-10015 2017-02624 Patient Safety Organization Delistings: Fresenius Medical Care PSO, LLC, 10015 2017-02623 Requests for Scientific Information Submissions: Treatment-Resistant Depression: Narrative and Systematic Review of Definitions and Methods in Clinical Research Studies, 10015-10018 2017-02622 Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service RULES National Organic Program: Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices, 9967 2017-02608 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Forest Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2017-02686 2017-02687 9983-9985 2017-02690 2017-02691
Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Georgia Advisory Committee, 9986 2017-02710 Oregon Advisory Committee; Correction, 9987 2017-02713 Virginia Advisory Committee, 9985 2017-02693 West Virginia Advisory Committee, 9985-9986 2017-02694 Wyoming Advisory Committee, 9986-9987 2017-02695 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Youngs Bay, Astoria, OR, 9970-9971 2017-02603 Safety Zones: Operational Equipment Test; Bellingham Bay; Bellingham, WA, 9972-9973 2017-02681 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: Ice Covered Waterways in Fifth Coast Guard District, 9978-9982 2017-02702 Commerce Commerce Department See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Technical Information Service

Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Arms Sales, 9994-9998 2017-02704 2017-02708 Meetings: Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel, 9993 2017-02700 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 10000-10004 2017-02666 2017-02667 2017-02668 2017-02669 2017-02670 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 10004-10006, 10008-10010 2017-02634 2017-02635 Terminations of Receivership: 10372 Mountain Heritage Bank, Clayton, GA, 10007 2017-02631 10393, Creekside Bank, Woodstock, GA, 10008 2017-02632 Coastal Community Bank, Panama City Beach, FL, 10007 2017-02629 First Community Bank of Southwest Florida, Fort Myers, FL, 10007 2017-02628 Key West Bank, Key West, FL, 10008 2017-02627 Old Southern Bank, Orlando, FL, 10007 2017-02630 WestBridge Bank and Trust Company, Chesterfield, MO, 10010 2017-02671 Updated Listing of Financial Institutions in Liquidation, 10007-10008 2017-02633 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: ANR Pipeline Co. Wisconsin South Expansion Project, 9998-9999 2017-02653 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, et al., Atlantic Coast Pipeline, Supply Header Project, and Capacity Lease Proposal, 9999 2017-02652 Requests under Blanket Authorizations: Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, LLC, 9999-10000 2017-02654 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 10012-10014 2017-02664 Proposed Consent Orders: iSpring Water Systems, LLC, 10010-10012 2017-02663 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Delay of Effective Dates for Guidance Documents, 10178-10179 2017-02612 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Migratory Bird Hunting: Proposed Frameworks for Regulations, 10222-10254 2017-02684 Forest Forest Service RULES Roadless Area Conservation: National Forest System Lands in Colorado; Delay of Effective Date, 9973-9974 2017-02625 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Water Information, 10025-10026 2017-02610 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: List of Petitions Received, 10018-10019 2017-02685 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

See

Land Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2017-02696 2017-02697 10184-10185, 10217-10218 2017-02698 Quarterly Publication of Individuals, Who Have Chosen to Expatriate, 10185-10217 2017-02699 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate from China, 10026 2017-02675 Land Land Management Bureau RULES Onshore Oil and Gas Operations: Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases; Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1, Approval of Operations; Delay of Effective and Implementation Dates, 9974-9975 2017-02711 National Council National Council on Disability NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 10026-10027 2017-02828 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Exclusive Patent Licenses: Inhibition of Plasmodial Surface Anion Channels for Treatment or Prevention of Malaria, 10025 2017-02673 Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 10022-10023 2017-02674 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 10020-10021, 10024 2017-02618 2017-02619 National Cancer Institute, 2017-02615 10021-10023 2017-02621 National Eye Institute, 10024 2017-02617 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 2017-02620 10023-10025 2017-02727 National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, 10020-10021, 10024 2017-02613 2017-02614 2017-02616 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Listing of Two Guitarfishes as Threatened under Endangered Species Act, 9975 2017-02609 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Reallocation of Pollock in Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, 9975-9977 2017-02611 International Affairs; Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act, 9969-9970 2017-02658 NOTICES International Affairs: U.S. Fishing Opportunities in Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Regulatory Area, 9987-9991 2017-02626 National Technical National Technical Information Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Limited Access Death Master File Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms, 9991-9993 2017-02659 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Well Logging, 10030-10031 2017-02709 License Amendments: Source Materials License No. SUC-1593, Amendment 2, Davy Crockett Depleted Uranium at Various United States Army Installations, 10031-10033 2017-02678 Orders: Curtis Thompson, 10027-10030 2017-02677 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 10033-10034 2017-02676 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., 10101-10102 2017-02647 Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 10102-10105 2017-02638 Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., 10047-10059 2017-02643 Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., 10070-10073 2017-02639 C2 Options Exchange, Inc., 10034-10047 2017-02650 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 10059-10070, 10073-10086 2017-02642 2017-02645 Fixed Income Clearing Corp., 10117-10123 2017-02649 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 10105-10117 2017-02648 ISE Gemini, LLC, 10147-10159 2017-02646 ISE Mercury, LLC, 10130-10143 2017-02644 MIAX PEARL, LLC, 10143-10147 2017-02640 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 10123-10130 2017-02737 NASDAQ BX, Inc., 10159-10173 2017-02641 NYSE Arca, Inc., 10086-10099 2017-02651 OneChicago, LLC, 10099-10100 2017-02738 Small Business Small Business Administration RULES Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustments, 9967-9969 2017-02657 NOTICES Disaster Declarations: California, 10173-10174 2017-02565 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: World Full of Emotions: Ancient Greece, 700 BC--200 AD Exhibition, 10174 2017-02707 Meetings: Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services, 2017-02601 10174-10175 2017-02602 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Continuance in Control Exemptions: Watco Holdings, Inc.; Jacksonville Port Terminal Railroad, LLC, 10177 2017-02705 Operation Exemptions: Jacksonville Port Terminal Railroad from Jacksonville Port Authority, 10175-10176 2017-02703 Trackage Rights Exemptions: Indiana Rail Road Co.; CSX Transportation, Inc., 10176 2017-02701 Susquehanna Susquehanna River Basin Commission NOTICES Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of Water, 10177-10178 2017-02679 Projects Rescinded for Consumptive Uses of Water, 10177 2017-02680 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Transit Administration

NOTICES Funding Availabilities: Small Business Transportation Resource Center Program, 10179-10184 2017-02665
Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 10219 2017-02692 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Multiple IRS Information Collection Requests, 10218-10219 2017-02689
Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 10222-10254 2017-02684 Reader Aids

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.

82 26 Thursday, February 9, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 205 [Doc. No. AMS-NOP-15-0012; NOP-15-06] RIN 0581-AD44 National Organic Program (NOP); Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule; delay of effective date.

SUMMARY:

Consistent with the Memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled, “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” this action delays the effective date for 60 days for the rule, Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices. This rule, published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2017, amends the organic livestock and poultry production requirements by adding new provisions for livestock handling and transport for slaughter and avian living conditions; and expands and clarifies existing requirements covering livestock care and production practices and mammalian living conditions. The rule was originally set to take effect on March 20, 2017.

DATES:

The effective date of the final rule published on January 19, 2017 (82 FR 7042) is delayed from March 20, 2017, to a new effective date of May 19, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul Lewis, Ph.D., Director, Standards Division. Telephone: (202) 720-3252; Fax: (202) 260-9151.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

AMS is taking this action based on the Memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled, “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.” This memorandum directs agencies to extend the effective dates of regulations which have been published in the Federal Register, but have not taken effect. This action delays the effective date of the final rule, Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices, 82 FR 7042 (January 19, 2017), by 60 days.

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. AMS 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). AMS 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.

Dated: February 3, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-02608 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Parts 107, 120, 142, and 146 RIN 3245-AG83 Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustments AGENCY:

Small Business Administration.

ACTION:

Interim final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Small Business Administration (SBA) is amending its regulations to adjust for inflation the amount of certain civil monetary penalties that are within the jurisdiction of the agency. These adjustments comply with the requirement in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, to make annual adjustments to the penalties.

DATES:

Effective Date: This rule is effective February 9, 2017.

Comment Date: Comments must be received on or before April 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3245-AG83 by any of the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Arlene Embrey, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.

SBA will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. If you wish to submit confidential business information (CBI) as defined in the User Notice at http://www.regulations.gov, please submit the information to Arlene Embrey, Trial Attorney, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416, and highlight the information that you consider to be CBI and explain why you believe this information should be held confidential. SBA will review the information and make a final determination as to whether or not the information will be published.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Arlene Embrey, 202-205-6976, or at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Improvements Act), Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 584. This act amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat 890 (the 1990 Inflation Adjustment Act), to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain their deterrent effect. The 2015 Inflation Adjustment Improvements Act requires agencies to issue an interim final rule (IFR) to: (1) Adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment; and (2) make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation no later than January 15 of each subsequent year. The 2015 Inflation Adjustment Improvements Act also authorizes agencies to implement the annual adjustments without regard to the requirements for public notice and comment or delayed effective date under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), respectively.

In addition, based on the definition of a “civil monetary penalty” in the 1990 Inflation Adjustment Act, agencies are to make adjustments only to the civil penalties that (i) are for a specific monetary amount as provided by federal law or have a maximum amount provided for by federal law; (ii) are assessed or enforced by an agency; and (iii) are enforced or assessed in an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the Federal courts. Therefore, penalties that are stated as a percentage of an indeterminate amount or as a function of a violation (penalties that encompass actual damages incurred) are not to be adjusted.

On May 19, 2016, SBA complied with the first requirement by publishing an IFR with the initial adjustments to the civil penalties SBA is responsible for assessing or enforcing. 81 FR 31489. These initial adjustments to the penalties became effective on August 1, 2016. In this rule SBA complies with the second requirement by making the first annual inflation adjustment to these penalties.

Consistent with the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Improvements Act, as well as the guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget in M-17-11, Implementation of the 2017 annual adjustment pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Act Improvements Act, (December 16, 2016), the formula for calculating the annual adjustments is based on the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October preceding the adjustment. Specifically, the change between the October CPI-U preceding the date of adjustment and the prior year's CPI-U, which for the adjustments in this rule is the percentage change between October 2016 CPI-U (241.729) and October 2015 CPI-U (237.838) or 1.01636. Therefore, the annual adjustments identified in this rule were obtained by applying this multiplier to the most recent penalty amounts established in the IFR published in May 2016.

II. Civil Money Penalties Adjusted by This Rule

This rule makes adjustments to civil monetary penalties authorized by the Small Business Act, the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (SBIAct), the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act and the Byrd Amendment to the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act. These penalties and the implementing regulations are discussed below.

1. 13 CFR 107.665—Civil Penalties

SBA licenses, regulates and provides financial assistance to financial entities called small business investment companies (SBICs). Pursuant to section 315 of the SBIAct, 15 U.S.C. 687g, SBA may impose a penalty on any SBIC that fails to comply with SBA's regulations or directives governing the filing of regular or special reports. The penalty for non-compliance is incorporated in § 107.665 of the SBIC program regulations.

The current civil penalty amount for violation of this requirement, as adjusted in May 2016, is $250. This amount was multiplied by the multiplier of 1.01636 to reach a product of $254, rounded to the nearest dollar. Thus, the new civil penalty amount is $254 for each and every day an SBIC fails to file a required report.

2. 13 CFR 120.465—Civil Penalty for Late Submission of Required Reports

According to the regulations at § 120.465, any small business lending company (SBLC) that violates a regulation or written directive issued by the SBA Administrator regarding the filing of any regular or special report is subject to the civil penalty amount stated in § 120.465(b) for each day the company fails to file the report, unless the small business lending company can show that there is reasonable cause for its failure to file. This penalty, which is authorized by section 23(j)(1) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 650(j)(1), was adjusted in the May 2016 IFR from $5,000 to $6,229. However, due to a typographical error, the amount was published incorrectly in the May 2016 IFR as $6,299. The amount should have been stated as $6,229, the product of the then $5,000 penalty multiplied by 1.24588, the multiplier established under the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Improvements Act.

In light of this correction, this rule amends § 120.465(b) to adjust this civil penalty by multiplying $6,229, the correct product under the guidelines for the May 2016 IFR, by the multiplier of 1.01636 to reach a product of $6,331, rounded to the nearest dollar. Thus, the new civil penalty amount is not more than $6,331 for each and every day an SBLC fails to file the respective report.

3. 13 CFR 142.1—Overview of Regulations

SBA has promulgated regulations at 13 CFR part 142 to implement the civil penalties authorized by the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (PFCRA), 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812. Under the current regulation at § 142.1(b), a person who submits, or causes to be submitted, a false claim or a false statement to SBA is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,781, for each statement or claim.

This rule amends § 142.1(b) to adjust the current civil penalty to $10,957 per statement or claim. The adjusted civil penalty amount was calculated by multiplying the current civil penalty of $10,781 by the multiplier of 1.01636 to reach a product of $10,957, rounded to the nearest dollar.

4. 13 CFR 146.400—Penalties

SBA's regulations at 13 CFR part 146 govern lobbying activities by recipients of federal financial assistance. These regulations implement the authority in 31 U.S.C. 1352, which was established in 1989 and impose penalties on any recipient that fails to comply with certain requirements in the part. Specifically, under § 146.400(a) and (b), penalties may be imposed on those who make prohibited expenditures or fail to file the required disclosure forms or to amend such forms, if necessary. The regulations at § 146.400(a) and (b) were amended by the May 2016 IFR to adjust the penalty amounts of “not less than $10,000 and no more than $100,000” to “not less $18,936 and no more than $189,361” for each prohibited expenditure or failure to file or amend the disclosure forms. The May 2016 IFR also amended § 146.400(e) to (1) adjust the civil penalty that may be imposed for a first time violation of § 146.400(a) and (b), to a maximum of $18,936, absent aggravating circumstances, and (2) adjust the civil penalty that may be imposed for second and subsequent offenses to not less $18,936 and no more than $189,361.

This rule amends § 146.400(a) and (b), to adjust the current civil penalty amounts to “not less than $19,246 and not more than $192,459.” The current civil penalty amounts of $18,936 and $189,361 were multiplied by the multiplier of 1.01636 to reach a product of $19,246 and $192,459, respectively, rounded to the nearest dollar.

This rule also amends § 146.400(e) to adjust the civil penalty that may be imposed for a first time violation of § 146.400(a) and (b) to a maximum of $19,246 and to adjust the civil penalty that may be imposed for second and subsequent offenses to not less than $19,246 and not more than $192,459. The current civil penalty amounts of $18,936 and $189,361 were multiplied by the multiplier of 1.01636 to reach a product of $19,246 and $192,459, respectively, rounded to the nearest dollar.

III. Justification for Interim Final Rule

The 2015 Inflation Adjustment Improvements Act specifically authorizes agencies to promulgate rulemaking for the annual adjustment to their civil monetary penalties, “notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, United States Code,” which generally requires agencies to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the rule making before the rule can be effective. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)

IV. Justification for Immediate Effective Date

Section 553(d) requires agencies to publish their rules at least 30 days before their effective dates, except if the agency finds for good cause that the delay is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. By expressly exempting this rule from section 553, the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Improvements Act has provided the agency with the good cause justification for this rule to become effective on the date it is published in the Federal Register.

Compliance With Executive Orders 12866, 12988, and 13132, and the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this interim final rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This is also not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 800.

Executive Order 12988

This action meets applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.

Executive Order 13132

For the purpose of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that the rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, this interim final rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

SBA has determined that this rule does not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The RFA requires agencies to consider the effect of their regulatory actions on small entities, including small non-profit businesses, and small local governments. Pursuant to the RFA, when an agency issues a rule the agency must prepare an analysis that describes whether the impact of the rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of such small entities. However, the RFA requires such analysis only where notice and comment rulemaking is required. As stated above, SBA has express statutory authority to issue this rule without regard to the notice and comment. Since notice and comment is not required before this rule is issued, SBA is not required to prepare a regulatory analysis.

List of Subjects 13 CFR Part 107

Investment companies, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.

13 CFR Part 120

Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.

13 CFR Part 142

Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Fraud, Penalties.

13 CFR Part 146

Government contracts, Grant programs, Loan programs, Lobbying, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, SBA amends 13 CFR parts 107, 120, 142, and 146 as follows:

PART 107—SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT COMPANIES 1. The authority citation for part 107 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 681, 683, 687(c), 687b, 687d, 687g, 687m.

§ 107.665 [Amended]
2. In § 107.665, remove “$250” and add in its place “$254”. PART 120—BUSINESS LOANS 3. The authority citation for part 120 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(14), (h), and note, 636(a), (h) and (m), 650, 687(f), 696(3), and 697(a) and (e); Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, Public Law 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504; Public Law 114-113, 129 Stat. 2242.

§ 120.465 [Amended]
4. Paragraph (b) of § 120.465 is amended by removing “$6,299” and adding in its place “$6,331”. PART 142—PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES ACT REGULATIONS 5. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 634(b); 31 U.S.C. 3803(g)(2).

§ 142.1 [Amended]
6. Paragraph (b) of § 142.1 is amended by removing “$10,781” and adding in its place “$10,957”. PART 146—NEW RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING 7. The authority citation for part 146 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Section 319, Pub. L. 101-121 (31 U.S.C. 1352); 15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6).

§ 146.400 [Amended]
8. Paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) of § 146.400 are amended by removing “$18,936” wherever it appears and adding in its place “$19,246” and by removing “$189,361” and adding in its place “$192,459”. Dated: February 3, 2017. Joseph P. Loddo, Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-02657 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 15 CFR Part 902 50 CFR Part 300 [Docket No. 120201087-6641-02] RIN 0648-BB86 International Affairs; Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Final rule; delay of effective date.

SUMMARY:

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 Federal Register on January 24, 2017 (the Memorandum), this action delays the effective date of the final rule published on January 19, 2017.

DATES:

Effective February 9, 2017, the effective date of the final rule amending 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR part 300, that published on January 19, 2017, at 82 FR 6221, is delayed until March 21, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mi Ae Kim, Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, NMFS (phone 301-427-8365, or email [email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On January 19, 2017, NMFS published this final rule that sets forth changes to the regulations that implement conservation measures adopted by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR or Commission). This final rule streamlines and clarifies the regulations for Antarctic marine living resources, shifts deadlines for advance notice of intended fishing activities, distinguishes between first receivers and dealers of Antarctic marine living resources (AMLR), reduces the time for advance notice of imports of Dissostichus species, and adds transshipment notification requirements. The sections of these regulations are reorganized to group requirements related to the trade of Antarctic marine living resources and those that apply to fishing activities. Additionally, this action updates the regulations to reflect Commission-adopted revisions to existing conservation measures and changes made to the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act through the Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing Enforcement Act of 2015.

On January 20, 2017, the White House issued a memo instructing Federal agencies to temporarily postpone the effective date for 60 days after January 20, 2017, of any regulations or guidance documents that have published in the Federal Register but not yet taken effect, for the purpose of “reviewing questions of fact, law, and policy they raise.” In accordance with this memorandum, this action delays the effective date of the final rule NMFS published on January 19, 2017, at 82 FR 6221, until March 21, 2017.

List of Subjects 15 CFR Part 902

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

50 CFR Part 300

Antarctica, Antarctic marine living resources, Catch documentation scheme, Fisheries, Fishing, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: February 3, 2017. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-02658 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0968] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Youngs Bay, Astoria, OR AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is temporarily changing the operating schedule that governs the Oregon State highway bridge across Youngs Bay foot of Fifth Street (Old Youngs Bay Bridge), mile 2.4, at Astoria, OR. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) requested to change the operating schedule of the Old Youngs Bay Bridge for several months while work is performed on the north bascule lift. This change will allow ODOT to operate the double bascule draw in single leaf mode, one lift at a time, and reduce the vertical clearance of the non-operable half of the span by five feet.

DATES:

This temporary final rule is effective from 7 a.m. on March 1, 2017 to 5 p.m. on October 31, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0968 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary final rule, call or email Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District Bridge Program Office, telephone 206-220-7282; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register TFR Temporary Final Rule § Section U.S.C. United States Code ODOT Oregon State Department of Transportation II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

On November 25, 2016, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Youngs Bay, Astoria, OR in the Federal Register (81 FR 85201). We received no comments on the proposed rule.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.

The Old Youngs Bay Bridge across Youngs Bay foot of Fifth Street, mile 2.4, at Astoria, OR, has a vertical clearance of 19 feet above mean high water when in the closed-to-navigation position. The bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.899(b). ODOT requested to change the operating schedule of the Old Youngs Bay Bridge for several months while work is performed on the north bascule lift.

This temporary rule will allow ODOT to operate the double bascule draw in single leaf mode, one lift at a time. One half of the double bascule bridge will have a containment system installed on the north half of the span, which will reduce the vertical clearance by 5 feet from 19 feet above mean high water to 14 feet above mean high water on the non-operable half of the span. Adjusting the existing drawbridge regulation will allow construction workers to complete bridge and highway upgrades before winter of 2017, while having minimal impact on maritime navigation, and no alternate routes are on this part of Youngs Bay into Youngs River. Marine traffic on Youngs Bay consists of vessels ranging from small pleasure craft, sailboats, small tribal fishing boats, and commercial tug and tow, and mega yachts.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Temporary Final Rule

We provided a comment period of 30 days, no comments were received. This rule will temporarily amend 33 CFR 117.899(b) by allowing the south lift only to open in single leaf mode, and suspend a full opening.

V. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This regulatory action determination is based on the ability for the Old Youngs Bay Bridge to open half the span on signal, and not delay passage of any mariner. Vessels not requiring an opening may pass under the bridge at any time. The north lift vertical clearance will be reduced as explained in paragraph III. No alternate routes are available on this part of Youngs Bay.

B. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

This rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

G. Protest Activities

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority:

33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Amend § 117.899 by suspending paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 117.899 Youngs Bay and Lewis and Clark River.

(d) The draw of the Oregon State (Old Youngs Bay) Highway Bridge, mile 2.4, across Youngs Bay foot of Fifth Street, shall open the south half of the double bascule span on signal for the passage of vessels, if at least one half-hour notice is given to the drawtender, at the Lewis and Clark River Bridge by marine radio, telephone, or other suitable means from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday and Sunday from March 1, 2017 to October 31, 2017. At all other times, including all Federal holidays, but Columbus Day, at least a two-hour notice by telephone is required. The opening signal is two prolonged blasts followed by one short blast.

Dated: January 18, 2017. Mark Butt, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-02603 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0084] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Operational Equipment Test; Bellingham Bay; Bellingham, WA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a 500-yard temporary safety zone around barge Togiak Trader and tug Rosario within the Bellingham Bay Explosive Anchorage. The safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the maritime public due to an operational equipment test utilizing compressed air onboard that vessel. The safety zone will prohibit any person or vessel from entering or remaining in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his Designated Representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 5 p.m. on February 8, 2017, to 5 a.m. on February 10, 2017. It will only be enforced during two periods: From 5 p.m. on February 8, 2017, to 5 a.m. on February 9, 2017, and from 5 p.m. on February 9, 2017, to 5 a.m. on February 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0084 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email MST1 Wayne Lau, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 206-217-6051, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be impracticable as delayed promulgation may result in injury or damage to the maritime public from an operational equipment test in Bellingham Bay prior to conclusion of a notice and comment period.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because of the potential maritime hazards associated with the operational equipment tests that are the subject of this rule will occur from February 8 through 10, 2017, and this rule must be effective during these tests to protect against those hazards.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port, Puget Sound has determined that potential hazards associated with operational equipment tests will be a safety concern for anyone transiting through the location of the operation. This rule is needed to ensure the safety of the maritime public from hazards associated with operational equipment tests in Bellingham Bay.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone that will be enforced during two 12-hour periods: From 5 p.m. on February 8, 2017, to 5 a.m. on February 9, 2017, and on from 5 p.m. on February 9, 2017, to 5 a.m. on February 10, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 500 yards of the barge Togiak Trader (ON:637310) and tug Rosario (ON:585319), located near 48°42′48″ N. 122°33′37″ W., within the explosives anchorage in Bellingham Bay.

The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while operational equipment testing is being conducted. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative while the zone is subject to enforcement. Vessels wishing to enter the safety zone during the two enforcement periods must request permission to do so from the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound by contacting the Joint Harbor Operations Center at 206-217-6001 or the on-scene patrol craft, if any, via VHF-FM Channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This regulatory action determination is based on the limited nature of the size and duration of the temporary safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of Bellingham Bay. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Special Marine Information Broadcast via VHF-FM Channel 16 about the safety zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the safety zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator, because the zone established in this rule is limited in nature of size and duration.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone that is limited in duration that will prohibit entry within 500 yards of the designated area. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Add § 165.T13-0084 to read as follows:
§ 165.T13-0084 Safety Zone; Operational Equipment Test; Bellingham Bay; Bellingham, WA.

(a) Location. The following area is designated as a safety zone: All waters 500 yards around barge Togiak Trader (ON:637310) and tug Rosario (ON:585319), moored in vicinity of 48°42′48″ N., 122°33′37″ W., within the Bellingham Bay explosives anchorage.

(b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in subpart C of this part, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone while it is subject to enforcement as specified in paragraph (c) of this section unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his designated representative. To request permission to enter the safety zone, contact the Joint Harbor Operations Center at 206-217-6001, or the on-scene patrol craft, if any, via VHF-FM Channel 16.

(c) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced from from 5 p.m. on February 8, 2017, to 5 a.m. on February 9, 2017, and from 5 p.m. on February 9, 2017, to 5 a.m. on February 10, 2017.

Dated: February 2, 2017. M.W. Raymond, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2017-02681 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service 36 CFR Part 294 RIN 0596-AD26 Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Colorado; Delay of Effective Date AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule; delay of effective date.

SUMMARY:

This document delays the effective date of a final rule titled, “Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Colorado,” that was published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2016 reinstating the North Fork Coal Mining Area exception to the Colorado Roadless Rule.

DATES:

The effective date of the rule amending 36 CFR part 294 published in the Federal Register at 81 FR 91811 on December 19, 2016, is delayed until April 17, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jason Robertson; Deputy Director; Recreation, Lands, and Minerals; Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Forest Service, at 303-275-5470. Individuals using telecommunication devices for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Services at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On January 20, 2017, the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff (“Chief of Staff”) issued a memorandum, published in the Federal Register on January 24, 2017 (82 FR 8346), outlining the President's plan for managing the Federal regulatory process at the outset of the new Administration. In implementation of one of the measures directed by that memorandum, the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) hereby temporarily postpones the effective date of its final rule titled, “Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Colorado,” that was published in the Federal Register at 81 FR 91811 on December 19, 2016, reinstating the North Fork Coal Mining Area exception to the Colorado Roadless Rule.

The Colorado Roadless Rule is a State-specific rule that establishes management direction for the conservation of roadless area values and characteristics across approximately 4.2 million acres of land located within the State of Colorado in Roadless Areas on National Forest System (NFS) lands. The North Fork Coal Mining Area exception to the Colorado Roadless Rule provides for the construction of temporary roads, if needed, for coal exploration and coal-related surface activities in the 19,700-acre area defined as the North Fork Coal Mining Area. In addition, the final rule makes an administrative correction to Colorado Roadless Area boundaries associated with the North Fork Coal Mining Area based on updated information. The correction adds an additional 200 acres to the roadless area. These boundary corrections address changes identified by new road survey information. The temporary 60-day delay in effective date is necessary to give USDA officials the opportunity for further review and consideration of new regulations, consistent with the Chief of Staff's memorandum of January 20, 2017.

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. USDA finds that notice and solicitation of comment regarding the brief extension of the effective date for the final regulation are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). USDA 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.

Dated: February 2, 2017. Daniel J. Jiron, Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment.
[FR Doc. 2017-02625 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management 43 CFR Part 3160 [17X.LLWO300000.L13100000.PP0000] RIN 1004-AE37 Onshore Oil and Gas Operations; Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases; Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1, Approval of Operations AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION:

Final order; delay of effective and implementation dates.

SUMMARY:

In accordance with a January 20, 2017, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (memorandum) from the White House, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is delaying the effective date of a rule published on January 10, 2017.

DATES:

The effective date of the rule that published on January 10, 2017, at 82 FR 2906, is delayed from February 9, 2017, to March 21, 2017. In addition, the implementation date is delayed from March 13, 2017 to April 20, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Wells, Division Chief, Fluid Minerals Division, 202-912-7143 for information regarding the substance of the final Order or information about the BLM's Fluid Minerals Program. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The Service is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On July 29, 2016, the BLM published for public review and comment a proposed rule to update the filing requirements of Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1 (Onshore Order 1), requiring the electronic filing (e-filing) of all Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) and Notices of Staking (NOSs). The comment period closed on August 28, 2016. Five comments were received; three were substantive, resulting in changes to the final rule; two were non-substantive and considered outside the scope of the proposed rule.

On January 10, 2017, the BLM published a notice at 82 FR 2906 of the final Order to revise Onshore Order 1 to require e-filing of all APDs and NOSs. Per that notice, the final Order is currently scheduled to take effect on February 9, 2017.

Previously, Onshore Order 1 stated that an “operator must file an APD or any other required documents in the BLM Field Office having jurisdiction over the lands described in the application,” but allowed for e-filing of such documents as an alternative. The revision to Onshore Order 1 makes e-filing the required method of submission, subject to limited exceptions. The BLM made this change to improve the efficiency and transparency of the APD and NOS processes.

On January 20, 2017, the White House issued a memorandum instructing Federal agencies to temporarily postpone the effective date of certain regulations for 60 days after January 20, 2017, to ensure the President's appointees or designees have the opportunity to review any new or pending regulations. Section 3 of the memorandum states, “With respect to regulations that have been published in the OFR [Office of the Federal Register] but have not taken effect, as permitted by applicable law, temporarily postpone their effective date for 60 days from the date of this memorandum, . . . for the purpose of reviewing questions of fact, law, and policy they raise.” The memorandum goes on to state in Section 3(a) that following the delay in effective date, “for those regulations that raise no substantial questions of law or policy, no further action needs to be taken.” The BLM is, therefore, delaying the effective date of the rule by 60 days, from the date of the memorandum, to March 21, 2017.

Sections III.A, III.C, and III.E of the final Order include an implementation date for certain provisions to begin 30 days after the effective date of the Order. The implementation date of these provisions is now April 20, 2017.

To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Alternatively, our implementation of this action without opportunity for public comment, effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register, is based on the good cause exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), we have determined that good cause exists to forego the requirement to provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment thereon for this rule as such procedures would be impracticable, unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. We are temporarily postponing for 60 days the effective date of this regulation pursuant to the previously-noted memorandum of the Chief of Staff. As a result, seeking public comment on this delay is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. For these same reasons we find good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date provided for in 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

Authority:

43 CFR part 3160.

Richard T. Cardinale, Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.

For reasons set out in the preamble, the Bureau of Land Management amends the appendix following the regulatory text of the final rule published in the Federal Register at 72 FR 10308 at 10328 (March 7, 2007), corrected on March 9, 2007 (72 FR 10608), effective March 7, 2007, and revised on January 10, 2017 (82 FR 2906), as follows:

Note:

This appendix does not appear in the BLM regulations in 43 CFR part 3160.

Appendix—Text of Oil and Gas Onshore Order

Amend Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1 sections III.A, III.C, and III.E by replacing “March 13, 2017,” with “April 20, 2017,” at each place it occurs.

[FR Doc. 2017-02711 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 223 [Docket No. 150211138-7024-02] RIN 0648-XD771 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To List Two Guitarfishes as Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Final rule; delay of effective date.

SUMMARY:

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 Federal Register on January 24, 2017 (the Memorandum), this action delays the final rule NMFS published on January 19, 2017.

DATES:

Effective February 9, 2017, the effective date of the final rule amending 50 CFR part 223, that published on January 19, 2017, at 82 FR 6309, is delayed until March 21, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources (OPR), (301) 427-8403.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On January 19, 2017, NMFS published the final rule to list two foreign marine guitarfish species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We considered comments submitted on the proposed listing rule and have determined that the blackchin guitarfish (Rhinobatos cemiculus) and common guitarfish (Rhinobatos rhinobatos) warrant listing as threatened species. We will not designate critical habitat for either of these species because the geographical areas occupied by these species are entirely outside U.S. jurisdiction, and we have not identified any unoccupied areas within U.S. jurisdiction that are currently essential to the conservation of either of these species.

On January 20, 2017, the White House issued a memorandum instructing Federal agencies to temporarily postpone the effective date for 60 days after January 20, 2017, of any regulations or guidance documents that have published in the Federal Register but not yet taken effect, for the purpose of “reviewing questions of fact, law, and policy they raise.” In accordance with this memorandum, this action delays the final rule NMFS published on January 19, 2017, at 82 FR 6309, until March 21, 2017.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Transportation.

Dated: February 3, 2017. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-02609 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 150916863-6211-02] RIN 0648-XF209 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Temporary rule; reallocation.

SUMMARY:

NMFS is reallocating the projected unused amounts of the Community Development Quota pollock directed fishing allowance from the Aleutian Islands subarea to the Bering Sea subarea. This action is necessary to provide opportunity for harvest of the 2017 total allowable catch of pollock, consistent with the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area.

DATES:

Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 9, 2017 until the effective date of the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) groundfish, unless otherwise modified or superseded through publication of a notification in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

In the Aleutian Islands subarea, the portion of the 2017 pollock total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to the Community Development Quota (CDQ) directed fishing allowance (DFA) is 1,900 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (81 FR 14773, March 16, 2016), and as adjusted by an inseason adjustment (82 FR 2916, January 10, 2017).

As of February 1, 2017, the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that 1,900 mt of pollock CDQ DFA in the Aleutian Islands subarea will not be harvested. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(4), NMFS reallocates 1,900 mt of pollock CDQ DFA from the Aleutian Islands subarea to the 2015 Bering Sea subarea allocations. The 1,900 mt of pollock CDQ DFA is added to the 2017 Bering Sea CDQ DFA. As a result, the 2017 harvest specifications for pollock in the Aleutian Islands subarea included in the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (81 FR 14773, March 16, 2016) are revised as follows: 0 mt to CDQ DFA. Furthermore, pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5), Table 5 of the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (81 FR 14773, March 16, 2016), as adjusted by the inseason adjustment (82 FR 2916, January 10, 2017), is revised to make 2017 pollock allocations consistent with this reallocation. This reallocation results in adjustments to the 2017 CDQ pollock allocations established at § 679.20(a)(5).

Table 5—Final 2017 Allocations of Pollock TACs to the Directed Pollock Fisheries and to the CDQ Directed Fishing Allowances (DFA) 1 [Amounts are in metric tons] Area and sector 2017
  • Allocations
  • 2017 A season 1 A season DFA SCA harvest limit 2 2017
  • B season 1
  • B season DFA
    Bering Sea subarea TAC 1 1,346,900 n/a n/a n/a CDQ DFA 136,400 61,380 38,192 75,020 ICA 1 47,210 n/a n/a n/a Total Bering Sea non-CDQ DFA 1,163,291 523,481 325,721 639,810 AFA Inshore 581,645 261,740 162,861 319,905 AFA Catcher/Processors 3 465,316 209,392 130,289 255,924 Catch by C/Ps 425,764 191,594 n/a 234,170 Catch by CVs 3 39,552 17,798 n/a 21,754 Unlisted C/P Limit 4 2,327 1,047 n/a 1,280 AFA Motherships 116,329 52,348 32,572 63,981 Excessive Harvesting Limit 5 203,576 n/a n/a n/a Excessive Processing Limit 6 348,987 n/a n/a n/a Aleutian Islands subarea ABC 36,061 n/a n/a n/a Aleutian Islands subarea TAC 1 17,100 n/a n/a n/a CDQ DFA 0 0 n/a 0 ICA 2,400 1,200 n/a 1,200 Aleut Corporation 14,700 13,224 n/a 1,476 Area harvest limit 7 541 10,818 n/a n/a n/a 542 5,409 n/a n/a n/a 543 1,803 n/a n/a n/a Bogoslof District ICA 8 500 n/a n/a n/a 1 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A), the Bering Sea subarea pollock, after subtracting the CDQ DFA (10 percent) and the ICA (3.9 percent), is allocated as a DFA as follows: Inshore sector—50 percent, catcher/processor sector (C/P)—40 percent, and mothership sector—10 percent. In the Bering Sea subarea, 45 percent of the DFA is allocated to the A season (January 20-June 10) and 55 percent of the DFA is allocated to the B season (June 10-November 1). Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2)(i)-(iii), the annual Aleutian Islands pollock TAC, after subtracting first for the CDQ directed fishing allowance (10 percent) and second the ICA (2,400 mt), is allocated to the Aleut Corporation for a pollock directed fishery. In the Aleutian Islands subarea, the A season is allocated less than or equal to 40 percent of the ABC and the B season is allocated the remainder of the pollock directed fishery. 2 In the Bering Sea subarea, pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(C), no more than 28 percent of each sector's annual DFA may be taken from the SCA before April 1. 3 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(4), not less than 8.5 percent of the DFA allocated to listed catcher/processors shall be available for harvest only by eligible catcher vessels delivering to listed catcher/processors. 4 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(4)(iii), the AFA unlisted catcher/processors are limited to harvesting not more than 0.5 percent of the catcher/processors sector's allocation of pollock. 5 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(6), NMFS establishes an excessive harvesting share limit equal to 17.5 percent of the sum of the non-CDQ pollock DFAs. 6 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(7), NMFS establishes an excessive processing share limit equal to 30.0 percent of the sum of the non-CDQ pollock DFAs. 7 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(6), NMFS establishes harvest limits for pollock in the A season in Area 541 of no more than 30 percent, in Area 542 of no more than 15 percent, and in Area 543 of no more than 5 percent of the Aleutian Islands pollock ABC. 8 The Bogoslof District is closed by the final harvest specifications to directed fishing for pollock. The amounts specified are for ICA only and are not apportioned by season or sector. Note: Seasonal or sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.
    Classification

    This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of AI pollock. Since the pollock fishery is currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the final Bering Sea subarea pollock allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery; allow the industry to plan for the fishing season and avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors; and provide opportunity to harvest increased seasonal pollock allocations while value is optimum. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of February 1, 2017.

    The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

    This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 3, 2017. Karen H. Abrams, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02611 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 26 Thursday, February 9, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0051] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; Ice Covered Waterways in the Fifth Coast Guard District AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    On July 9, 2015, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish a regulated navigation area (RNA) on the navigable waters of the Fifth Coast Guard District to allow the Coast Guard to impose and enforce restrictions on vessels operating within the RNA where a threat to navigation exists due to ice covered waterways. Based on consideration of the comments received in response to that NPRM and further analysis, the Coast Guard is now proposing to establish 11 safety zones on certain navigable waters of the Fifth Coast Guard District instead of 1 RNA. This action is necessary to promote navigational safety, provide for the safety of life and property, and facilitate the reasonable demands of commerce when navigation safety is threatened due to ice covered waterways. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2015-0051 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email LCDR Tiffany Johnson, Fifth Coast Guard District, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 757-398-6516, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking RNA Regulated Navigation Area SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis A. Regulatory History and Information

    The purpose of this proposed regulation is to mitigate the potential threat ice poses to the maritime public in the Fifth Coast Guard District by implementing control measures on vessels operating in certain ice-covered waterways. During an average or severe winter, the presence of ice in waterways presents numerous hazards to vessels. Such hazards include vessels becoming beset or dragged off course, sinking or grounding and creating hazards to navigation. The presence of ice in a waterway may hamper a vessel's ability to maneuver and impose additional loads on a vessel's hull, propulsion system and appendages. Blockage of sea suctions can cause the main engine cooling system to overheat, requiring reduced power to be used or the engine to be shut down completely. Visual aids to navigation may become submerged, destroyed, or moved off station, potentially misleading the vessel operator to unsafe waters. Vessels operating in these hazardous conditions could introduce a clear and present danger to the maritime public and environment.

    B. Discussion of Comments on NPRM and Changes

    On July 9, 2015, the Coast Guard published an NPRM titled Regulated Navigation Area; Ice Covered Waterways in the Fifth Coast Guard District (80 FR 39403). The purpose of that proposed regulated navigation area (RNA) was to mitigate the aforementioned potential threat ice poses to the maritime public in the Fifth Coast Guard District by implementing control measures on vessels of certain characteristics. We invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to that RNA. During the comment period that ended October 7, 2015, we received a total of six comments coming from six submitters. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

    Five comments assert that there is no need for this rule because existing Coast Guard methods for ensuring vessel safety are adequate given the practices they have witnessed while operating in the Fifth Coast Guard District in the past. The Coast Guard disagrees that no rule is needed to implement and enforce restrictions on vessels operating where a threat to navigation exists due to ice covered waterways. In the past, Captains of the Ports (COTP) in the Fifth Coast Guard District ensured navigation and vessel safety in ice-covered waterways by establishing temporary safety zones or using other COTP authorities.

    This proposed rule would establish 11 permanent safety zones and eliminate the need for the Coast Guard to publish several temporary final rules throughout future ice seasons. The safety zones proposed in this SNPRM are the most appropriate from a regulatory perspective and will ensure consistency throughout the Fifth Coast Guard District. While the regulatory method may be different, the effect on the regulated public is largely the same in that there will be restrictions on navigating based upon prevailing ice conditions and vessel hull, propulsion, sea suction and appendage characteristics.

    One comment specifically stated that the Coast Guard already has sufficient authority to control vessel movements under 33 CFR part 6, and therefore the proposed RNA is not needed. The Coast Guard finds relying solely on the authority provided by 33 CFR part 6 is not feasible when ice presents hazardous conditions. Sole reliance on this authority involving the protection and security of vessels, harbors, and waterfront facilities would require the COTP to take individualized action against every vessel desiring to operate in the area, which is counter to public interest due to the significant amount of time it would take to issue and administer an effective amount of orders.

    Two comments noted that the decision to transit an ice-covered waterway is best made by an operator that is aware of the prevalent ice conditions and the proposed RNA is not needed. In addition to the aforementioned reasons why this rule is needed, the COTP considers the holistic risk on the waterway when restricting maritime traffic due to ice-related hazards, which is not the responsibility of any individual vessel or class of vessels. In fact, despite vessel restrictions being in place in March of 2015, two commercial vessels operating in the Fifth Coast Guard District during that time were negatively affected by ice, resulting in an emergency condition onboard that presented a risk to other operators and the surrounding marine environment. This SNPRM proposed rule would afford vessels operators that believe they can safety operate in the prevailing conditions the opportunity to request permission from the COTP to deviate from the restrictions.

    Three comments expressed concern regarding the burden this regulation would place on the Coast Guard. The safety zones established by this proposed rule would eliminate the need for the Coast Guard to publish several temporary final rules to establish safety zones throughout future periods of ice accumulation. The Coast Guard also concluded that the notification activities associated with this rule do not place any additional burden on the Coast Guard when compared with implementing other COTP control measures. Furthermore, this regulation would be a permanent rule, would provide for public participation in the rulemaking process, and would establish uniform ice condition control measures to be implemented in the Fifth Coast Guard District to facilitate safe navigation.

    One comment received posited the proposed RNA would result in undue economic hardship for commercial vessels. The Coast Guard weighs many factors in its decision to restrict vessel operations in a waterway, specifically focused on ensuring the safe, secure, and environmentally sound transportation of people, goods, and material by water. The Coast Guard has and will continue to use all available resources to safely and efficiently monitor the conditions of the designated waters of the safety zones to minimize impact to waterway users.

    Two comments were received that the geographic area defined in the NPRM would be difficult for the Coast Guard to implement or enforce due its size. As stated in this SNPRM, the proposed regulated area has been delineated into 11 safety zones rather than 1 RNA. The cognizant COTPs enforce a wide array of control measures in these same geographic areas.

    An anonymous commenter focused on North Carolina waters in the Fifth Coast Guard District. That person's comment recommended that regulators consider inland ponds, streams, marshes, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and other waters, and concluded that the rule proposed in the NPRM—which would cover all navigable waters in the Fifth Coast Guard District, including those in North Carolina—appears redundant, and difficult to interpret or enforce outside of major seaport areas in North Carolina. We were unable to obtain clarification from this anonymous commenter regarding the desired consideration to be applied to the various waters mentioned, but we believe this SNPRM, which does not propose to regulate any North Carolina waters, addresses this commenter's concerns.

    Upon review of the comments and further analysis, the Coast Guard is proposing to change the regulatory method by which control measures would be implemented from 1 regulated navigation area to 11 safety zones throughout the navigable waters of the Fifth Coast Guard District. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of SNPRM Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would establish 11 safety zones on the navigable waters of the Fifth Coast Guard District. We have placed an illustration of these safety zones in the docket for this rulemaking. This proposed rule would allow the Coast Guard to impose and enforce restrictions on vessels operating within the safety zones where a threat to navigation exists due to ice covered waterways. This action is necessary to promote navigational safety, provide for the safety of life and property, and facilitate the reasonable demands of commerce. Vessels transiting in protected waters, such as within a marina, harbor or basin, for the purposes of facilitating icebreaking operations and protecting infrastructure and property would be exempt from the controls. Vessels capable of operating in the prevailing ice condition outside of protected waters may be allowed to operate within the safety zones if granted permission by the cognizant COTP.

    Under this proposed rule, a vessel would need permission from the cognizant COTP or the District Commander to enter or continue transiting a zone if, when approaching or after entering a safety zone, the vessel encounters ice of a given thickness, unless the COTP or the District Commander has set an ice condition for the zone and the vessel meets the associated requirements to transit the zone. Here is a description of the three ice conditions and vessels requirements to transit. Under:

    • Condition One, when 30 percent of a zone is reported covered with ice 1 to 3 inches thick, only steel hull vessels would be allowed to transit the zone;

    • Condition Two, when 30 to 90 percent of a zone is reported covered with ice 3 to 9 inches thick, only steel hull vessels with a 1,500 minimum shaft horsepower and a main engine cooling system design that prevents blockage from ice would be allowed to transit the zone; and

    • Condition Three, when 90 percent or more of a zone is reported covered with ice 9 inches thick, only steel hull vessels with a 1,500 minimum shaft horsepower and a main engine cooling system design that prevents blockage from ice in a vessel convoy would be allowed to transit the zone.

    For non-steel-hull vessels, entry into or continuing to transit the zone would be prohibited without permission from the cognizant COTP or District Commander if, when approaching the zone or after entering the safety zone, the vessel encounters ice of 1/2-inch or more in thickness. When this thickness of ice is reached in a zone, non-steel hulled vessels moored or docked in the zone need not exit the zone, but these vessels may not transit the zone without permission of the cognizant COTP or District Commander. There would be an exemption for vessels that need to transit in protected waters, such as within a marina, harbor, or basin, to facilitate icebreaking operations and protect infrastructure and property. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    Although this proposed regulation could limit or prevent marine traffic from transiting certain waterways in the Fifth Coast Guard District, the effect of this regulation would not be significant because there is little vessel traffic associated with recreational boating and commercial fishing during enforcement periods. The Coast Guard anticipates only having to implement control measures for limited durations of time. The cognizant COTP will make notifications of the regulated areas to the maritime public via Broadcast Notice to Mariners so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Moreover, vessel traffic capable of operating in such conditions will be allowed to enter into or transit within the safety zones as specified by the cognizant COTP.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated areas may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves establishing safety zones. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Documents mentioned in this SNPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.550 to read as follows:
    § 165.550 Safety Zones; Ice Covered Waterways Within the Fifth Coast Guard District.

    (a) Regulated areas. The following areas are established as safety zones:

    (1) Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay-COTP Zone. (i) Delaware Bay: All waters of Delaware Bay and Delaware River, shoreline to shoreline, in an area bound to the south by a line drawn across the entrance to Delaware Bay, commencing at Cape May Light (LLNR 155) latitude 38°55′59″ N., longitude 074°57′37″ W.; thence southwest to Cape Henlopen, latitude 38°48′20.3″ N., longitude 075°05′44.5″ W. The regulated area is bound to the north by a line drawn across the Delaware River, commencing at Liston Point, DE, latitude 39°25′03.07″ N., longitude 075°32′25.5″ W.; thence northeast to the shoreline at Hope Creek Jetty, latitude 39°27′05.04″ N., longitude 075°30′12.55″ W.

    (ii) Delaware River: All waters of Delaware River, shoreline to shoreline, in an area bound to the south by a line drawn across the Delaware River, commencing at Liston Point, DE, latitude 39°25′03.07″ N., longitude 075°32′25.5″ W.; thence northeast to the shoreline at Hope Creek Jetty, latitude 39°27′05.04″ N., longitude 075°30′12.55″ W., including the navigable waters of the Salem River, Christina River, and Schuylkill River. The regulated area is bound to the north by a line drawn across the Delaware River, that is parallel with the Betsy Ross (state route 90) fixed highway Bridge.

    (iii) Upper Delaware River: All waters of Delaware River, shoreline to shoreline, in an area bound to the south by a line drawn across the Delaware River, parallel with the Betsy Ross (state route 90) fixed highway Bridge. The regulated area is bound to the north by a line drawn across the Delaware River, that is parallel with the Trenton—Morrisville (state route 1) highway Bridge.

    (iv) New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway: All waters of New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway (NJICW), shoreline to shoreline, commencing at entrance to Manasquan Inlet, continuing west along Manasquan River thence south at Junction Light NJICW (LLNR 34980), to the entrance of Point Pleasant Canal; and continuing south the entire length of NJICW, terminating at the entrance to Cape May Inlet, Cape May, NJ.

    (2) Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region-COTP Zone. (i) Head of Chesapeake Bay to C&D Canal: All waters of the Upper Chesapeake Bay, shoreline to shoreline, and its tributaries, bound to the north by a line drawn from Hylands Point, MD, latitude 39°30′18″ N., longitude 075°55′37″ W.; thence east across Elk River to the shoreline at Old Town Point Wharf, MD, latitude 39°30′11.3″ N., longitude 075°54′57.1″ W. The regulated area is bound to the south by a line drawn across the Chesapeake Bay, commencing at North Point, MD, latitude 39°11′43.7″ N., longitude 076°26′32.8″ W.; thence east to the shoreline at Swan Point, latitude 39°08′41.7″ N., longitude 076°16′42.4″ W.

    (ii) Baltimore Harbor and approaches: All waters of the Chesapeake Bay, shoreline to shoreline, and its tributaries, bound to the north by a line drawn across the Chesapeake Bay, commencing at North Point, MD, latitude 39°11′43.7″ N., longitude 076°26′32.8″ W.; thence east to the shoreline at Swan Point, latitude 39°08′41.7″ N., longitude 076°16′42.4″ W. The regulated area is bound to the south by a line drawn across the Chesapeake Bay, parallel with the north span of the William P. Lane, Jr (US-50/301) Memorial Bridges.

    (iii) Chesapeake Channel to Cove Point: All waters of the Chesapeake Bay, shoreline to shoreline, and its tributaries, bound to the north by a line drawn across the Chesapeake Bay, parallel with the north span of the William P. Lane, Jr (US-50/301) Memorial Bridges. The regulated area is bound to the south by a line drawn across the Chesapeake Bay along latitude 38°23′10.5″ N., commencing at Cove Point, in Calvert County, MD.

    (iv) Chesapeake Channel between Cove Point and Smith Point, and Lower Potomac River: All waters of Chesapeake Bay, shoreline to shoreline, and its tributaries, bound to the north by a line drawn across the Chesapeake Bay along latitude 38°23′10.5″ N., commencing at Cove Point, in Calvert County, MD; and all waters of the Potomac River, shoreline to shoreline, bound to the north by a line drawn across the Potomac River, parallel with the Governor Harry W. Nice (US-301) Memorial Bridge, connecting King George County, VA and Charles County, MD. The regulated area is bound to the south by a line drawn across the Chesapeake Bay along the Virginia/Maryland state boundary line, commencing at Smith Point, VA.

    (v) Potomac River: All waters of the Potomac River, shoreline to shoreline, bound to the north by a line drawn across the Potomac River, parallel with the Woodrow Wilson Memorial (I-95/I-495) Bridge, connecting Alexandria, VA and Prince George's County, MD. The regulated area is bound to the south by a line drawn across the Potomac River, parallel with the Governor Harry W. Nice (US-301) Memorial Bridge, connecting King George County, VA and Charles County, MD.

    (vi) Upper Potomac River and Anacostia River: All waters of Potomac River, shoreline to shoreline, bound to the north by a line drawn across the Potomac River, parallel with the Francis Scott Key (US-29) Bridge, connecting Rosslyn, VA and Georgetown, Washington, DC, and bound to the south by a line drawn across the Potomac River, parallel with the Woodrow Wilson Memorial (I-95/I-495) Bridge, connecting Alexandria, VA and Prince George's County, MD. All waters of Anacostia River and Washington Channel, shoreline to shoreline, bound to the north by a line drawn across the Anacostia River, parallel with the John Philip Sousa (Pennsylvania Avenue SE) Bridge, and bound to the south by a line drawn across the mouth of the Anacostia River, from Hains Point, south across Anacostia River Channel to Giesboro Point at latitude 38°50′51″ N., longitude 077°01′14″ W. at Joint Base Anacostia—Bolling military installation.

    (3) Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads-COTP Zone. (i) Chesapeake Bay and Tangier Sound: All waters of Chesapeake Bay, shoreline to shoreline, and its tributaries, bound to the north by a line drawn across the Chesapeake Bay along the Virginia/Maryland state boundary line, commencing at Smith Point, in Northumberland County, VA. The regulated area is bound to the south by a line drawn across the Chesapeake Bay along latitude 37°45′00.0″ N., commencing at Chesconessex, in Accomack County, VA.

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:

    Convoy means a group of vessels led by U.S. Coast Guard assets or COTP-designated vessels to assist vessels moving through the ice.

    COTP means the Coast Guard Captain of the Port with jurisdiction over the geographic area as defined in 33 CFR subpart 3.25.

    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the cognizant COTP to assist in enforcing the safety zones described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    Horsepower means the total maximum continuous shaft horsepower of a vessel's main propulsion machinery.

    Ice Condition One means when the COTP or District Commander has received reports that approximately 30 percent of a safety zone defined in paragraph (a) has been covered with ice whose thickness is approximately 1 to 3 inches.

    Ice Condition Two means when the COTP or District Commander has received reports that approximately 30 percent to 90 percent of a safety zone defined in paragraph (a) has been covered with ice whose thickness is approximately 3 to 9 inches.

    Ice Condition Three means when the COTP or District Commander has received reports that approximately 90 percent or more of a safety zone defined in paragraph (a) has been covered with ice whose thickness is 9 inches or thicker.

    Protected waters means sheltered waters such as harbors or basins that present no special hazards.

    Public vessel means a vessel that is owned and operated by the United States Government and is not engaged in commercial service, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101.

    (c) Regulations. (1) Non-steel hull vessels. Non-steel hull vessels may not enter or transit within a safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section without permission from the cognizant COTP or District Commander if, when approaching the zone or after entering the zone, the vessel encounters ice of 1/2-inch or more in thickness. When ice in a zone is 1/2-inch thick or more, non-steel hull vessels moored or docked in the zone need not exit the zone. Except for as described in paragraph (d)(4), non-steel hull vessels may not enter or transit the zone without permission of the cognizant COTP or District Commander.

    (2) Steel hull vessels. Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, steel hull vessels may not enter or transit within a safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section without permission from the cognizant COTP or District Commander in the following circumstances:

    (i) The vessel has less than 1,500 minimum shaft horsepower and encounters ice 1 inch or more thick.

    (ii) The vessel has a 1,500 minimum shaft horsepower and a main engine cooling system design that prevents blockage from ice and encounters ice 3 inches or more thick.

    (iii) The vessel is part of a vessel convoy and has a 1,500 minimum shaft horsepower and a main engine cooling system design that prevents blockage from ice and encounters ice 9 inches or more thick.

    (d) Permission to enter or transit. (1) The COTP may set ice conditions, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, for any zone described in paragraph (a) of this section, and announce those conditions via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and other methods described in 33 CFR 165.7. Steel hull vessels prohibited from entering or continuing transiting a safety zone under paragraph (c) of this section may nonetheless enter or continuing transiting the safety zone without contacting the COTP if the vessel is a public vessel, engaged in law enforcement, or the COTP has set an ice condition for the safety zone and the vessel meets these restrictions:

    (i) Ice Condition One. Only steel hull vessels may enter, operate in, or transit though a safety zone when Ice Condition One has been set for that zone.

    (ii) Ice Condition Two. Only steel hull vessels with a 1,500 minimum shaft horsepower and a main engine cooling system design that prevents blockage from ice, may enter, operate in, or transit though a safety zone when Ice Condition Two has been set for that zone.

    (iii) Ice Condition Three. Only steel hull vessels with a 1,500 minimum shaft horsepower and a main engine cooling system design that prevents blockage from ice, and that are part of a vessel convoy, may enter, operate in, or transit though a safety zone when Ice Condition Three has been set for that zone. These vessels may only transit an Ice Condition Three zone during daylight hours.

    (2) Vessels prohibited from entering or transiting a safety zone under paragraph (c) of this section may request permission to enter or continuing transiting by contacting the cognizant COTP on VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHZ) or via telephone, as follows:

    (i) COTP Delaware Bay: 215-271-4940

    (ii) COTP Maryland-National Capital Region: 410-576-2693

    (iii) COTP Hampton Roads: 757-483-8567.

    (3) Vessels granted permission to enter, operate in, or transit though a safety zone must do so in accordance with the directions provided by the cognizant COTP or designated representative.

    (4) Vessels may transit within protected waters to facilitate icebreaking operations and protect infrastructure and property without COTP permission.

    (e) Enforcement. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHZ). The cognizant COTP and his or her designated representatives can be contacted at telephone number listed in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.

    Dated: January 23, 2017. Meredith L. Austin, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02702 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    82 26 Thursday, February 9, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request February 6, 2017.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by March 13, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    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 Safety and Inspection Service

    Title: Specified Risk Materials.

    OMB Control Number: 0583-0129.

    Summary of Collection: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary as provided in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) This statutes mandate that FSIS protect the public by ensuring that meat products are safe, wholesome, not adulterated, and properly labeled and packaged. FSIS requires that official establishments that slaughter cattle and or process carcasses or parts of cattle develop written procedures for the removal, segregation, and disposition of specified risk materials (SRMs). Establishments are also required by FSIS to maintain daily records sufficient document the implementation and monitoring of their procedures for the removal, segregation, and disposition of SRMs, and any corrective actions taken to ensure that such procedures are effective.

    Need and Use of the Information: FSIS will collect information from establishments to ensure meat and meat products distributed in commerce for use as human food do not contain SMRs.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 3,512.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 123,916.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02686 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request February 6, 2017.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are required regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by March 13, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    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.

    Farm Service Agency

    Title: Discharge and Delivery Survey Summary and Rate Schedule Forms.

    OMB Control Number: 0560-0177.

    Summary of Collection: The Food for Peace Act (specifically Pub. L. 480 Title II); Section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949; Food for Progress Act of 1985; 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills authorizing the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education Program; and Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Charter Act, all as amended, authorize the International Procurement Division to procure, sell, and transport, as well as sample, inspect and survey, agricultural commodities at both domestic and foreign locations for use in international food aid program. The Kansas City Commodity Office (KCCO) acting under the authority granted by these acts, purchase discharge survey services conducted at the foreign destinations to ensure count and condition of the commodities shipped. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) will collect information using forms KC-334, Discharge/Delivery Survey Summary and KC-337, Rate Schedule.

    Need and Use of the Information: The information collected on the KC-334 form is a summary of the amount of cargo delivered versus manifested quantity, the amount and type of damage, etc. The KC-337 form is use to obtain rates that the survey companies charge to perform surveys, by country/region. Without the information CCC could not meet program requirements.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Not for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents: 41.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion; Quarterly; Weekly; Semi-annually; Monthly; Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 234.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02691 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request February 6, 2017.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by March 13, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. 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.

    National Agriculture Statistics Service

    Title: Cotton Ginning Survey.

    OMB Control Number: 0535-0220.

    Summary of Collection: The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Services (NASS) is to collect, prepare and issue state and national estimates of crop and livestock production, disposition and prices as well as specialty agricultural and environmental statistics. The Cotton Ginning Survey provides statistics concerning cotton ginning for specific dates and geographic regions and aids in forecasting cotton production. The Cotton Ginning surveys obtain data mandated under U.S.C. Title 13, Section 42(a). General authority for these data collection activities is granted under U.S. Code Title 7, section 2204.

    Need and Use of the Information: The majority of data are collected by telephone, mail, and fax. All active gins for a given crop season in all 17 cotton producing states are included in the survey. The ginning data collected provides (1) all segments of the cotton industry—buyers, brokers, crushers, shippers, textile firms, and researches with exact quantities of cotton available at specific geographic locations within the U.S. on a regular basis; (2) precise statistics, especially when at least 50 percent of the forecasted cotton production has been ginned in a state; and (3) final season ginning data is used to establish final production. If the information were collected less frequent, the cotton industry would be without county level quantities ginned that could seriously affect transportation costs and marketing strategies.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 650.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Monthly, Semi-annually, Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 1,277.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02687 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request February 6, 2017.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by March 13, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    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.

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    Title: Phytosanitary Export Certification.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0052.

    Summary of Collection: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for preventing plant diseases or insect pests from entering the United States, preventing the spread of pests and noxious weeds not widely distributed within the United States, and eradicating those imported pests when eradication is feasible. The Plant Protection Act authorizes USDA to carry out this mission. APHIS will collect information using several forms and other information activities.

    Need and Use of the Information: APHIS will use the information collected to locate shipments, guide inspection, and issue a certificate to meet the requirements of the importing country. Failure to provide this information would have an impact on many U.S. exporters who would no longer be able to engage in the business of exporting plants and plant products overseas.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; State, and Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 9,101.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 369,977.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02690 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Virginia Advisory Committee To Discuss Potential Projects of Study AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    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 Virginia Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 12:00 p.m. (EDT) on Thursday, March 2, 2017. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss project planning and eventually select topic(s) for the Committee's civil rights review.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, March 2, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    Public call information: Dial: 888-601-3861, Conference ID: 417838.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ivy L. Davis, at [email protected] or by phone at 202-376-7533.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-601-3861 and conference ID: 417838. Please be advised that before being placed into the conference call, you will be prompted to provide your name, organizational affiliation (if any), and email address (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.

    Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-601-3861 and conference call ID: 417838.

    Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=279; click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone numbers, email or street address.

    Agenda I. Welcome and Introductions —Rollcall II. Planning Meeting —Discuss Project Planning III. Other Business IV. Adjournment Dated: February 6, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02693 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meetings of the West Virginia Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of monthly planning meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the West Virginia Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will convene by conference call on Friday, March 3, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. (EST) on. The purpose of meetings are to continue discussing topics for civil rights project.

    DATES:

    12:00 p.m. (EST). Friday, March 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Public Call-In Information: Conference call-in number: 1-888-601-3861 and password: 636552.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ivy L. Davis, at [email protected] or by phone at 202-376-7533.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-601-3861 and password: 636552. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.

    Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-601-3861 and password: 636552.

    Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=281; click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone numbers, email or street address.

    Agenda I. Welcome and Introductions —Rollcall Planning Meeting —Discuss Civil Rights Topics for Civil Rights Project II. Other Business III. Open Comment IV. Adjournment Dated: February 6, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02694 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Georgia Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss Potential Civil Rights Topics of Study AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    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 Georgia Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Wednesday, March 1, 2017, for discussing potential project topics.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday March 1, 2017 12:00 p.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be by teleconference. Toll-free call-in number: 888-296-4197, conference ID: 6261373.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeffrey Hinton, DFO, at [email protected] or 404-562-7006.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-296-4197, conference ID: 6261373. 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 [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Southern Regional Office at (404) 562-7000.

    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 www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Georgia Advisory Committee link, http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=243. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Southern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Introductions—Jeff Hinton, Regional Director; Jerry Gonzalez, Chair Georgia SAC Regional Update—Jeff Hinton Discussion of topic proposal—Jerry Gonzalez, Chair Georgia SAC/Staff/Advisory Committee Public comments Adjournment Dated: February 6, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02710 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Wyoming Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    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 Wyoming Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 11:00 a.m. (MST) on Tuesday, February 21, 2017, via teleconference. The purpose of the meeting is to receive information on services provided by the Community Relations Ombudsman of Riverton and receive an update on former and recent hate crimes legislation in the state.

    DATES:

    Tuesday, February 21, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. (MST)

    ADDRESSES:

    To be held via teleconference:

    Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-877-741-4244, Conference ID: 8569091.

    TDD: Dial Federal Relay Service 1-800-977-8339 and give the operator the above conference call number and conference ID.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Malee V. Craft, DFO, [email protected], 303-866-1040.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public may listen to the discussion by dialing the following Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-877-741-4244; Conference ID: 8569091. 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: 1-877-741-4244, Conference ID: 8569091. Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Tuesday, March 21, 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 [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at (303) 866-1040.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=283 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Roll-call Malee V. Craft, Regional Director, Rocky Mountain Regional Office (RMRO) Chair Comments Anetra D.E. Parks, Chair, Wyoming State Advisory Committee Presentations Ms. Jane Juve, Community Relations Ombudsman, Riverton Police Department Staff—Hate Crimes Legislation—past and recent Review list of topics previously discussed by SAC Next Steps Dated: February 6, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02695 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Oregon Advisory Committee; Correction AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission on Civil Rights published a notice in the Federal Register of February 3, 2017, concerning a meeting of the Oregon Advisory Committee. The notice is to replace the title of the notice from Nevada State Advisory Committee to Oregon Advisory Committee.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ana Victoria Fortes, (213) 894-3437.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of February 3, 2017, in FR Doc. 2017-02311, on page 9191, correct the title of the notice to read:

    Notice of Public Meeting of the Oregon Advisory Committee Dated: February 6, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02713 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF196 International Affairs; U.S. Fishing Opportunities in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Regulatory Area AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notification of U.S. fishing opportunities.

    SUMMARY:

    We are announcing 2017 fishing opportunities in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Regulatory Area. This action is necessary to make fishing privileges available on an equitable basis. The intended effect of this notice is to alert U.S. fishing vessels of the NAFO fishing opportunities, to relay the available quotas available to U.S. participants, and to outline the process and requirements for vessels to apply to participate in the 2017 NAFO fishery.

    DATES:

    Effective January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017. Expressions of interest regarding fishing opportunities in NAFO will be accepted through February 24, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Expressions of interest regarding U.S. fishing opportunities in NAFO should be made in writing to John K. Bullard, U.S. Commissioner to NAFO, NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office at 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930 (phone: 978-281-9315, email: [email protected]).

    Information relating to chartering vessels of another NAFO Contracting Party, transferring NAFO fishing opportunities to or from another NAFO Contracting Party, or U.S. participation in NAFO is available from Patrick E. Moran in the NMFS Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection at 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (phone: 301-427-8370, fax: 301-713-2313, email: [email protected]).

    Additional information about NAFO fishing opportunities, NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures (CEM), and the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (HSFCA) Permit required for NAFO participation is available from Moira Kelly, in the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office at 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930 (phone: 978-281-9218, fax: 978-281-9135, email: mailto:[email protected][email protected]) and online from NAFO at https://www.nafo.int.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Moira Kelly, (978) 281-9218.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General NAFO Background

    The United States is a Contracting Party to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO). NAFO is an intergovernmental fisheries science and management body whose convention on Northwest Atlantic Fisheries applies to most fishery resources in international waters of the Northwest Atlantic, except salmon, tunas/marlins, whales, and sedentary species such as shellfish. Currently, NAFO has 12 Members from North America, Europe, Asia, and the Caribbean. In addition to the United States, the remaining three coastal states bordering the Convention Area are members: Canada, France (in respect of St. Pierre et Miquelon), and Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland). NAFO's Fisheries Commission is responsible for the management and conservation of the fishery resources of the Regulatory Area (waters outside the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs)). Figure 1 shows the NAFO Regulatory Area.

    EN09FE17.000

    As a Contracting Party within NAFO, the United States may be allocated specific catch quotas or effort allocations for certain species in specific areas within the NAFO Regulatory Area and may participate in fisheries for other species for which we have not received a specific quota. Stocks for which the United States does not receive an allocation, known as the “Others” allocation under the Convention, are shared access between all NAFO Contracting Parties.

    Additional information on NAFO can be found online at https://www.nafo.int/About-us. The 2017 NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures (CEM) that outline the fishery regulations, Total Allowable Catches (TACs or “quotas”) and other information about the fishery program are available online at: https://www.nafo.int/Fisheries/Conservation.

    This notice announces the fishing opportunities available to U.S. vessels in NAFO regulatory waters, including specific 2017 stocks for which the United States has an allocation under NAFO, and fishing opportunities under the `other' NAFO allocations This notice also outlines the application process and other requirements for U.S. vessels that wish to participate in the 2017 NAFO fisheries.

    NAFO Fishing Opportunities Available to U.S. Fishing Vessels

    The principal species managed by NAFO are Atlantic cod, yellowtail and witch flounders, Acadian redfish, American plaice, Greenland halibut, white hake, capelin, shrimp, skates, and Illex squid. NAFO maintains conservation measures for fisheries on these species occurring in its Regulatory Area, including TACs for these managed species that are allocated among NAFO Contracting Parties. The United States received quota allocations at the 2016 NAFO Annual Meeting for two stocks to be fished during 2017. The species, location by NAFO subarea, and allocation (in metric tons (mt)) of these 2017 U.S. fishing opportunities are as follows: Redfish in Division 3M, 69 mt; and Illex Squid in Subareas 3 & 4, 453 mt. In addition, the United States has been transferred 1,000 mt of NAFO Division 3LNO yellowtail flounder from Canada's 2017 quota allocation consistent with a bilateral arrangement between the two countries.

    The TACs which may be available to U.S. vessels for stocks where the United States has not been allocated quota (i.e., the “Others” allocation in Annex I.A of the CEM) are as follows:

    Table 1—2017 NAFO “Others” Allocation TACs Species NAFO division TAC (mt) Cod 3M 56 Redfish 3LN 85 3M 124 3O 100 Yellowtail Flounder 3LNO 85 Witch Flounder 3NO 22 White Hake 3NO 59 Skates 3LNO 258 Illex squid Squid 3_4 (Sub-Areas 3+4) 794

    Note that the United States shares these allocations with other NAFO Contracting Parties, and access is on a first come, first served basis. Directed fishing is stopped by NAFO when the “Others” TAC for a particular stock has been fully harvested.

    Additional directed quota for these and other stocks managed within the NAFO Regulatory Area could be made available to U.S. vessels through industry-initiated chartering arrangements or transfers of quota from other NAFO Contracting Parties.

    U.S. vessels participating in NAFO may also retain bycatch of NAFO managed species to the following maximum amounts as outlined in Article 6 of the 2017 CEM. The percentage, by weight, is calculated as a percent of each stock of the total catch of species listed in Annex I.A (i.e., the NAFO managed stocks previously listed) retained onboard from the applicable division at the time of inspection, based on logbook information:

    1. Cod, Division 3M: 1,250 kg or 5 percent, whichever is more;

    2. Witch Flounder, Division 3M: 1,250 kg or 5 percent, whichever is more;

    3. Redfish, Division 3LN: 1,250 kg or 5 percent, whichever is more;

    4. Cod, Division 3NO: 1,000 kg or 4 percent, whichever is more;

    5. For all other Annex I.A stocks where the U.S. has no specific quota the bycatch limit is, 2,500 kg or 10 percent unless a ban on fishing applies or the quota for the stock has been fully utilized. If the fishery for the stock is closed or a retention ban applies, the permitted bycatch limit is 1,250 kg or 5 percent; and

    6. For the directed yellowtail flounder fishery in Divisions 3LNO (where the United States has a 1,000 mt yellowtail flounder allocation in 2016) vessels may retain 15 percent of American plaice.

    Opportunities to fish for species not listed above (i.e., species listed in Annex I.A of the 2017 NAFO CEM and non-allocated on non-regulated species), but occurring within the NAFO Regulatory Area, may also be available. U.S. fishermen interested in fishing for these other species should contact the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (see ADDRESSES) for additional information. Authorization to fish for such species will include permit-related conditions or restrictions, including but not limited to, minimum size requirements, bycatch-related measures, and catch limits. Any such conditions or restrictions will be designed to ensure the optimum utilization, long-term sustainability, and rational management and conservation of fishery resources in the NAFO Regulatory Area, consistent with the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries as well as the Amendment to the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, which has been adopted by all NAFO Contracting Parties.

    Applying for These Fishing Opportunities

    Expressions of interest to fish for any or all of the 2017 U.S. fishing opportunities in NAFO described above will be considered from all U.S. fishing interests (e.g., vessel owners, processors, agents, others). Applicants are urged to carefully review and thoroughly address the application requirements and selection criteria as detailed below. Expressions of interest should be directed in writing to Regional Administrator John Bullard (see ADDRESSES).

    Information Required in an Application Letter

    Expressions of interest should include a detailed description of anticipated fishing operations in 2017. Descriptions should include, at a minimum:

    • Intended target species;

    • Proposed dates of fishing operations;

    • Vessels to be used to harvest fish, including the name, registration, and home port of the intended harvesting vessel(s);

    • The number of fishing personnel and their nationality involved in vessel operations;

    • Intended landing port or ports; including for ports outside of the United States, whether or not the product will be shipped to the United States for processing;

    • Processing facilities to be used;

    • Target market for harvested fish; and,

    • Evidence demonstrating the ability of the applicant to successfully prosecute fishing operations in the NAFO Regulatory Area. This may include descriptions of previously successful NAFO or domestic fisheries participation.

    Note that applicant U.S. vessels must possess or be eligible to receive a valid HSFCA permit. HSFCA permits are available from the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office. Information regarding other requirements for fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area is detailed below and is also available from the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (see ADDRESSES).

    U.S. applicants wishing to harvest U.S. allocations using a vessel from another NAFO Contracting Party, or hoping to enter a chartering arrangement with a vessel from another NAFO Contracting Party, should see below for details on U.S. and NAFO requirements for such activities. If you have further questions regarding what information is required in an expression of interest, please contact Patrick Moran (see ADDRESSES).

    Criteria Used in Identifying Successful Applicants

    Applicants demonstrating the greatest benefits to the United States through their intended operations will be most successful. Such benefits may include:

    • The use of U.S vessels to harvest fish in the NAFO Regulatory Area;

    • Detailed, positive impacts on U.S. employment as a result of the fishing, transport, or processing operations;

    • Use of U.S. processing facilities;

    • Transport, marketing, and sales of product within the United States;

    • Other ancillary, demonstrable benefits to U.S. businesses as a result of the fishing operation; and

    • Documentation of the physical characteristics and economics of the fishery for future use by the U.S. fishing industry.

    Other factors we may consider include but are not limited to: A documented history of successful fishing operations in NAFO or other similar fisheries; the previous compliance of the vessel with the NAFO CEM or other regulatory requirements; and, for those applicants without NAFO or other international fishery history, a description of demonstrated harvest, processing, marketing, and regulatory compliance within domestic fisheries.

    To ensure equitable access by U.S. fishing interests, we may provide additional guidance or procedures or we may issue regulations designed to allocate fishing interests to one or more U.S. applicants from among qualified applicants. After reviewing all requests for allocations submitted, we may also decide not to grant any allocations if it is determined that no requests adequately meet the criteria described in this notice.

    Notification of Selected Vessels in the 2017 NAFO Fisheries

    We will provide written responses to all applicants notifying them of their application status and, as needed for successful applicants, allocation awards will be made as quickly as possible so that we may notify NAFO and take other necessary actions to facilitate operations in the regulatory area by U.S. fishing interests. Successful applicants will receive additional information from us on permit conditions and applicable regulations before starting 2016 fishing operations.

    Chartering a Vessel to Fish Available U.S. Allocations

    Under the bilateral arrangement with Canada, the United States may enter into a chartering (or other) arrangement with a Canadian vessel to harvest the transferred yellowtail flounder. For other NAFO-regulated species listed in Annexes I.A and I.B, the United States may enter into a chartering arrangement with a vessel from any other NAFO Contracting Party. Additionally, any U.S. vessel or fishing operation may enter into a chartering arrangement with any other NAFO Contracting Party. The United States and the other Contracting Party involved in a chartering arrangement must agree to the charter, and the NAFO Executive Secretary must be advised of the chartering arrangement before the commencement of any charter fishing operations. Any U.S. vessel or fishing operation interested in making use of the chartering provisions of NAFO must provide at least the following information: The name and registration number of the U.S. vessel; a copy of the charter agreement; a detailed fishing plan; a written letter of consent from the applicable NAFO Contracting Party; the date from which the vessel is authorized to commence fishing; and the duration of the charter (not to exceed six months).

    Expressions of interest using another NAFO Contracting Party vessel under charter should be accompanied by a detailed description of anticipated benefits to the United States, as described above. Additional detail on chartering arrangements can be found in Article 26 of the CEM (http://www.nafo.int/fisheries/frames/cem.html).

    Any vessel from another Contracting Party wishing to enter into a chartering arrangement with the United States must be in full current compliance with the requirements outlined in the NAFO Convention and CEM. These requirements include, but are not limited to, submission of the following reports to the NAFO Executive Secretary:

    • Notification that the vessel is authorized by its flag state to fish within the NAFO Regulatory Area during 2017;

    • Provisional monthly catch reports for all vessels of that NAFO Contracting Party operating in the NAFO Regulatory Area;

    • Daily catch reports for each day fished by the subject vessel within the Regulatory Area;

    • Observer reports within 30 days following the completion of a fishing trip; and

    • An annual statement of actions taken by its flag state to comply with the NAFO Convention.

    The United States may also consider the vessel's previous compliance with NAFO bycatch, reporting, and other provisions, as outlined in the NAFO CEM, before authorizing the chartering arrangement. More details on NAFO requirements for chartering operations are available from Patrick Moran (see ADDRESSES).

    Transfer of U.S. Quota Allocations to Another NAFO Party

    Under NAFO rules in effect for 2017, the United States may transfer fishing opportunities by mutual agreement with another NAFO Contracting Party and with prior notification to the NAFO Executive Secretary. An applicant may request to arrange for any of the previously described U.S. opportunities to be transferred to another NAFO party, although such applications will likely be given lesser priority than those that involve more direct harvesting or processing by U.S. entities. Applications to arrange for a transfer of U.S. fishing opportunities should contain a letter of consent from the receiving NAFO Contracting Party, and should also be accompanied by a detailed description of anticipated benefits to the United States. As in the case of chartering operations, the United States may also consider a NAFO Contracting Party's previous compliance with NAFO bycatch, reporting, and other provisions, as outlined in the NAFO CEM, before entering agreeing to a transfer. More details on NAFO requirements for transferring NAFO allocations are available from Patrick Moran (see ADDRESSES).

    Receiving a Transfer of NAFO Quota Allocations From Another NAFO Party

    Under NAFO rules in effect for 2017, the United States may receive transfers of additional fishing opportunities from other NAFO Contracting Parties. We are required to provide a letter consenting to such a transfer and must provide notice to the NAFO Executive Secretary. In the event that an applicant is able to arrange for the transfer of additional fishing opportunities from another NAFO Contracting Party to the United States, the U.S. may agree to facilitate such a transfer. However, there is no guarantee that if an applicant has facilitated the transfer of quota from another Contracting Party to the United States, such applicant will receive authorization to fish for such quota. If quota is transferred to the United States, we may need to solicit new applications for the use of such quota. All applicable NAFO requirements for transfers must be met. As in the case of chartering operations, the United States may also consider a NAFO Contracting Party's previous compliance with NAFO bycatch, reporting, and other provisions, as outlined in the NAFO CEM, before agreeing to accept a transfer. Any fishing quota or other harvesting opportunities received via this type of transfer are subject to all U.S and NAFO rules as detailed below. For more details on NAFO requirements for transferring NAFO allocations, contact Patrick Moran (see ADDRESSES).

    Fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area

    U.S. applicant vessels must be in possession of, or obtain, a valid HSFCA permit, which is available from the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office. All permitted vessels must comply with any conditions of this permit and all applicable provisions of the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries and the CEM. We reserve the right to impose additional permit conditions that ensure compliance with the NAFO Convention and the CEM, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and any other applicable law.

    The CEM provisions include, but are not limited to:

    • Maintaining a fishing logbook with NAFO-designated entries (Annex II.A and Article 28);

    • Adhering to NAFO hail system requirements (Annexes II.D and II.F; Article 28; Article 30 part B);

    • Carrying an approved onboard observer consistent with requirements of Article 30 part A;

    • Maintaining and using a functioning, autonomous vessel monitoring system authorized by issuance of the HSFCA permit as required by Articles 29 and 30; and

    • Complying with all relevant NAFO CEM requirements, including minimum fish sizes, gear, bycatch retention and per-tow move on provisions for exceeding bycatch limits in any one haul/set.

    Further details regarding U.S. and NAFO requirements are available from the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, and can also be found in the 2017 NAFO CEM on the Internet (https://www.nafo.int/Fisheries/Conservation).

    Vessels issued valid HSFCA permits under 50 CFR part 300 are exempt from certain domestic fisheries regulations governing fisheries in the Northeast United States found in 50 CFR part 648. Specifically, vessels are exempt from the Northeast multispecies and monkfish permit, mesh size, effort-control, and possession limit restrictions (§§ 648.4, 648.80, 648.82, 648.86, 648.87, 648.91, 648.92, and 648.94), while transiting the U.S. exclusive economic zone with multispecies and/or monkfish on board the vessel, or landing multispecies and/or monkfish in U.S. ports that were caught while fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area. These exemptions are conditional on the following requirements: The vessel operator has a letter of authorization issued by the Regional Administrator on board the vessel; for the duration of the trip, the vessel fishes, except for transiting purposes, exclusively in the NAFO Regulatory Area and does not harvest fish in, or possess fish harvested in, or from, the U.S. EEZ; when transiting the U.S. EEZ, all gear is properly stowed and not available for immediate use as defined under § 648.2; and the vessel operator complies with the provisions, conditions, and restrictions specified on the HSFCA permit and all NAFO CEM while fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area.

    Dated: February 3, 2017. John H. Henderschedt, Director, NOAA Fisheries Office of International, Affairs and Seafood Inspection.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02626 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Technical Information Service Renewal of Currently Approved Information Collection; Comment Request; Limited Access Death Master File Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms AGENCY:

    National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before April 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to John W. Hounsell, Business and Industry Specialist, Office of Product and Program Management, National Technical Information Service, Department of Commerce, 5301 Shawnee Road, Alexandria, VA 22312, email: [email protected] or telephone: 703-605-6184.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This notice informs the public that the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) is requesting approval for renewal of a currently approved information collection described in Section II for use in connection with the final rule for the “Certification Program for Access to the Death Master File.” The final rule was published on June 1, 2016 (81 FR 34882), and the rule became effective on November 28, 2016.

    II. Method of Collection

    Title of Information Collection:

    (A) “Limited Access Death Master File (LADMF) Accredited Conformity Assessment Body Systems Safeguards Attestation Form” (ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Form) (B) “Limited Access Death Master File (LADMF) State or Local Government Auditor General (AG) or Inspector General (IG) Systems Safeguards Attestation Form” (AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Form)

    Description of the Need for the Information and the Proposed Use: NTIS issued a final rule establishing a program through which persons may become eligible to obtain access to Death Master File (DMF) information about an individual within three years of that individual's death. The final rule was promulgated under Section 203 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, Public Law 113-67 (Act). The Act prohibits the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) from disclosing DMF information during the three-year period following an individual's death (Limited Access DMF), unless the person requesting the information has been certified to access the Limited Access DMF pursuant to certain criteria in a program that the Secretary establishes. The Secretary delegated the authority to carry out Section 203 to the Director of NTIS.

    On December 30, 2014, NTIS initially described a “Limited Access Death Master File Systems Safeguards Attestation Form” in the notice of proposed rulemaking (79 FR 78314 at 78321). To accommodate the requirements of the final rule, NTIS is using both the ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Form and the AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Form.

    The ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Form requires an “Accredited Conformity Assessment Body” (ACAB), as defined in the final rule, to attest that a Person seeking certification or a Certified Person seeking renewal of certification has information security systems, facilities and procedures in place to protect the security of the Limited Access DMF, as required under Section 1110.102(a)(2) of the final rule. The ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Form collects information based on an assessment by the ACAB conducted within three years prior to the date of the Person or Certified Person's submission of a completed certification statement under Section 1110.101(a) of the final rule. This collection includes specific requirements of the final rule, which the ACAB must certify are satisfied, and the provision of specific information by the ACAB, such as the date of the assessment and the auditing standard(s) used for the assessment.

    Section 1110.501(a)(2) of the final rule provides that a state or local government office of AG or IG and a Person or Certified Person that is a department or agency of the same state or local government, respectively, are not considered to be owned by a common “parent” entity under Section 1110.501(a)(1)(ii) for the purpose of determining independence, and attestation by the AG or IG is possible. The AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Form is for the use of a state or local government AG or IG to attest on behalf of a state or local government department or agency Person or Certified Person. The AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Form requires the state or local government AG or IG to attest that a Person seeking certification or a Certified Person seeking renewal of certification has information security systems, facilities and procedures in place to protect the security of the Limited Access DMF, as required under Section 1110.102(a)(2) of the final rule. The AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Form collects information based on an assessment by the state or local government AG or IG conducted within three years prior to the date of the Person or Certified Person's submission of a completed certification statement under Section 1110.101(a) of the final rule. This collection includes specific requirements of the final rule, which the state or local government AG or IG must certify are satisfied, and the provision of specific information by the state or local government AG or IG, such as the date of the assessment.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0692-0016.

    Form Number(s): NTIS FM100A and NTIS FM100B.

    Type of Review: Renewal of a currently approved information collection.

    Affected Public: Accredited Conformity Assessment Bodies and state or local government Auditors General or Inspectors General attesting that a Person seeking certification or a Certified Person seeking renewal of certification under the final rule for the “Certification Program for Access to the Death Master File” has information security systems, facilities and procedures in place to protect the security of the Limited Access DMF, as required by the final rule.

    Estimated Number of Respondents:

    ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Form: NTIS expects to receive approximately 500 ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms from Persons and Certified Persons annually. AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Form: NTIS expects to receive approximately 60 AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms from Persons and Certified Persons annually.

    Estimated Time per Response:

    ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Form: 3 hours.

    AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Form: 3 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1680.

    ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Form: 1500 (500 × 3 hours = 1500 hours).

    AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Form: 180 (60 × 3 hours = 180 hours).

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:

    ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Form: NTIS expects to receive approximately 500 ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms annually at a fee of $525 per form, for a total cost of $262,500. This total annual cost reflects the cost to the Federal Government for the ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms, which consists of the expenses associated with NTIS personnel reviewing and processing these forms. NTIS estimates that it will take an ACAB's senior auditor three hours to complete the form at a rate of approximately $135 per hour, for a total additional cost to the public of $202,500 (1500 burden hours x $135/hour = $202,500). NTIS estimates the total annual cost to the public for the ACAB Systems Safeguards forms to be $465,000 ($262,500 in fees + $202,500 in staff time = $465,000). AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Form: NTIS expects to receive approximately 60 AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms annually at a fee of $525 per form, for a total cost of $31,500. This total annual cost reflects the cost to the Federal Government for the AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms, which consists of the expenses associated with NTIS personnel reviewing and processing these forms. NTIS estimates that it will take an AG or IG senior auditor three hours to complete the form at a rate of approximately $100 per hour, for a total additional cost to the public of $18,000 (180 burden hours × $100/hour = $18,000). NTIS estimates the total annual cost to the public for AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms to be $49,500 ($31,500 in fees + $18,000 in staff time = $49,500). NTIS estimates the total annual cost to the public for both the ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms and the AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms to be $514,500 ($465,000 for ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms + $49,500 for AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms. IV. Request for Comments

    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 (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sheleen Dumas, PRA Departmental Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02659 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (Judicial Proceedings Panel); Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (“the Judicial Proceedings Panel” or “the Panel”). The meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    A meeting of the Judicial Proceedings Panel will be held on Friday, February 24, 2017. The public session will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end at 4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Holiday Inn Arlington at Ballston, Grand Ballroom, 4610 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Julie Carson, Judicial Proceedings Panel, One Liberty Center, Suite 150, 875 N. Randolph Street, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Email: whs.pentagon.em. [email protected] Phone: (703) 693-3849. Web site: http://jpp.whs.mil.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This public meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: In section 576(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), as amended, Congress tasked the Judicial Proceedings Panel to conduct an independent review and assessment of judicial proceedings conducted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) involving adult sexual assault and related offenses since the amendments made to the UCMJ by section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81; 125 Stat. 1404), for the purpose of developing recommendations for improvements to such proceedings. At this meeting, the Panel will receive a presentation from the JPP Subcommittee on the Subcommittee's Sexual Assault Investigations in the Military Report. The Panel will also deliberate on its Military Defense Counsel Resources and Experience in Sexual Assault Cases Report, its Victims' Appellate Rights Report, the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice's proposed amendment to Rule for Court-Martial 1103A, and the dissents of Mr. Victor Stone, JPP member.

    Agenda:

    8:30 a.m.-9:00 a.m., Administrative Work (41 CFR 102-3.160, not subject to notice & open meeting requirements) 9:00 a.m.-9:15 a.m., Welcome and Introduction 9:15 a.m.-11:45 a.m., Subcommittee Presentation and Panel Deliberations on Sexual Assault Investigations in the Military Report—Ms. Lisa Friel, Special Counsel for Investigations for the National Football League, JPP Subcommittee Member 11:45 a.m.-12:45 p.m., Lunch 12:45 p.m.-1:45 p.m., Panel Deliberations on Military Defense Counsel Resources and Experience in Sexual Assault Cases Report 1:45 p.m.-3:45 p.m., Panel Deliberations on Victims' Appellate Rights Report; Joint Service Committee on Military Justice's Proposed Amendment to Rule for Court-Martial 1103A; and the Dissents of Mr. Victor Stone, JPP Member 3:45 p.m.-4:00 p.m., Public Comment 4:00 p.m., Meeting Adjourned

    Availability of Materials for the Meeting: A copy of the February 24, 2017, public meeting agenda and any updates or changes to the agenda, including the location and individual speakers not identified at the time of this notice, as well as other materials provided to Panel members for use at the public meeting, may be obtained at the meeting or from the Panel's Web site at http://jpp.whs.mil.

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. In the event the Office of Personnel Management closes the government due to inclement weather or any other reason, please consult the Web site for any changes to public meeting dates or time.

    Special Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact the Judicial Proceedings Panel at [email protected] at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Procedures for Providing Public Comments: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Panel about its mission and topics pertaining to this public session. Written comments must be received by the JPP at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting date so that they may be made available to the Judicial Proceedings Panel for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments should be submitted via email to the Judicial Proceedings Panel at [email protected] in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. Please note that since the Judicial Proceedings Panel operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection. If members of the public are interested in making an oral statement pertaining to the agenda for the public meeting, a written statement must be submitted as described in this notice along with a request to provide an oral statement. After reviewing the written comments and the oral statement, the Chair and the Designated Federal Official will determine who will be permitted to make an oral presentation of their issue during the public comment portion of this meeting. This determination is at the sole discretion of the Chair and Designated Federal Official, will depend on the time available and relevance to the Panel's activities for that meeting, and will be on a first-come basis. When approved in advance, oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted from 3:45 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on February 24, 2017, in front of the Panel members.

    Committee's Designated Federal Official: The Panel's Designated Federal Official is Ms. Maria Fried, Department of Defense, Office of the General Counsel, 1600 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B747, Washington, DC 20301-1600.

    Dated: February 6, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02700 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 16-85] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Young, DSCA/SA&E-RAN, (703) 697-9107.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-85 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: February 6, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN09FE17.001 Transmittal No. 16-85 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer, Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Republic of Korea

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment* $60 million Other $10 million Total $70 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Sixty (60) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II All-Up-Round Missiles Six (6) AIM-9X-2 Block II Tactical Guidance Units

    Non-MDE include: Containers, spares and missile support, U.S. government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics support.

    (iv) Military Department: Navy (KS-P-AMA)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: FMS Case KS-P-AKR, KS-P-AKZ

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Annex Attached.

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: January 31, 2017.

    *As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Republic of Korea—AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Missiles

    The Government of the Republic of Korea (ROK) has requested a possible sale of sixty (60) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II All-up-Round Missiles and six (6) AIM-9X-2 Block II Tactical Guidance Units, containers, spares and missile support, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $70 million.

    This proposed sale contributes to the foreign policy and national security of the United States. The ROK is one of the major political and economic powers in East Asia and the Western Pacific and a key partner of the United States in ensuring peace and stability in the region. It is vital to U.S. national interests to assist our Korean ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability. This sale increases the ROK's capability to participate in Pacific regional security operations and improves its national security posture as a key U.S. ally.

    The ROK intends to use the AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II missiles to supplement its existing inventory of AIM-9X-2 Block II missiles. The ROK will use the enhanced capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense. The ROK will have no difficulty absorbing these additional missiles into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support does not affect the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractor is Raytheon Missile Systems Company, Tucson, AZ. At this time, there are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the Republic of Korea. However, U.S. Government or contractor personnel in-country visits will be required on a temporary basis in conjunction with program technical oversight and support requirements.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 16-85 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The AIM-9X-2 Block II Sidewinder Missile represents a substantial increase in missile acquisition and kinematics performance over the AIM-9M and replaces the AIM-9X Block I Missile configuration. The missile includes a high off-bore sight seeker, enhanced countermeasures rejection capability, low drag/high angle of attack airframe and the ability to integrate the Helmet Mounted Cueing System. The software algorithms are the most sensitive portion of the AIM-9X-2 missile. The software continues to be modified via a pre-planned production improvement (P3I) program in order to improve its counter-countermeasure capabilities. No software source code or algorithms will be released. The missile is classified as CONFIDENTIAL.

    2. The AIM-9X-2 will result in the transfer of sensitive technology and information. The equipment, hardware, and documentation are classified CONFIDENTIAL. The software and operation performance are classified SECRET. The seeker/guidance control section and the target detector are CONFIDENTIAL and contain sensitive state-of-the-art technology. Manuals and technical documentation that are necessary for support operational use and organizational management are classified to SECRET. Performance and operating logic of the counter-measures circuits are classified SECRET. The hardware, software, and data identified are classified to protect vulnerabilities, design and performance parameters and similar critical information.

    3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    4. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlines in the Policy Justification.

    5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Republic of Korea.

    [FR Doc. 2017-02708 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 16-83] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Young, DSCA/SA&E-RAN, (703) 697-9107.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-83 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: February 6, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN09FE17.002 Transmittal No. 16-83 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as Amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Republic of Korea

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment* $66 million Other $ 4 million Total $70 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Eighty-nine (89) AGM-65G-2 Maverick Missiles

    Non-MDE includes: Missile containers and other related elements of support.

    (iv) Military Department: Air Force (KS-D-YHF)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: FMS Case KS-D-YAF—$22.55M—14 Mar 12

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Annex attached.

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: January 31, 2017

    *as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Republic of Korea—AGM-65G-2 Maverick Missiles

    The Government of the Republic of Korea (ROK) has requested the potential sale of eighty-nine (89) AGM-65G-2 Maverick missiles, missile containers and other related elements of support. The total estimated program cost is $70 million.

    This proposed sale contributes to the foreign policy and national security of the United States. The ROK is one of the major political and economic powers in East Asia and the Western Pacific and a key partner of the United States in ensuring peace and stability in the region. It is vital to U.S. national interests to assist our Korean ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability. This sale increases the ROK's capability to participate in Pacific regional security operations and improves its national security posture as a key U.S. ally.

    The proposed sale will improve the ROK's capability to meet current and future threats. The ROK will use the enhanced capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense. The ROK, which already has AGM-65G missiles in its inventory, will have no difficulty absorbing these additional missiles.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support does not affect the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractor is Raytheon, Tucson, AZ. At this time, there are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the Republic of Korea.

    There is no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 16-83 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The AGM-65G-2 Maverick is an air-to-ground close air support missile with a lock on before launch day or night capability. The G model has an imaging infrared (IIR) guidance system. The infrared Maverick G can track heat generated by a target and provides the pilot a pictorial display of the target during darkness and hazy or inclement weather. The warhead on the Maverick G is a heavyweight penetrator warhead. Maverick hardware is UNCLASSIFIED. Performance and operating logic of the countermeasures circuits are SECRET. Overall system classification is SECRET.

    2. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems which might reduce weapon effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    3. This sale is necessary to further the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. Moreover, the benefits derived from this sale, as outlined in the Policy Justification, outweigh the potential damage that could result if the sensitive technology were revealed to unauthorized persons.

    4. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Republic of Korea.

    [FR Doc. 2017-02704 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-9-000] ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Wisconsin South Expansion Project

    On November 3, 2016, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), filed an application in Docket No. CP17-9-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) and 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act to modify five existing facilities on ANR's Pipeline System. The proposed project is known as the Wisconsin South Expansion Project (Project), and consists of modifying and abandoning facilities in Illinois and Wisconsin to enable ANR to expand delivery by 230,950 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) into the Northern Illinois and Wisconsin market areas.

    On November 16, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.

    Schedule for Environmental Review Issuance of EA: April 27, 2017 90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline: July 26, 2017

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.

    Project Description

    The Project would add an additional capacity of 230,950 Dth/d on ANR's system and consist of the modification of the following facilities: Install one new 6,130-horsepower (HP) Solar Centaur 50 compressor unit at the existing Sandwich Compressor Station in Kendall County, Illinois; increase capacity of the existing Hampshire Meter Station in Kane County, Illinois from the current 304,475 Dth/d to approximately 507,458 Dth/d; replace the existing 0.54-mile-long Line 332 Lateral located in Kane County, Illinois; increase capacity of the existing Tiffany East Meter Station in Rock County, Wisconsin from the current 119,760 Dth/d to approximately 240,535 Dth/d; and re-stage an existing Saturn 10 turbine compressor unit at the Kewaskum Compressor Station in Sheboygan County, Wisconsin.

    Background

    On November 29, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Wisconsin South Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. In response to the NOI, the Commission received three comments from citizens supporting the Project. We also received comments from the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, indicating that they do not object to the Project. Finally, we received a comment letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stating that the EA should fully disclose the impacts on federally listed species, migratory birds, and wildlife habitat.

    Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and “Docket Number” excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP17-9-000), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at (866) 208-3676, TTY (202) 502-8659, or at [email protected] The eLibrary link on the FERC Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: February 2, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02653 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Public Comment Session Schedule Change for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline, Supply Header Project, and Capacity Lease Proposal Docket Nos. Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC CP15-554-000,
  • CP15-554-001
  • Dominion Transmission, Inc CP15-555-000 Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc CP15-556-000

    On December 30, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice of Availability of the draft environmental impact statement in the above-captioned proceeding. Due to a scheduling conflict with the contracted venue in Nelson County, the start time for the public comment session scheduled on February 22 at Nelson County High School has changed. This errata notice announces the Wednesday, February 22, 2017 public comment session will begin at 6:30 p.m. The session ending time remains 9:00 p.m. Additional court reporters will be available at the Nelson County High School public comment session to account for the reduced session length.

    Dated: February 2, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02652 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-39-000] Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on January 23, 2017, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC (Natural), located at 3250 Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515, filed in Docket No. CP17-39-000, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208 and 157.216 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), seeking authorization to abandon an injection and withdrawal well, the related pipeline lateral, and the related meter, tap and auxiliary facilities at Natural's North Lansing Storage Field located in Harrison County, Texas, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding the Request should be directed to Bruce H. Newsome, Vice President, Regulatory Products and Services, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC, 3250 Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515-7918, by telephone at: 630-725-3070, or by email at [email protected]

    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the “e-Filing” link. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: February 2, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02654 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0056] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 10, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0056.

    Title: Part 68, Connection of Terminal Equipment to the Telephone Network.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 58,310 respondents; 64,177 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.25 hours-40 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, third party disclosure requirement, and recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201-205 and 303(r).

    Total Annual Burden: 22,559 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $1,130,000.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Part 68 rules do not require respondents to provide proprietary, trade secret or other confidential information to the Commission. If the FCC requests that respondents submit information which respondents believe is confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information pursuant to Section 0.459 of the FCC's rules, 47 CFR 0.459.

    Needs and Uses: The purpose of 47 CFR part 68 is to protect the telephone network from certain types of harm and prevent interference to subscribers. To (1) demonstrate that terminal equipment complies with criteria for protecting the network and (2) ensure that consumers, providers of telecommunications, the Commission and others are able to trace products to the party responsible for ensuring compliance with these criteria; it is essential to require manufacturers or other responsible parties to provide the information required by Part 68. In addition, incumbent local exchange carriers must provide the information in Part 68 to warn their subscribers of impending disconnection of service when subscriber terminal equipment is causing telephone network harm, and to inform subscribers of a change in network facilities that requires modification or alteration of subscribers' terminal equipment.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02668 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-XXXX, 3060-0823, 3060-0971] Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 10, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

    Title: Section 90.20 (xiv), Public Safety Pool.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: New collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, and state, local, or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,526 respondents; 1,526 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

    Frequency of Response: One-time; on occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for these collections are contained in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 303, 316, and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303, 316, and 337.

    Total Annual Burden: 1,526 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: On August, 23, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission released a Report and Order, FCC 16-113, PS Docket No. 15-199, that modified Part 90 of the Rules Private Land Mobile Radio Services. The amended rule revises the Part 90 eligibility rules to permit railroad police officers to access the interoperability. Specifically, the Commission modified Section 90.20(xiv) to provide that:

    (xiv)(A) Railroad police officers are a class of users eligible to operate on the nationwide interoperability and mutual aid channels listed in 90.20(i) provided their employer holds a Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR) license of any radio category, including Industrial/Business (I/B). Eligible users include full and part time railroad police officers, Amtrak employees who qualify as railroad police officers under this subsection, Alaska Railroad employees who qualify as railroad police officers under this subsection, freight railroad employees who qualify as railroad police officers under this subsection, and passenger transit lines police officers who qualify as railroad police officers under this subsection. Railroads and railroad police departments may obtain licenses for the nationwide interoperability and mutual aid channels on behalf of railroad police officers in their employ. Employers of railroad police officers must obtain concurrence from the relevant state interoperability coordinator or regional planning committee before applying for a license to the Federal Communications Commission or operating on the interoperability and mutual aid channels.

    (1) Railroad police officer means a peace officer who is commissioned in his or her state of legal residence or state of primary employment and employed, full or part time, by a railroad to enforce state laws for the protection of railroad property, personnel, passengers, and/or cargo.

    (2) Commissioned means that a state official has certified or otherwise designated a railroad employee as qualified under the licensing requirements of that state to act as a railroad police officer in that state.

    (3) Property means rights-of-way, easements, appurtenant property, equipment, cargo, facilities, and buildings and other structures owned, leased, operated, maintained, or transported by a railroad.

    (4) Railroad means each class of freight railroad (i.e., Class I, II, III); Amtrak, Alaska Railroad, commuter railroads and passenger transit lines.

    (5) The word state, as used herein, encompasses states, territories and the District of Columbia.

    (B) Eligibility for licensing on the 700 MHz narrowband interoperability channels is restricted to entities that have as their sole or principal purpose the provision of public safety services.

    To effectively implement the provisions of the new Rule, no other modifications to existing FCC rules are required. The changes are intended to simplify the licensing process for railroad police officers and ensure interoperable communications. The modified rules provide a benefit to public safety licensees by ensuring that only railroad police officers with appropriate governmental authorization can operate on the interoperability and mutual aid channels during emergencies. This will provide the additional benefit of promoting interoperability with railroad police officers by eliminating eligibility as a gating factor when licensing spectrum. The Report and Order reduces the burden on railroad police by allowing them to meet eligibility standard by requiring employers of railroad police officers to obtain concurrence from the relevant state interoperability coordinator or regional planning committee before applying for a license to the Federal Communications Commission or operating on the interoperability and mutual aid channels. Compliance with this requirement is already a requisite for public safety eligibility to use the interoperability and mutual aid channels, consequently any new burden imposed by this requirement would be minimal.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0823.

    Title: Part 64, Pay Telephone Reclassification.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 400 respondents; 16,820 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2.66 hours (average).

    Frequency of Response: On occasion, quarterly and monthly reporting requirements and third party disclosure requirements.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201-205, 218, 226 and 276.

    Total Annual Burden: 44,700 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $740,000.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Confidentiality concerns are not relevant to these types of disclosures. The Commission is not requesting carriers or providers to submit confidential information to the Commission. If the Commission requests that carriers or providers submit information which they believe is confidential, the carriers or providers may request confidential treatment of their information under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission established a plan to ensure that payphone service providers (PSPs) were compensated for certain non-coin calls originated from their payphones. As part of this plan, the Commission required that by October 7, 1997, local exchange carriers were to provide payphone-specific coding digits to PSPs, and that PSPs were to provide those digits from their payphones to interexchange carriers. The provision of payphone-specific coding digits was a prerequisite to payphone per-call compensation payments by IXCs to PSPs for subscriber 800 and access code calls. The Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau subsequently provided a waiver until March 9, 1998, for those payphones for which the necessary coding digits were not provided to identify calls. The Bureau also on that date clarified the requirements established in the Payphone Orders for the provision of payphone-specific coding digits and for tariffs that LECs must file pursuant to the Payphone Orders.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0971.

    Title: Section 52.15, Request for “For Cause” Audits and State Commission's Access to Numbering Resource Application Information.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit and state, local or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,105 respondents; 63,005 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.166 hours to 3 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 153, 154, 201-205, 207-209, 218, 225-227, 251-252, 271 and 332.

    Total Annual Burden: 10,473 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Carrier numbering resource applications and audits of carrier compliance will be treated as confidential and will be exempt from public disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).

    Needs and Uses: There are two Paperwork Reduction Act related obligations under this OMB Control Number:

    1. The North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA), the Pooling Administrator, or a state commission may draft a request to the auditor stating the reason for the request, such as misleading or inaccurate data, and attach supporting documentation; and

    2. Requests for copies of carriers' applications for numbering resources may be made directly to carriers. The information collected will be used by the FCC, state commissions, the NANPA and the Pooling Administrator to verify the validity and accuracy of such data and to assist state commissions in carrying out their numbering responsibilities, such as area code relief.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02666 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1195] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 10, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1195.

    Title: USTelecom Forbearance FCC 13-69 Conditions.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 9 respondents; 9 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 40-232 hours.

    Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement; annual recordkeeping and certification requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201, 202, 218, 254(k), and 272(e).

    Total Annual Burden: 712 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: If respondents submit information that they believe is confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information pursuant to section 0.59 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.459.

    Needs and Uses: In a May 2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC 13-69) (USTelecom Order), the Commission acted on a petition filed by USTelecom and granted forbearance relief to the full extent supported by the record. The collection covers conditional forbearance relief granted by the Commission from Cost Assignment Rules, Property Record Rules, ARMIS Report 43-01, and the Structural Separation Requirement for price cap local exchange carriers (LECs). The data, information, and documents acquired through this collection allow the Commission to meet its statutory requirements while allowing carriers to obtain forbearance relief.

    Since release of the USTelecom Order, eight price cap LECs have received conditional forbearance relief from Cost Assignment Rules, Property Record Rules, and the ARMIS Report 43-01 Requirement. None of these LECs has sought forbearance from the Structural Separation Requirement.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02670 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0053] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 10, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0053.

    Title: Experimental Authorization Applications—FCC Form 702, Consent to Assign an Experimental Authorization; and FCC Form 703, Consent to Transfer Control of Corporation Holding Station License.

    Form Nos.: FCC Forms 702 and 703.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 60 respondents; 60 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.6 hours (36 minutes).

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154, 302 and 303.

    Total Annual Burden: 36 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $3,900.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality. However, if respondents wish to request that their information be withheld from public inspection, they may do so under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: This information collection will be submitted as an extension (no change in reporting requirements and/or third party disclosure requirements) after this 60 day comment period to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to obtain the three year clearance from them.

    Mandatory electronic filing of applications for Experimental Radio licenses, for FCC Forms 702 and 703, commenced on January 1, 2004.

    Applicants for Experimental Radio Services are required by 47 CFR 5.59(e) of the Commission's rules: To submit FCC Form 702 when the legal right to control the use and operation of a station is to be transferred, as a result of a voluntary act (contract or other agreement); of an involuntary act (death or legal disability) of the grantee of a station authorization; by involuntary assignment of the physical property constituting the station under a court decree in bankruptcy proceedings or other court order; or by operation of law in any other manner; and they are also required to submit FCC Form 703 when they propose to change the control of a corporation holding a station license via a transfer of stock ownership or control of a station. The Commission uses the information to determine the eligibility for licenses, without which, violations of ownership regulations may occur.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02667 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-XXXX] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 10, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

    Title: Commercial and Public Safety Interference Complaint Intake Form, FCC-5623.

    Form Number: FCC-5623.

    Type of Review: New collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions, federal government, and state, local, or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,000 respondents; 1,000 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours (30 minutes).

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation To Respond: Voluntary. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in contained in 47 U.S.C. 154(i)-(j), 155, and 303(r).

    Total Annual Burden: 500 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting respondents to submit confidential information to the Commission. However, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of Rules.

    Needs and Uses: Commercial spectrum licensees, spectrum licensees with public safety or safety of life missions, and federal agencies will have a single portal through which to submit complaints of RF interference, FCC-5623. This online RF interference intake portal will enhance the Commission's ability to efficiently triage and assign RF interference complaints to field agents for further investigation, mitigation, and/or enforcement action, as appropriate.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02669 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewals; Comment Request (3064-0019, -0061, -0087 & -0143) AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of existing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the FDIC is soliciting comment on renewal of the information collections described below.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before April 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:

    http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/notices.html.

    Email: [email protected] Include the name and number of the collection in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Jennifer Jones (202-898-6768), Counsel, MB-3105, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

    All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Jones, at the FDIC address above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposal to renew the following currently approved collections of information:

    1. Title: Interagency Notice of Change in Control.

    OMB Number: 3064-0019.

    Form Number: FDIC 6822/01.

    Affected Public: Insured state nonmember banks and state savings associations.

    Burden Estimate:

    Type of
  • burden
  • Estimated
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Estimated
  • time per
  • response
  • Frequency
  • of response
  • Total annual
  • estimated
  • burden
  • (hours)
  • Notice of Change in Control Reporting 25 30 On Occasion 750

    General Description of Collection: The Interagency Notice of Change in Control is submitted by any person proposing to acquire ownership control of an insured state nonmember bank. The information is used by the FDIC to determine whether the competence, experience, or integrity of any acquiring person indicates it would not be in the interest of the depositors of the bank, or in the public interest, to permit such persons to control the bank.

    2. Title: Foreign Banking and Investment by Insured State Nonmember Banks.

    OMB Number: 3064-0061.

    Form Number: Summary of Deposits.

    Affected Public: All FDIC-insured institutions, including insured U.S. branches of foreign banks.

    Burden Estimate:

    Type of
  • burden
  • Estimated
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Estimated
  • time per
  • response
  • Frequency
  • of response
  • Total annual
  • estimated
  • burden
  • (hours)
  • Summary of Deposits Reporting 4,800 3 On Occasion 14,400

    General Description of Collection: The Summary of Deposits (SOD) is the annual survey of branch office deposits as of June 30 for all FDIC-insured institutions, including insured U.S. branches of foreign banks. All FDIC‐insured institutions that operate a main office and one or more branch locations (including limited service drive‐thru locations) as of June 30 each year are required to file the SOD Survey. Insured branches of foreign banks are also required to file. All data collected on the SOD submission are available to the public. The survey data provides a basis for measuring the competitive impact of bank mergers and has additional use in research on banking.

    3. Title: Procedures for Monitoring Bank Secrecy Act Compliance.

    OMB Number: 3064-0087.

    Form Number: None.

    Affected Public: Insured State Nonmember Banks and Savings Associations.

    Burden Estimate:

    Type of
  • burden
  • Estimated
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Estimated
  • time per
  • response
  • Frequency
  • of response
  • Total annual
  • estimated
  • burden
  • (hours)
  • Small Institutions Recordkeeping 3,054 35 On Occasion 106,890 Medium Institutions Recordkeeping 748 250 On Occasion 187,000 Large Institutions Recordkeeping 31 450 On Occasion 13,950 Total Estimated Burden 3,833 307,840

    General Description of Collection: Respondents must establish and maintain procedures designed to monitor and ensure their compliance with the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act and the implementing regulations promulgated by the Department of Treasury at 31 CFR part 103. Respondents must also provide training for appropriate personnel.

    4. Title: Forms Relating to Processing Deposit Insurance Claims.

    OMB Number: 3064-0143.

    Form Number: 7200/04—Declaration for Government Deposit; 7200/05—Declaration for Revocable Trust; 7200/06—Declaration of Independent Activity; 7200/07—Declaration of Independent Activity for Unincorporated Association; 7200/08—Declaration for Joint Ownership Deposit; 7200/09—Declaration for Testamentary Deposit; 7200/10—Declaration for Defined Contribution Plan; 7200/11—Declaration for IRA/KEOGH Deposit; 7200/12—Declaration for Defined Benefit Plan; 7200/13—Declaration of Custodian Deposit; 7200/14—Declaration or Health and Welfare Plan; 7200/15—Declaration for Plan and Trust; 7200/18—Declaration for Irrevocable Trust; 7200/24—Claimant Verification; 7200/26—Depositor Interview Form.

    Affected Public: Any person who has a deposit account relationship with an insured depository institution that has failed and from whom more information is needed to complete the deposit insurance determination.

    Burden Estimate:

    Type of
  • burden
  • Estimated
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Estimated
  • time per
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Frequency
  • of response
  • Total annual
  • estimated
  • burden
  • (hours)
  • Combined Deposit Brokers and Individuals: 7200/04—Declaration for Government Deposit Reporting 14 .5 On Occasion 7 7200/05—Declaration for Revocable Trust Reporting 165 .5 On Occasion 83 7200/06—Declaration of Independent Activity Reporting 0 .5 On Occasion 0 7200/07—Declaration of Independent Activity for Unincorporated Association Reporting 0 .5 On Occasion 0 7200/08—Declaration for Joint Ownership Deposit Reporting 0 .5 On Occasion 0 7200/09—Declaration for Testamentary Deposit Reporting 21 .5 On Occasion 11 7200/10—Declaration for Defined Contribution Plan Reporting 0 1 On Occasion 0 7200/11—Declaration for IRA/KEOGH Deposit Reporting 0 .5 On Occasion 0 7200/12—Declaration for Defined Benefit Plan Reporting 0 1 On Occasion 0 7200/13—Declaration of Custodian Deposit Reporting 0 .5 On Occasion 0 7200/14—Declaration or Health and Welfare Plan Reporting 12 1 On Occasion 12 7200/15—Declaration for Plan and Trust Reporting 0 .5 On Occasion 0 7200/18—Declaration for Irrevocable Trust Reporting 0 .5 On Occasion 0 7200/24—Claimant Verification Reporting 218 .5 On Occasion 109 7200/26—Depositor Interview Form Reporting 198 .5 On Occasion 99 Subtotal: Combined Brokers and Individuals 628 320 Deposit Brokers Only: Deposit Broker Submission Checklist Reporting 136 .08 On Occasion 11.33 Diskette, following “Broker Input File Requirements”—burden will vary depending on the broker's number of brokered accounts Reporting 102 .8 On Occasion 76.5 Reporting 34 5 On Occasion 170 Exhibit B, the standard agency agreement, or the non-standard agency agreement Reporting 136 .02 On Occasion 2.27 Subtotal: Deposit Brokers Only 136 260.10 Total Hourly Burden 764 580.10

    General Description of Collection: The collection involves forms used by the FDIC to obtain information from depositors and deposit brokers necessary to supplement the records of failed insured depository institutions to make determinations regarding deposit insurance coverage. The information provided enables the FDIC to identify the actual owners of an account, each owner's interest in the account, and the right and capacity in which the deposit is insured.

    Request for Comment

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, 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 collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of February 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02634 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10197 Old Southern Bank, Orlando, Florida

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as Receiver for 10197 Old Southern Bank, Orlando, Florida (“Receiver”) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Old Southern Bank (“Receivership Estate”); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law. The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds. Effective February 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: February 3, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02630 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10484, First Community Bank of Southwest Florida, Fort Myers, Florida

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as Receiver for 10484, First Community Bank of Southwest Florida, Fort Myers, Florida (“Receiver”), has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of First Community Bank of Southwest Florida (“Receivership Estate”); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law. The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds. Effective February 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: February 3, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02628 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10272, Coastal Community Bank, Panama City Beach, Florida

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as Receiver for 10272, Coastal Community Bank, Panama City Beach, Florida (“Receiver”), has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Coastal Community Bank (“Receivership Estate”); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law. The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds. Effective February 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: February 3, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02629 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10372 Mountain Heritage Bank, Clayton, Georgia

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as Receiver for 10372 Mountain Heritage Bank, Clayton, Georgia (“Receiver”) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Mountain Heritage Bank (“Receivership Estate”); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law. The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds. Effective February 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: February 3, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02631 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Update to Notice of Financial Institutions for Which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Has Been Appointed Either Receiver, Liquidator, or Manager AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

    ACTION:

    Update listing of financial institutions in liquidation.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in the Federal Register) may be relied upon as “of record” notice that the Corporation has been appointed receiver for purposes of the statement of policy published in the July 2, 1992 issue of the Federal Register (57 FR 29491). For further information concerning the identification of any institutions which have been placed in liquidation, please visit the Corporation Web site at www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html or contact the Manager of Receivership Oversight in the appropriate service center.

    Dated: February 3, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary. Institutions in Liquidation FDIC Ref. No. Bank name City State Date closed 10524 Seaway Bank and Trust Company Chicago IL 1/27/2017
    [FR Doc. 2017-02633 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10206, Key West Bank, Key West, Florida

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as Receiver for 10206, Key West Bank, Key West, Florida (“Receiver”), has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Key West Bank (“Receivership Estate”); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law. The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds. Effective February 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: February 3, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02627 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership of 10393, Creekside Bank, Woodstock, Georgia

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Creekside Bank, Woodstock, Georgia (“the Receiver”), intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Creekside Bank on September 2, 2011. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: February 3, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02632 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request (3064-0112, -0125, -0127 & -0175) AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of existing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. On November 28, 2016, (81 FR 85562), the FDIC requested comment for 60 days on a proposal to renew the information collections described below. No comments were received. The FDIC hereby gives notice of its plan to submit to OMB a request to approve the renewal of these collections, and again invites comment on this renewal.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before March 13, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:

    http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/notices.html.

    Email: [email protected] Include the name and number of the collection in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Jennifer Jones (202-898-6768), Counsel, MB-3105, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

    All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Jones, at the FDIC address above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposal to renew the following currently approved collections of information:

    1. Title: Real Estate Lending Standards.

    OMB Number: 3064-0112.

    Form Number: None.

    Affected Public: Insured State Nonmember Banks and State Savings Associations.

    Burden Estimate:

    Type of burden Estimated
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Estimated
  • number of
  • responses
  • Estimated
  • time per
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Frequency
  • of response
  • Total annual
  • estimated
  • burden
  • (hours)
  • Real Estate Lending Standards Recordkeeping 3,878 1 20 On Occasion 77,560

    General Description of Collection: Institutions use real estate lending policies to guide their lending operations in a manner that is consistent with safe and sound banking practices and appropriate to their size and nature and scope of their operations. These policies should address certain lending considerations, including loan-to-value limits, loan administration policies, portfolio diversification standards, and documentation, approval, and reporting requirements.

    2. Title: Foreign Banking and Investment by Insured State Nonmember Banks.

    OMB Number: 3064-0125.

    Form Number: None.

    Affected Public: Insured State Nonmember Banks.

    Burden Estimate:

    Type of burden Estimated
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Estimated
  • number of
  • responses
  • Estimated
  • time per
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Frequency
  • of response
  • Total annual
  • estimated
  • burden
  • (hours)
  • Notice of foreign branch establishment or foreign branch closure (303.182(a) and (d)) Reporting 1 1 2 On Occasion 2 Prior notice (45 days) of foreign branch establishment (303.182(b)) Reporting 1 1 6 On Occasion 6 Application to establish a foreign branch or to engage in certain activities through a foreign branch (303.182(b)) Reporting 1 1 40 On Occasion 40 Notice of foreign investment (303.183(a)) Reporting 1 1 2 On Occasion 2 Prior notice (45 days) of investment in foreign organizations (303.183(b)) Reporting 1 1 6 On Occasion 6 Application to invest in foreign organizations, or to engage in certain activities through foreign organizations (303.183(b)) Reporting 2 1 60 On Occasion 120 Notice of foreign divestiture (303.183(d)) Reporting 2 1 1 hour On Occasion 2 Total Reporting Burden Hours 178 Supervision and Recordkeeping of Foreign Activities Recordkeeping 20 1 400 On Occasion 8,000 Total Recordkeeping Burden Hours 8,000

    General Description of Collection: The Federal Deposit Insurance (FDI) Act requires state nonmember banks to obtain FDIC consent to establish or operate a branch in a foreign country, or to acquire and hold, directly or indirectly, stock or other evidence of ownership in any foreign bank or other entity. The FDI Act also authorizes the FDIC to impose conditions for such consent and to issue regulations related thereto. This collection is a direct consequence of those statutory requirements.

    3. Title: Occasional Qualitative Surveys.

    OMB Number: 3064-0127.

    Form Number: None.

    Affected Public: Insured Depository Institutions and Their Customers.

    Burden Estimate:

    Type of burden Estimated
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Estimated
  • number of
  • responses
  • Estimated
  • time per
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Frequency
  • of response
  • Total annual
  • estimated
  • burden
  • (hours)
  • Occasional generic qualitative surveys Reporting 850 15 1 On Occasion 12,750

    General Description of Collection: The FDIC is requesting renewal of this approved collection to use occasional qualitative surveys to gather information from the public. In general, these surveys do not involve more than 850 respondents, do not require more than one hour per respondent, and are completely voluntary in nature. It is not contemplated that more than 15 such surveys will be conducted in any given year. The purpose of the surveys is, in general terms, to obtain anecdotal information about regulatory burden, problems or successes in the bank supervisory process (including both safety-and-soundness and consumer-related exams), the perceived need for regulatory or statutory change, and similar concerns. The information in these surveys is anecdotal in nature, that is, samples are not necessarily random, the results are not necessarily representative of a larger class of potential respondents, and the goal is not to produce a statistically valid and reliable database. Rather, the surveys are expected to yield anecdotal information about the particular experiences and opinions of members of the public, primarily staff at respondent banks or bank customers. The information is used to improve the way FDIC relates to its clients, to develop agendas for regulatory or statutory change, and in some cases simply to learn how particular policies or programs are working, or are perceived in particular cases.

    4. Title: Interagency Guidance on Sound Incentive Compensation Practices.

    OMB Number: 3064-0175.

    Form Number: None.

    Affected Public: Insured State Nonmember Banks and State Savings Associations.

    Burden Estimate:

    Type of burden Estimated
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Estimated
  • number of
  • responses
  • Estimated
  • time per
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Frequency
  • of response
  • Total annual
  • estimated
  • burden
  • (hours)
  • Annual maintenance of policies and procedures Recordkeeping 3,878 1 40 Annual 155,120

    General Description of Collection: The Guidance on Sound Incentive Compensation Practices helps ensure that incentive compensation policies at insured state nonmember banks and state savings associations do not encourage excessive risk-taking and are consistent with the safety and soundness of the organization. Under the Guidance, banks are required to: (i) Have policies and procedures that identify and describe the role(s) of the personnel and units authorized to be involved in incentive compensation arrangements, identify the source of significant risk-related inputs, establish appropriate controls governing these inputs to help ensure their integrity, and identify the individual(s) and unit(s) whose approval is necessary for the establishment or modification of incentive compensation arrangements; (ii) create and maintain sufficient documentation to permit an audit of the organization's processes for incentive compensation arrangements; (iii) have any material exceptions or adjustments to the incentive compensation arrangements established for senior executives approved and documented by its board of directors; and (iv) have its board of directors receive and review, on an annual or more frequent basis operation of the organization's incentive compensation system in providing risk-taking incentives that are consistent with the organization's safety and soundness.

    Request for Comment

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, 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 collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of February 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02635 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10299, WestBridge Bank and Trust Company, Chesterfield, Missouri

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as Receiver for 10299, WestBridge Bank and Trust Company, Chesterfield, Missouri (“Receiver”), has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of WestBridge Bank and Trust Company (“Receivership Estate”); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

    Effective February 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: February 6, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02671 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 172 3033] iSpring Water Systems, LLC; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed consent agreement.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before March 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ispringconsent online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “In the Matter of iSpring Water Systems, LLC, File No. 1723033—Consent Agreement” on your comment and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ispringconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of iSpring Water Systems, LLC, File No. 1723033—Consent Agreement” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia Solomon Ensor, Attorney, (202) 326-2377, or Crystal Ostrum, Attorney, (202) 326-3405, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for February 1, 2017), on the World Wide Web at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before March 3, 2017. Write “In the Matter of iSpring Water Systems, LLC, File No. 1723033—Consent Agreement” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

    1 In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ispringconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of iSpring Water Systems, LLC, File No. 1723033—Consent Agreement” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before March 3, 2017. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from iSpring Water Systems, LLC. (“respondent”).

    The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.

    This matter involves respondent's marketing, sale, and distribution of water filtration systems and associated parts and accessories with claims that the products are of U.S.-origin. According to the FTC's complaint, respondent represented that all of its products are “Built in USA.” In fact, in many instances, respondent's products are wholly imported. In other instances, respondent sources significant inputs to its products from overseas.

    The complaint alleges that respondent's claims that its products are “Built in USA” were false or misleading, or not substantiated at the time the representations were made. Accordingly, the complaint alleges that respondent engaged in deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act.

    The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent respondent from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future. Consistent with the FTC's Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims, Part I prohibits iSpring from making U.S.-origin claims for its products unless either: (1) The final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States, all significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States, and all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States; or (2) a clear and conspicuous qualification appears immediately adjacent to the representation that accurately conveys the extent to which the product contains foreign parts, ingredients, and/or processing.

    Part II prohibits respondent from making any “Made in the USA” or other country-of-origin claim about a product or service unless the claim is true, not misleading, and respondent has a reasonable basis substantiating the representation.

    Parts III through VI are reporting and compliance provisions. Part III requires respondent to acknowledge receipt of the order, to provide a copy of the order to certain current and future principals, officers, directors, and employees, and to obtain an acknowledgement from each such person that they have received a copy of the order. Part IV requires the filing of compliance reports within one year after the order becomes final and within 14 days of any change in respondent that would affect compliance with the order. Part V requires respondent to maintain certain records, including records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the order. Part VI requires respondent to submit additional compliance reports when requested by the Commission and to permit the Commission or its representatives to interview respondent's personnel.

    Finally, Part VII is a “sunset” provision, terminating the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

    The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed order or to modify its terms in any way.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02663 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

    ACTION:

    Proposed routine use; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The FTC proposes to adopt a new routine use that would permit disclosure of the agency's Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request and appeal records to the Office of Government Information Services (“OGIS”), in order for OGIS to assist FOIA requesters in the processing and resolution of their requests and appeals.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted by March 13, 2017. This routine use, which is being published in proposed form, shall become final and effective April 10, 2017, without further notice unless otherwise amended or repealed by the Commission on the basis of any comments received.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Comments should refer to “Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records: FTC File No. P072104” to facilitate the organization of comments. Please file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ogisroutineuse by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    G. Richard Gold and Alex Tang, Attorneys, Office of the General Counsel, FTC, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2424.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Request for Comments

    You can file a comment online or on paper. Write “Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records: FTC File No. P072104” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as a Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you must follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, the Commission encourages you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ogisroutineuse by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    1 In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records: FTC File No. P072104” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before March 13, 2017. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    Analysis To Aid Public Comment

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, this document provides public notice that the FTC is proposing to adopt a new “routine use” to the agency's Privacy Act System of Records Notice (“SORN”) on Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) Requests and Appeals, FTC-V-1.2 This routine use will authorize the FTC to disclose FOIA request and appeal records covered by FTC-V-1 to the Office of Government Information Services (“OGIS”), in order for OGIS to assist requesters in the processing and resolution of their requests and appeals.

    2 This SORN, and the SORNs for all of the agency's other Privacy Act records systems, can be viewed on the FTC's Web site at https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/foia/foia-reading-rooms/privacy-act-systems.

    The OPEN Government Act of 2007 amended the Freedom of Information Act and created OGIS within the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”). The 2007 FOIA amendments require OGIS to review agency FOIA policies, procedures, and compliance, and to offer mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and agencies. See 5 U.S.C. 552(h).

    In order for OGIS to fulfill its statutory responsibilities, it requires access to FOIA request files originated and maintained by federal agencies including the FTC. However, because the FOIA request and appeal records covered by FTC-V-1 are governed by the Privacy Act of 1974, their disclosure normally requires the prior written consent of the individual to whom the records pertain (including, for example, an individual filing a FOIA request), unless the agency has published a routine use authorizing disclosure.

    The Privacy Act authorizes the agency to adopt routine uses that are consistent with the purpose for which information is collected. 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3); see also 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(7). The FTC believes that it is consistent with the purposes for which the FOIA request and appeal records covered by FTC-V-1 are collected to disclose such records routinely to OGIS to help OGIS mediate between individual FOIA requesters and agencies and ensure compliance with the FOIA statute. If agencies do not establish a “routine use” to provide for this proposed disclosure, OGIS would have to obtain the written consent of the individual FOIA requesters in order to obtain the access it requires to assist that requester. Simplifying the procedure for exchanging information would increase the efficiency of the FOIA administrative process. FTC staff understands that obtaining such consent has proven more complicated in some circumstances, e.g., when an agency, rather than the individual FOIA requester, seeks OGIS's assistance to mediate between the agency and the individual FOIA requester. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that it is authorized under the Privacy Act to adopt a routine use permitting disclosure of Privacy Act records for such purposes.

    In accordance with the Privacy Act, see 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), the FTC is publishing notice of this routine use and giving the public a 30-day period to comment before adopting it as final. The FTC has provided advance notice of this proposed system notice amendment to OMB and the Congress, as required by the Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), and OMB Circular A-108 (2016). The text of the proposed routine use is taken from the routine use that has already been published in final form by the Department of Justice after public comment. See 77 FR 26580 (May 4, 2012). Accordingly, as set forth below, the Commission proposes a new routine use to become effective on the date noted earlier, unless the Commission amends or revokes the routine use on the basis of any comments received.

    In light of the updated SORN template set forth in the newly revised OMB Circular A-108, the FTC is reprinting the text of the entire SORN, including the proposed new routine use, for the public's benefit, to read as follows:

    V. FTC Access Requests SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER:

    Freedom of Information Act Requests and Appeals-FTC (FTC-V-1).

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    Not applicable.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. See Appendix III for other locations where records may be maintained or accessed.

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S):

    FOIA/PA Supervisor, Office of General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.; Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

    PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM:

    To consider requests and appeals for access to records under the Freedom of Information Act; to determine the status of requested records; to respond to the requests and appeals; to make copies of FOIA requests and frequently requested records available publicly, under the FTC's Rules of Practice and FOIA; to maintain records, documenting the consideration and disposition of the requests for reporting, analysis, and recordkeeping purposes.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    Individuals filing requests for access to information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); individuals named in the FOIA request; FTC staff assigned to help process, consider, and respond to such requests, including any appeals.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    Communications (e.g., letters, emails) to and from the requesting party; agency documents generated or collected during processing and consideration of the request, including scanned copies of materials responsive to the FOIA request.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    Individual about whom the record is maintained and agency staff assigned to help process, review, or respond to the access request, including any appeal.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    (1) Request and appeal letters, and agency letters responding thereto, are placed on the FTC's public record and available to the public for routine inspection and copying. See FTC-I-6 (Public Records-FTC).

    (2) As required by the FOIA, records that have been “frequently requested” and disclosed under the FOIA within the meaning of that Act, as determined by the FTC, are made available to the public for routine inspection and copying. See FTC-I-6 (Public Records-FTC).

    (3) Disclosure to the National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), to the extent necessary to fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), to review administrative agency policies, procedures, and compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and to facilitate OGIS's offering of mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making FOIA requests and administrative agencies.

    See also Appendix I for other ways that the Privacy Act permits the FTC to use or disclose system records outside the agency.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF RECORDS:

    Records are maintained electronically using a commercial software application run on the agency's internal servers. Temporary paper files are destroyed once the request is complete.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETRIEVAL OF RECORDS:

    Indexed by name of requesting party and subject matter of request. Records can also be searched by name, address, phone number, fax number, and email of the requesting party, subject matter of the request, requestor organization, FOIA number, and staff member assigned to the request.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETENTION AND DISPOSAL OF RECORDS:

    Records are retained and disposed of in accordance with General Records Schedule 14.11-14.15, issued by the National Archives and Records Administration.

    ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDS:

    Requests, appeals, and responses available to the public, as described above. Access to nonpublic system records is restricted to FTC personnel or contractors whose responsibilities require access. Nonpublic paper records are temporary, maintained in lockable file cabinets or offices, and destroyed once the request is complete. Access to electronic records is controlled by “user ID” and password combination and other electronic access or network controls (e.g., firewalls). FTC buildings are guarded and monitored by security personnel, cameras, ID checks, and other physical security measures.

    RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    See Appendix II.

    CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

    See Appendix II.

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES:

    See Appendix II.

    EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM:

    Records contained in this system that have been placed on the FTC public record are available upon request, as discussed above. However, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), records in this system, which reflect records that are contained in other systems of records that are designated as exempt, are exempt from the requirements of subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), (I), and (f) of 5 U.S.C. 552a. See § 4.13(m) of the FTC Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 4.13(m).

    History:

    73 FR 33591-33634 (June 12, 2008).

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02664 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Notice of Meetings AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of five AHRQ subcommittee meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The subcommittees listed below are part of AHRQ's Health Services Research Initial Review Group Committee. Grant applications are to be reviewed and discussed at these meetings. Each subcommittee meeting will commence in open session before closing to the public for the duration of the meeting.

    DATES:

    See below for dates of meetings:

    1. Healthcare Effectiveness and Outcomes Research (HEOR) Date: February 8th-9th, 2017 (Open from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on February 8th and closed for remainder of the meeting) 2. Healthcare Safety and Quality Improvement Research (HSQR) Date: February 15th-16th, 2017 (Open from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. on February 15th and closed for remainder of the meeting) 3. Health System and Value Research (HSVR) Date: February 22nd-23rd, 2017 (Open from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on February 22nd and closed for remainder of the meeting) 4. Health Care Research and Training (HCRT) Date: February 23rd-24th 2017 (Open from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. on February 23rd and closed for remainder of the meeting) 5. Healthcare Information Technology Research (HITR) Date: February 22nd-24th, 2017 (Open from 5:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on February 22nd and closed for remainder of the meeting) ADDRESS:

    (below specifics where each hotel will be held)

    Hilton Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20857
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    (to obtain a roster of members, agenda or minutes of the non-confidential portions of the meetings.)

    Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, Office of Extramural Research Education and Priority Populations, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone (301) 427-1554.
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), AHRQ announces meetings of the above-listed scientific peer review groups, which are subcommittees of AHRQ's Health Services Research Initial Review Group Committees. Each subcommittee meeting will commence in open session before closing to the public for the duration of the meeting. The subcommittee meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in 5 U.S.C. App. 2 section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) 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.

    Agenda items for these meetings are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Acting Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02624 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment From the Fresenius Medical Care PSO, LLC AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of delisting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to b-26, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2008, 73 FR 70732-70814, establish a framework by which hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers may voluntarily report information to Patient Safety Organizations (PSOs), on a privileged and confidential basis, for the aggregation and analysis of patient safety events. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ, on behalf of the Secretary of HHS, to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” by the Secretary if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. AHRQ has accepted a notification of voluntary relinquishment from the Fresenius Medical Care PSO, LLC of its status as a PSO, and has delisted the PSO accordingly. The Fresenius Medical Care PSO, LLC submitted this request for voluntary relinquishment after receiving a Notice of Preliminary Finding of Deficiency.

    DATES:

    The directories for both listed and delisted PSOs are ongoing and reviewed weekly by AHRQ. The delisting was effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on January 6, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Both directories can be accessed electronically at the following HHS Web site: http://www.pso.ahrq.gov/listed.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eileen Hogan, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 06N94B, Rockville, MD 20857; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403-3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427-1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438-7231; TTY (local): (301) 427-1130; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.

    HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs.

    AHRQ has accepted a notification from the Fresenius Medical Care PSO, LLC, a component entity of Fresenius Medical Holdings, Inc., PSO number P0081, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, the Fresenius Medical Care PSO, LLC was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on January 6, 2017. AHRQ notes that the Fresenius Medical Care PSO, LLC submitted this request for voluntary relinquishment following receipt of the Notice of Preliminary Finding of Deficiency sent to the PSO on December 12, 2016.

    Fresenius Medical Care PSO, LLC has patient safety work product (PSWP) in its possession. The PSO will meet the requirements of section 3.108(c)(2)(i) of the Patient Safety Rule regarding notification to providers that have reported to the PSO. In addition, according to sections 3.108(c)(2)(ii) and 3.108(b)(3) of the Patient Safety Rule regarding disposition of PSWP, the PSO has 90 days from the effective date of delisting and revocation to complete the disposition of PSWP that is currently in the PSO's possession.

    More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site at http://www.pso.ahrq.gov.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Acting Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02623 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Scientific Information Request on Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Narrative and Systematic Review of Definitions and Methods in Clinical Research Studies AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Request for Scientific Information Submissions.

    SUMMARY:

    The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is seeking scientific information submissions from the public. Scientific information is being solicited to inform our review of Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Narrative and Systematic Review of Definitions and Methods in Clinical Research Studies, which is currently being conducted by the AHRQ's Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Program. Access to published and unpublished pertinent scientific information will improve the quality of this review. AHRQ is conducting this systematic review pursuant to Section 902(a) of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299a(a).

    DATES:

    Submission Deadline on or before March 13, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Email submissions: [email protected]

    Print submissions:

    Mailing Address:Portland VA Research Foundation, Scientific Resource Center, ATTN: Scientific Information Packet Coordinator, P.O. Box 69539, Portland, OR 97239.

    Shipping Address (FedEx, UPS, etc.):Portland VA Research Foundation, Scientific Resource Center, ATTN: Scientific Information Packet Coordinator, 3710 SW U.S. Veterans Hospital Road, Mail Code: R&D 71, Portland, OR 97239.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ryan McKenna, Telephone: 503-220-8262 ext. 51723 or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has commissioned the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Program to complete a review of the evidence for Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Narrative and Systematic Review of Definitions and Methods in Clinical Research Studies.

    The EPC Program is dedicated to identifying as many studies as possible that are relevant to the questions for each of its reviews. In order to do so, we are supplementing the usual manual and electronic database searches of the literature by requesting information from the public (e.g., details of studies conducted). We are looking for studies that report on Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Narrative and Systematic Review of Definitions and Methods in Clinical Research Studies, including those that describe adverse events. The entire research protocol, including the key questions, is also available online at: https://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/research/findings/ta/topicrefinement/trdepression-protocol.pdf

    This is to notify the public that the EPC Program would find the following information on Treatment-Resistant Depression (TRD): A Narrative and Systematic Review of Definitions and Methods in Clinical Research Studies helpful:

    A list of completed studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please indicate whether results are available on ClinicalTrials.gov along with the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number.

    For completed studies that do not have results on ClinicalTrials.gov, please provide a summary, including the following elements: Study number, study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, primary and secondary outcomes, baseline characteristics, number of patients screened/eligible/enrolled/lost to follow-up/withdrawn/analyzed, effectiveness/efficacy, and safety results.

    A list of ongoing studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please provide the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number or, if the trial is not registered, the protocol for the study including a study number, the study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and primary and secondary outcomes.

    Description of whether the above studies constitute all Phase II and above clinical trials sponsored by your organization for this indication and an index outlining the relevant information in each submitted file.

    Your contribution is very beneficial to the EPC Program. The contents of all submissions will be made available to the public upon request. Materials submitted must be publicly available or can be made public. Materials that are considered confidential; marketing materials; study types not included in the review; or information on indications not included in the review cannot be used by the EPC Program. This is a voluntary request for information, and all costs for complying with this request must be borne by the submitter.

    The draft of this review will be posted on AHRQ's EPC Program Web site and available for public comment for a period of 4 weeks. If you would like to be notified when the draft is posted, please sign up for the email list at: https://subscriptions.ahrq.gov/accounts/USAHRQ/subscriber/new?topic_id=USAHRQ_18.

    The systematic review will answer the following questions. This information is provided as background. AHRQ is not requesting that the public provide answers to these questions. The entire research protocol, is available online at: https://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/research/findings/ta/topicrefinement/trdepression-protocol.pdf

    The Key Questions

    Narrative Review Questions: Based on a literature search for consensus statements, guidelines, materials from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA); systematic reviews; and on a review of UpToDate, an evidence-based, peer reviewed clinical information source, we will address the key questions (Key Questions [KQs] 1 through 5, with their subquestions) listed below. In addition, we will use information from the Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee (MEDCAC) panel meeting on April 27, 2016, to augment our reporting on TRD definitions, study design issues, and the related topics. The specific issues are:

    KQ 1. What definitions of TRD are found in this literature? What consensus, if any, exists about the best definition(s) for this condition?

    KQ 2. What methods do investigators use to diagnose this condition in clinical research? What consensus, if any, exists about the best measure(s) to use? Does the setting of the medical visit influence the choices that investigators make about the diagnostic tool they use?

    KQ 3. What measures have been developed to determine the success and failure of treatment in clinical research studies of TRD?

    I. What consensus, if any, exists about the best measure(s) to investigate treatments for TRD? What are the main points of agreement about such measures? II. Are these measures physician-reported or patient-reported? III. What are the psychometric properties of these measures? Is the minimum significant clinical difference defined for these measures? IV. Compare and contrast these measures in how they describe: A. Change in depression scores as measured by depression scales B. Change in depressive symptomatology (e.g., sleep disorders, fatigue, weight change, cognition) C. Change in measures of anhedonia D. Change in measures of functional capacity (e.g., physical functioning, ability to care for self) E. Change in measures of quality of life F. Change in measures of suicide ideation G. Change in suicide attempts H. Other

    KQ 4. What types of research designs are used to study TRD?

    I. What consensus, if any, exists about the type of study design that best minimizes bias and the placebo effect in this field? II. If no consensus exists about study designs to accomplish these goals, what are the trends in study designs for assessing interventions for TRD? Do these trends reflect long-lasting (e.g., traditional) designs or short-lived, evolving, or newly emerging designs? III. What consensus, if any, exists about the appropriate length of a trial?

    KQ 5. What are the risk factors for TRD?

    Systematic Review Questions: From a systematic literature search for individual studies on TRD. We will address the KQs 6 through 11 with their subquestions as listed below.

    KQ 6. What variables were considered for TRD patients in these studies? Specify at least the factors listed below.

    I. Patient Characteristics: A. Age B. Type of depressive episode (unipolar, bipolar, psychotic, atypical, other) C. Number of depression relapses and time to relapse D. Psychiatric comorbidities E. Medical comorbidities (e.g., diabetes, cardiac disease, renal disease, dementia and other cognitive abnormalities) F. Suicidal ideation G. Suicide attempts H. Duration of symptoms I. Screening tools used to make the diagnosis J. Diagnostic tools to confirm the diagnosis II. Prior Treatments: A. The number, duration, dosage, or classes of antidepressants attempted for each trial of therapy B. The number of failed trials of adequate therapy C. The number of prior treatment trials that patients did not tolerate D. The use of augmentation and combination pharmacological therapies for each attempted treatment trial E. The use of electroconvulsive therapy F. The use of psychotherapy III. Diagnostic characteristics A. The use of structured versus unstructured diagnostic assessments B. Scores on standardized and validated depression rating instruments C. Setting in which the diagnosis was made (i.e., primary care, generalized psychiatric setting, specialty psychiatric setting, other)

    KQ 7. How do these inclusion criteria compare or contrast with the definition(s) of TRD noted in the Narrative Questions?

    KQ 8. What were primary characteristics of included studies?

    I. What was the main design of each included study (e.g., randomized controlled trial with blinding; interrupted time series; use of placebo, wait-list, or sham procedure)? II. Were run-in or wash-out periods (or both) used in included studies? If so, how long were they? III. How long was each included study?

    KQ 9. How were included studies designed to account for the risk factors for TRD (see Narrative Question #5)? If the following characteristics are not noted above as risk factors, how did included studies account for at least the following: Age, sex, race, socioeconomic status, duration of symptoms, disease severity, co-existing medical and psychiatric conditions, and placebo effect?

    KQ 10. What are relationships between risk factors and various results of included studies?

    I. Using regression analysis or other statistical techniques, determine whether the risk factors for Narrative Review Question #5 and Systematic Review Question # 9 can be correlated with study results (i.e., the magnitude of treatment effects)? II. What is the influence of placebo response on the magnitude of treatment effects for different types of interventions? III. Does study duration moderate the influence of placebo response?

    KQ 11. What variables or information did included studies report? Specifically:

    I. What measures are used to define end points in these TRD trials? II. In addition to the measures noted for Narrative Review Question #3, did these studies record: A. Adherence to treatment B. Attrition from care C. Changes in patient-selected factors of importance (i.e., outcome measures identified by patient as important) D. Changes in employment or disability status E. Changes in use of medical resources (e.g., hospitalizations, emergency room or physician visits) F. Time to relapse PICOTS (Populations, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, Time Frames, Settings) Population(s)

    All adults (>18 years old) identified as having a depressive episode (including major depressive disorder [MDD] and bipolar disorder) who have not responded to treatment(s). The depressive episode must be part of a major depressive disorder or a bipolar disorder. Studies of people without a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder, or without evidence of treatment nonresponse, will be excluded.

    Interventions

    Any pharmacologic intervention tested as a treatment for TRD as a primary therapy or as an augmentation agent to an existing primary therapy.

    I. Antidepressants (e.g., selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, monoamine oxidase inhibitors atypical agents) II. Atypical antipsychotics III. Anticonvulsants IV. Mood stabilizers V. Psychostimulants VI. Agents approved by the FDA for other indications but tested in TRD populations (e.g., ketamine, levothyroxine [T3], clonidine)

    Any nonpharmacologic device or procedure tested as a treatment for TRD as a primary therapy or as augmentation to an existing primary therapy and identified as a TRD option by a consensus statement, guideline, the MEDCAC panel, or systematic review (e.g., ECT, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, deep brain stimulation, cranial electrotherapy stimulation).

    Any nonpharmacologic intervention tested as a treatment for TRD as a primary therapy or as augmentation to an existing primary therapy and identified as a TRD option by a consensus statement, guideline, the MEDCAC panel, or systematic review.

    I. Complementary and alternative medication therapies II. Psychotherapy III. Exercise Comparators

    All comparative studies with a concurrent control group or a control group from an interrupted time-series study. These designs exclude pre/post studies that did not conduct interrupted time-series analyses.

    Outcomes

    Mental health outcomes identified in previous depression comparative effectiveness review work as either critical or important for decision making:

    I. Benefits that are reported as primary endpoints (or outcomes) for a trial. Such outcomes could include: Reduction in suicidal ideation or suicide attempts A. Quality of life B. Response to treatment C. Remission D. Change in depressive severity E. Functional capacity (physical and cognitive functioning measured by validated scales) F. Speed of remission G. Speed of response H. Intervention durability (rates or counts of recurrence of a depressive episode for those who have remitted) II. Adverse events from the intervention identified as either critical or important for decision making. Serious adverse events per FDA definition (rates or counts) A. Overall adverse events (rates or counts) B. Treatment discontinuations attributed to adverse events (rates or counts) Time Frames I. Any study duration. Settings I. All settings.

    Our population of interest is adults 18 years of age or older with depression who have not responded to treatment(s). The depressive illness can be part of either major depressive disorder or a bipolar disorder, but one of these diagnoses must be a primary diagnosis. For example, schizophrenia with a secondary diagnosis of MDD, or dysthymia, would not be eligible for this report. If a study involves both eligible and ineligible patients and does not report data separately, that whole study will be excluded. Populations with no evidence of treatment nonresponse (e.g., a study in which the absence of treatment response is not part of the selection criteria) will not be eligible.

    Eligible interventions include those that have both been tested as a treatment targeting TRD in adults and been identified by guidelines, consensus statements, the MEDCAC panel, or systematic reviews as alternatives for TRD treatment. These criteria ensure consideration of interventions with a minimum threshold amount of data addressing its effectiveness in TRD populations. Comparison groups include concurrent control groups (e.g., active, sham, or placebo) and a control group from an interrupted time series.

    We will require outcomes to have been identified previously as the most meaningful to depression management decision making. In our earlier comparative effectiveness work on depression, we asked our Technical Expert Panel and Key Informants to rank the relative importance of these outcomes following a process proposed by the GRADE Working Group.30 We used SurveyMonkey© for an anonymous ranking of the relative importance of outcomes. Participants used a 9-point Likert scale to rank outcomes into three categories: (1) Critical for decision making, (2) important but not critical for decision making, and (3) of low importance for decision making. They identified six outcomes as critical and five as important, and they supported the inclusion of an additional depressive outcome (change in depressive severity). For one of the adverse events outcomes, serious adverse events, we will use the FDA definition and will consider physical, psychological, and cognitive events. We will require relevant studies for the current project to report on at least 1 of these 12 outcomes.

    All study durations and all settings are eligible. Pre/post studies that do not use interrupted time series analyses will be excluded, because potential confounding from multiple sources renders questionable the ability of these study designs to support causal inferences. We will include English-language articles and exclude studies that are not published fully in English.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Acting Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02622 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions Received AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HRSA is publishing this notice of petitions received under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the Program), as required by the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. While the Secretary of HHS (the Secretary) is named as the respondent in all proceedings brought by the filing of petitions for compensation under the Program, the United States Court of Federal Claims is charged by statute with responsibility for considering and acting upon the petitions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information about requirements for filing petitions, and the Program in general, contact the Clerk, United States Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Place NW., Washington, DC 20005, (202) 357-6400. For information on HRSA's role in the Program, contact the Director, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 08N146B, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-6593, or visit our Web site at: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq., provides that those seeking compensation are to file a petition with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and to serve a copy of the petition on the Secretary, who is named as the respondent in each proceeding. The Secretary has delegated this responsibility under the Program to HRSA. The Court is directed by statute to appoint special masters who take evidence, conduct hearings as appropriate, and make initial decisions as to eligibility for, and amount of, compensation.

    A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table) set forth at 42 CFR 100.3. This Table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions that may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the Table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.

    Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that “[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 2111 the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the Federal Register.” Set forth below is a list of petitions received by HRSA on December 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. This list provides the name of petitioner, city and state of vaccination (if unknown then city and state of person or attorney filing claim), and case number. In cases where the Court has redacted the name of a petitioner and/or the case number, the list reflects such redaction.

    Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:

    1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and 2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either: a. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or b. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.

    In accordance with Section 2112(b)(2), all interested persons may submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading “For Further Information Contact”), with a copy to HRSA addressed to Director, Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Healthcare Systems Bureau, 5600 Fishers Lane, 08N146B, Rockville, MD 20857. The Court's caption (Petitioner's Name v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) and the docket number assigned to the petition should be used as the caption for the written submission. Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, related to paperwork reduction, does not apply to information required for purposes of carrying out the Program.

    Dated: February 6, 2017. James Macrae, Acting Administrator. List of Petitions Filed 1. George J. Stippich, III, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1595V 2. Donna J. Madej, Jackson, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1596V 3. Julia Franklin, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1598V 4. Marie Scutt, Brooklyn, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1599V 5. Samantha Cantu, Chicago, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1600V 6. Albert Cestaro, Westlake, Ohio, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1601V 7. Tacoma C. Lewis on behalf of C.A.I., Charlotte, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1604V 8. Helen McElroy, Sarasota, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1605V 9. Carol Lifton, Lakeland, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1606V 10. Corinne Williamson, Meadowbrook, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1607V 11. Amber Peterson, Las Vegas, Nevada, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1608V 12. Tracy Goodspeed, Laramie, Wyoming, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1609V 13. Rodney Blankenship, Stockton, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1610V 14. Mary Mancina, Mandeville, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1612V 15. Steven Jenkins, Bend, Oregon, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1614V 16. Mary Bond, Jackson, Mississippi, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1615V 17. Aurelia Gilbert, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1617V 18. Daniele Strawmyre Butler on behalf of C.B., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1620V 19. James Gilmer, Fort Meade, Maryland, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1623V 20. Janine Fonfara, Norwich, Connecticut, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1625V 21. Joseph C. Webb, III, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1627V 22. Armand Thomas, Las Vegas, Nevada, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1628V 23. Matthew J. Johnson, Lincoln, Nebraska, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1630V 24. Edward A. Sokol, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1631V 25. Robert Stockdale, Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1632V 26. Kristin Dawn Bardon, Ventura, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1634V 27. Travis Lee and Nicole Bailey on behalf of E.L., Loma Linda, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1635V 28. Kara Evans, Baltimore, Maryland, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1638V 29. Doreen Dileo, Greensboro, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1639V 30. Donna Worcester, Melrose, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1641V 31. Robert L. Goewey, Winsted, Connecticut, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1644V 32. Virven Warren, Greensboro, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1645V 33. Doris Handler, Baraboo, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1649V 34. Emilia Silva, Reno, Nevada, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1652V 35. Shelly A. Chmielewski, Burlington, Vermont, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1653V 36. Kerri Hall, Mountain Home, Arkansas, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1654V 37. Carol T. Nosches, Rancho Santa Margarita, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1657V 38. George Kos, Woodland Hills, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1658V 39. Kelli Tenneson, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1664V 40. Gabor Meszaros, Maywood, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1665V 41. Dawn Andrews, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1666V 42. Staceann Thomas, Stuart, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1667V 43. Jennifer Reed, Washington, District of Columbia, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1670V 44. Helene Frost, Manhattan Beach, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1671V 45. Johnny Sturdivant, Hartsville, South Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1672V 46. Raymond Johnson and Sasha Hall on behalf of Antonio Rocha, Deceased, Moreno Valley, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1674V 47. David Goodwin, Dresher, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1676V 48. Vilai Thomas, Las Vegas, Nevada, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1677V 49. Ann Woo and David Sievertson on behalf of B.W.S., Washington, District of Columbia, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1679V 50. David Bogdan on behalf of Michael Grant, Deceased, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1681V 51. Patrick McAleese, Alvin, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1683V 52. Gloria Boeske, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1685V 53. Catherine Miriani, Bellaire, Michigan, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1686V 54. Luis Garcia, Beverly Hills, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1687V 55. David Byrd, Beverly Hills, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1688V 56. Joseph Zumbrun, Cheyenne, Wyoming, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1689V 57. James Dwyer, San Antonio, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1690V 58. Scott Proper, Novi, Michigan, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1692V 59. Shannon Frogge, Dresher, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1693V 60. Deborah Franklin, Duluth, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1698V 61. William T Smith, Washington, District of Columbia, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1699V 62. Thomas Casey, Hickory, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1700V 63. Heather O'Keefe, Spokane, Washington, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1705V 64. Kaylan Brodnax, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1706V 65. Lee R. Campbell, M.D., Indianapolis, Indiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1707V 66. Alceo Lucarelli, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1712V 67. Marcel Pelletier and Sarah Pelletier on behalf of B.P., Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1713V 68. Regina Foster on behalf of H.G., Chattanooga, Tennessee, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1714V 69. Margaret Albers, Buffalo, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1715V 70. Jeanette Kuhl on behalf of E.K., Detroit, Michigan, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1716V 71. Ju Won Lee, Los Angeles, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1719V 72. Andrea Owens-Bachmann, Vero Beach, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1720V 73. Merrill Schumacher, Carson City, Nevada, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-1721V
    [FR Doc. 2017-02685 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, Special Emphasis Panel; R01 Engaging Youth and Youth Adults from Health Disparity Populations in the HIV Treatment Cascade.

    Date: February 23-28, 2017.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Maryline Laude-Sharp, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-9536, [email protected]

    Dated: February 2, 2017. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory, Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02613 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    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.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; The Influence of Drug Abuse on HIV Prevention, Treatment and Progression.

    Date: February 27-28, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Shalanda A. Bynum, Ph.D., MPH, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3206, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-755-4355, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: Improving Smoking Cessation in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Populations via Scalable Interventions.

    Date: February 28, 2017.

    Time: 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Kristen Prentice, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3112, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-0726, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Oncology 2—Translational Clinical Integrated Review Group; Cancer Immunopathology and Immunotherapy Study Section.

    Date: March 2-3, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Lorien Hotel & Spa, 1600 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.

    Contact Person: Denise R. Shaw, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6158, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0198, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflicts: Molecular and Cellular Hematology.

    Date: March 6-7, 2017.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Anshumali Chaudhari, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4124, MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1210, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR: Transfusion Medicine.

    Date: March 6-7, 2017.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Ai-Ping Zou, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4118, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9497, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: AIDS and Related Research Integrated Review Group; AIDS Molecular and Cellular Biology Study Section.

    Date: March 7, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton San Diego Mission Valley, 901 Camino Del Rio South, San Diego, CA 92108.

    Contact Person: Kenneth A. Roebuck, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5214, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1166, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Cancer Immunopathology and Immunotherapy.

    Date: March 8, 2017.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Syed M. Quadri, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6210, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1211, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Digestive Sciences.

    Date: March 9, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD.

    Contact Person: Martha Garcia, Ph.D., Scientific Reviewer Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2186, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1243, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel.

    Date: March 9-10, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: David R. Jollie, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4166, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 437-7927, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Topics in Bacterial Pathogenesis.

    Date: March 9, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hotel Solamar, 435 6th Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101.

    Contact Person: Richard G. Kostriken, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3192, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 240-519-7808, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Biophysical, Physiological, Pharmacological and Bioengineering Neuroscience.

    Date: March 9-10, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Fairmont Washington, DC, 2401 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Paula Elyse Schauwecker, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5211, Bethesda, MD 20892, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Biomedical Sensing, Measurement and Instrument.

    Date: March 9, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hotel Solamar, 435 6th Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101.

    Contact Person: Inna Gorshkova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1784, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Aging and Development, Auditory, Vision and Low Vision Technologies.

    Date: March 9-10, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Westgate Hotel, 1055 Second Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101.

    Contact Person: Paek-Gyu Lee, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4201, MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 613-2064, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Brain Disorders and Related Neurosciences.

    Date: March 9-10, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Vilen A. Movsesyan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4040M, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7278, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Larynx and Voice Disorders.

    Date: March 9, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Unja Hayes, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-6830, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR 16-333: Metabolic Contributions to the Neurocognitive Complications of Diabetes: Ancillary Studies (R01).

    Date: March 9, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Hui Chen, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1044, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition, and Reproductive Science.

    Date: March 10, 2017.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Elaine Sierra-Rivera, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, EMNR IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6182, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301 435-2514, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: February 3, 2017. Anna Snouffer, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02618 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities Special Emphasis Panel; Internet Assisted Meeting, ZMD1 XLN M1.

    Date: March 13, 2017.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual meeting).

    Contact Person: Xinli Nan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Scientific Review Branch, OERA, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-7784, [email protected]

    Dated: February 2, 2017. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02614 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications/contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications/contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Questions in Cancer System Biology.

    Date: March 2, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 2E908, Rockville, MD 20850.

    Contact Person: Adriana Stoica, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W234, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6368, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Tools for Monitoring RNA.

    Date: March 14, 2017.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 4W030, Rockville, MD 20850 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Jeffrey E. DeClue, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Technology and Contract Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W238, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6371, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Co-Clinical Imaging.

    Date: March 30, 2017.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W030, Rockville, MD 20850 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Kenneth L. Bielat, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Technology and Contract Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W244, Rockville, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6373, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Collaborative Consortia for the Study of HIV-Associated Cancers (U54) RFA-CA-16-018.

    Date: April 5-6, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Adriana Stoica, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W234, Rockville, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6368, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Cancer Center Support Grant.

    Date: April 7, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W030, Rockville, MD 20850 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Caterina Bianco, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Programs Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W110, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6459, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: February 3, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02621 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Licensing information and copies of the patent applications listed below may be obtained by communicating with the indicated licensing contact at the Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Office, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD, 20852; tel. 301-496-2644. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of unpublished patent applications.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Technology description follows.

    Small Molecule Imaging of Fungi by Positron Emission Tomography Scanning Description of Technology

    This technology relates to the field of radioactive, isotopically-labeled calcofluor derivatives and uses of such compounds to detect a broad spectrum of filamentous fungi including pathogenic species such as Aspergillus and Mucorales, by diagnostic imaging methods such as positron emission tomography (PET) scanning.

    Aspergillosis and other filamentous fungal infections are increasingly common fungal lung infection with high mortality rates (over 50%) in immune compromised patients, such as those receiving chemotherapy, stem cell/organ transplantation, or HIV patients. One-year survival of the infected patients ranges from 59% (organ transplant recipients) to as low as 25% (stem cell transplant recipients). Delayed diagnosis and therapy are likely to lead to poor outcomes and death. This disease is often first detected as nodules on CT scans. A diagnosis is typically made following invasive lung bronchoscopy or biopsy. However, as these patients are immunocompromised, these invasive procedures may themselves lead to significant complications and infections. Therefore, to enable timely treatment and minimize complications, there is a critical need for non-invasive means to detect and diagnose fungal infections.

    The calcofluor derivatives disclosed in the patent application may be utilized as imaging agents specific for fungal infections and could potentially become a standard, non-invasive procedure in the work-up of immunocompromised patients with lung infections.

    This technology is available for licensing for commercial development in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, as well as for further development and evaluation under a research collaboration.

    Potential Commercial Applications

    • Diagnostics of Aspergillosis and other filamentous fungal infections.

    Competitive Advantages

    • Non-invasive.

    • Low toxicity.

    • Specific for Aspergillus.

    Development Stage

    • In vivo data available (animal).

    Inventors: Peter R. Williamson (NIAID), Dale O. Kiesewetter (NIBIB), John C. Panepinto (University of Buffalo), and Jin Qiu (NIAID).

    Publications

    1. Palmer GE, et al., The diverse roles of autophagy in medically important fungi, Autophagy. 2008 Nov; 4(8):982-8. [PMID 18927489]

    2. Panepinto JC, et al., Deletion of the Aspergillus fumigatus gene encoding the Ras-related protein RhbA reduces virulence in a model of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis, Infect Immun. 2003 May; 71(5):2819-26. [PMID 12704156]

    3. Desoubeaux D, et al., Diagnosis of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis: Updates and recommendations, Med Mal Infect. 2014 Mar; 44(3):89-101. [PMID 24548415]

    Intellectual Property: HHS Reference Nos. E-449-2013/0,1—U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/894,754, filed October 23, 2013; PCT Application No. PCT/US2014/061917, filed October 23, 2014 (published as WO 2015/061540 on April 30, 2015); European Application No. 14800182.9, filed October 23, 2014 (pending); Australian Application No. 2014340035, filed October 23, 2014 (pending); Canadian Application No. 2927952, filed October 23, 2014; and U.S. Application No. 15/030,554, filed April 19, 2016 (pending).

    Licensing Contact: Dr. David Yang, 240-627-3413; [email protected]

    Collaborative Research Opportunity: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is seeking statements of capability or interest from parties interested in collaborative research to further develop, evaluate or commercialize for development of this invention. For collaboration opportunities, please contact Dr. David Yang, 240-627-3413; [email protected]

    Dated: February 6, 2017. Suzanne Frisbie, Deputy Director, Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Office, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02674 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of meetings of the Board of Scientific Counselors for Basic Sciences, National Cancer Institute and the Board of Scientific Counselors for Clinical Sciences and Epidemiology, National Cancer Institute.

    The meetings will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Cancer Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors for Clinical Sciences and Epidemiology, National Cancer Institute.

    Date: March 6, 2017.

    Time: 8:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive, Building 31, C-Wing, 6th Floor, Conference Room 6, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Brian E. Wojcik, Ph.D., Senior Review Administrator, Institute Review Office, Office of the Director, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 3W414, Bethesda, MD 20892, 240-276-5664, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors for Basic Sciences, National Cancer Institute.

    Date: March 7, 2017.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 12:15 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive, Building 31, C-Wing, 6th Floor, Conference Room 6, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Mehrdad Tondravi, Ph.D., Chief, Institute Review Office, Office of the Director, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 3W-302, Bethesda, MD 20892, 240-276-5664, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: February 3, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02615 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The 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.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Peer Review Meeting.

    Date: March 6, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Kelly Y. Poe, Ph.D., Scientific Review Office, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3F40B, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5036, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: February 3, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02620 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities Special Emphasis Panel; ZMD1 DRI (M1) NIH Support for Conference and Scientific Meetings (Parent R13).

    Date: March 3, 2017.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Deborah Ismond, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Programs, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402-1366, [email protected].

    Dated: February 2, 2017. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02616 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The prize submissions and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the prize submissions, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; OD16-137: Antimicrobial Resistance Rapid, Point-of-Need Diagnostic Test Challenge: Step 1.

    Date: March 2-3, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate prize submissions.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Gagan Pandya, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Rm. 3200, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1167, pandyaga[email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: February 3, 2017. Anna Snouffer, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02619 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NEI Center Core Grants (P30) and Pathways to Independence Awards (K99).

    Date: March 6, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Brian Hoshaw, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Division of Extramural Research, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, Rockville, MD 20892, 301-451-2020, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: February 3, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02617 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel NIAID, Clinical Trial Planning Grant (R34) and Implementation Cooperative Agreement (U01).

    Date: March 6, 2017.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Maryam Feili-Hariri, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-669-5026, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: February 6, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02727 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Prospective Grant of Exclusive Patent License: Inhibition of Plasmodial Surface Anion Channels for the Treatment or Prevention of Malaria AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, an institute of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an Exclusive Commercialization Patent License to practice the inventions embodied in the Patents and Patent Applications listed in the Summary Information section of this notice to Microbiotix, Inc. (“Microbiotix”) located in Worcester, Massachusetts.

    DATES:

    Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases' Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Office on or before February 24, 2017 will be considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, and comments relating to the contemplated Exclusive Commercialization Patent License should be directed to: Peter Tung, Technology Transfer and Patent Specialist, Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Office, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 5601 Fishers Lane, Suite 6D, MSC9804, Rockville, MD 20852-9804 Telephone: (301) 496-2644; Facsimile: (240) 627-3117; Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Intellectual Property

    United States Provisional Patent Application No. 61/083,000, filed July 23, 2008 and entitled “Inhibitors of the Plasmodial Surface Anion Channel as Antimalarials” [HHS Reference No. E-202-2008/0-US-01]; PCT Patent Application PCT/US09/50637, filed July 15, 2009 and entitled “Inhibitors of the Plasmodial Surface Anion Channel as Antimalarials” [HHS Reference No. E-202-2008/0-PCT-02]; and U.S. and foreign patent applications claiming priority to the aforementioned applications.

    United States Provisional Patent Application No. 61/474,583, filed April 12, 2011 and entitled “Plasmodial Surface Anion Channel Inhibitors for the Treatment of Malaria” [HHS Reference No. E-145-2011/0-US-01]; PCT Patent Application PCT/US12/33072, filed April 11, 2012 and entitled “Plasmodial Surface Anion Channel Inhibitors for the Treatment of Malaria” [HHS Reference No. E-202-2008/0-PCT-02]; and U.S. and foreign patent applications claiming priority to the aforementioned applications.

    The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the government of the United States of America.

    The prospective exclusive license territory may be worldwide and the field of use may be limited to: “Methods of preventing and/or treating malaria infection by inhibition of Plasmodium Surface Anion Channels (PSAC) with anti-PSAC compounds.”

    This technology discloses a novel anion channel on the surface of red blood cells (RBCs) in animals infected with Plasmodium. Named PSAC for “plasmodium surface anion channel,” this channel protein facilitates the transport of nutrients into RBCs for the plasmodium parasite. Sugars, amino acids, purines, vitamins, and precursors for phospholipid biosynthesis have markedly increased uptake into infected RBCs via PSAC. Many of these nutrients have negligible uptake in uninfected RBCs. PSACs, which allow nutrients to reach the growing plasmodium parasites inside RBCs, therefore serves as a new target for the development of antimalarial compounds. The disclosed anti-PSAC compositions and methods of using these anti-PSAC compounds provide a means for prevention or treatment of malaria infection by blocking nutrients to plasmodium parasites.

    This notice is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing, and the prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.

    Complete applications for a license in the prospective field of use that are filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated Exclusive Commercialization Patent License Agreement. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Dated: February 6, 2017. Suzanne Frisbie, Deputy Director, Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Office, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02673 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Geological Survey [17 GX17CJ00GKC0100] Notice of an Open Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Water Information AGENCY:

    United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of an open meeting of the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI).

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the ACWI. This meeting is to discuss broad policy-related topics relating to national water initiatives, and the development and dissemination of water information, through reports from ACWI subgroups. The agenda will include updates from ACWI's various subcommittees, unveiling of the strategic plan for the Water Quality Portal for 2017-2021, a proposal for a new Terms of Reference document for the Subcommittee on Ground Water, a proposal to establish a new Risk Management Workgroup within the Subcommittee on Hydrology, an update on activities and accomplishments related to the Open Water Data Initiative, and a report on the Hydrologic Frequency Analysis Work Group's progress on Bulletin 17C, Guidelines For Determining Flood Flow Frequency.

    The ACWI was established under the authority of the Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-92-01 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the ACWI is to provide a forum for water information users and professionals to advise the Federal Government on activities and plans that may improve the effectiveness of meeting the Nation's water information needs. Member organizations help to foster communications between the Federal and non-Federal sectors on sharing water information.

    Membership, limited to 35 organizations, represents a wide range of water resources interests and functions. Representation on the ACWI includes all levels of government, academia, private industry, and professional and technical societies. For more information on the ACWI, its membership, subgroups, meetings and activities, please see the Web site at: http://ACWI.gov.

    DATES:

    The meeting will take place from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on February 22, 2017, and from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on February 23, 2017 (times are Eastern Daylight Time).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via teleconference and webinar, with the following call-in and log-in information:

    When it is time to attend the meeting, please visit this link: https://usgs.webex.com/usgs/j.php?MTID=mcbd33e16e2036dbbc7d27d3a10a43174.

    Audio is available via teleconference:

    Call-in number: 1-855-547-8255.

    Access code: 53700#.

    Additional information on the teleconference and WebEx is also available on the ACWI Web site: http://acwi.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Wendy E. Norton, ACWI Executive Secretary and Chief, Water Information Coordination Program, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 417, Reston, VA 20192; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is open to the public. Up to a half hour will be set aside for public comment. Persons wishing to make a brief presentation (up to 5 minutes) are asked to provide a written request with a description of the general subject to Ms. Norton at the above address no later than February 17, 2017. Any member of the public may submit written information and (or) comments to Ms. Norton for distribution at the ACWI meeting.

    Wendy E. Norton, Chief, Water Information Coordination Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02610 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4338-11-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-560 and 731-TA-1320 (Final)] Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate From China; Supplemental Schedule for the Subject Investigations AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 3, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carolyn Carlson (202-205-3002), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Effective September 16, 2016, the Commission established a general schedule for the conduct of the final phase of its investigations on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate.1 The Department of Commerce's preliminary determinations were published on September 13, 2016 and November 14, 2016.2 The Department of Commerce's final determinations were published on January 26, 2017.3 The Commission, therefore, is issuing a supplemental schedule for its investigations on imports of carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from China.

    1Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate From Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations, 81 FR 70440, October 12, 2016.

    2Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 81 FR 62871, September 13, 2016; Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 81 FR 79450, November 14, 2016.

    3Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 82 FR 8507, January 26, 2017; Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 82 FR 8510, January 26, 2017.

    The Commission's supplemental schedule is as follows: The deadline for filing supplemental party comments on Commerce's final determinations is February 13, 2017; the staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on February 24, 2017; and a public version will be issued thereafter.

    Supplemental party comments may address only Commerce's final determinations regarding imports from China. These supplemental final comments may not contain new factual information and may not exceed five (5) pages in length.

    For further information concerning these investigations see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

    Authority:

    These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: February 6, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02675 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY Sunshine Act Meetings Time and Dates:

    The Members of the National Council on Disability (NCD) will hold a quarterly meeting on Thursday and Friday, February 23 and 24, 2017 in Detroit, Michigan, from 9:00 a.m.-4:15 p.m., Eastern, on Thursday, February 23; and from 9:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m., Eastern, on Friday, February 24.

    Place:

    The meeting will occur at the Detroit Marriott at the Renaissance Center located at 400 Renaissance Drive, Detroit, MI 48243. Interested parties may join the meeting in person at the meeting location or may join the phone line in a listening-only capacity (other than the period allotted for public comment noted below) using the following call-in information: Teleconference number: 888-417-8525; Conference ID: 9110702; Conference Title: NCD Meeting; Host Name: Clyde Terry.

    Matters to be Considered:

    The Council will receive panel presentations on education and mental health; the connection between disability and poverty; economic mobility gridlock; what a system would look like to help someone with a disability escape poverty; and on autonomous vehicle technology and people with disabilities. The Council will also receive agency updates on finance, governance, and other business. The Council will receive public comment on education and mental health; economic mobility gridlock; and on what a system would look like that helps people with disabilities escape poverty.

    Agenda:

    The times provided below are approximations for when each agenda item is anticipated to be discussed (all times Eastern):

    Thursday, February 23 9:00-9:30 a.m.—Welcome and Introductions 9:30-10:15 a.m.—(Panel Presentation) Connection between disability and poverty in Michigan 10:15-10:30 a.m.—Break 10:30-11:15 a.m.—(Panel Presentation) Education and mental health 11:15-11:45 a.m.—Town hall to receive comments on education and mental health 11:45 a.m.-1:15 p.m.—Lunch Break 1:15-2:00 p.m.—(Panel Presentation) Economic mobility gridlock: systemic challenges and incompatibilities, and contradictions 2:00-2:30 p.m.—Town hall to receive comments on economic mobility gridlock 2:30-2:45 p.m.—Break 2:45-3:45 p.m.—(Panel Presentation) What would a system look like if it was designed to get a person with a disability out of poverty? 3:45-4:15 p.m.—Town hall to receive comments on what a system would look like if it was designed to get a person with a disability out of poverty 4:15 p.m.—Adjournment Friday, February 24 9:00-11:15 a.m.—(Panel Presentation) Autonomous vehicle discussion 11:15-11:30 a.m.—Break 11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.—NCD business meeting 12:30 p.m.—Adjournment Public Comment:

    To better facilitate NCD's public comment, any individual interested in providing public comment is asked to register his or her intent to provide comment in advance by sending an email to [email protected] with the subject line “Public Comment” with your name, organization, state, and topic of comment included in the body of your email. Full-length written public comments may also be sent to that email address. All emails to register for public comment at the quarterly meeting must be received by Wednesday, February 22, 2017. Priority will be given to those individuals who are in-person to provide their comments during the town hall portions of the agenda. Those commenters on the phone will be called on according to the list of those registered via email. Due to time constraints, NCD asks all commenters to limit their comments to three minutes. Comments received at the February quarterly meeting will be limited to those regarding education and mental health; economic mobility gridlock; and what a system would look like if it was designed to get a person with a disability out of poverty, each during its respective slot of time for the themed town hall as previously noted in the agenda.

    Contact Person:

    Anne Sommers, NCD, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004; 202-272-2004 (V), 202-272-2074 (TTY).

    Accommodations:

    A CART streamtext link has been arranged for this teleconference meeting. The web link to access CART on both Thursday and on Friday, February 23-24, 2017 is: https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=NCD. Those who plan to attend the meeting in-person and require accommodations should notify NCD as soon as possible to allow time to make arrangements. To help reduce exposure to fragrances for those with multiple chemical sensitivities, NCD requests that all those attending the meeting in person refrain from wearing scented personal care products such as perfumes, hairsprays, and deodorants.

    Dated: February 7, 2017. Rebecca Cokley, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02828 Filed 2-7-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 8421-03-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [IA-16-059; NRC-2017-0037] In the Matter of Curtis Thompson AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Order; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an Order prohibiting Mr. Curtis Thompson from involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of 1 year. The Order also requires Mr. Thompson to notify the NRC of any current involvement in NRC-licensed activities and for a period of 1 year after the 1-year period of prohibition has expired, that he provide a written notice for his first employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: See attachment.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0037 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0037. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Juan Peralta, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-287-9510, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The text of the Order is attached.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of February 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Patricia K. Holahan, Director, Office of Enforcement.
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission [IA-16-059] In the Matter of Curtis Thompson Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC Licensed Activities (Immediately Effective) I.

    Mr. Curtis Thompson was employed as a radiographer for American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET), whose corporate offices are located in St. Paul, Minnesota. American Engineering Testing, Inc., holds License No. 22-20271-02 issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to Part 34 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) on September 12, 2012. The license authorizes industrial radiographic operations in accordance with conditions specified in the license.

    II.

    From August 19 through November 19, 2015, the NRC inspected and reviewed AET's use of byproduct material for industrial radiography. During the August 19, 2015, inspection, AET indicated that Mr. Thompson had performed radiography on February 1, 2015, at AET's field station in Gary, Indiana, without another qualified radiographer or radiographer's assistant present. As a result, the NRC's Office of Investigation (OI) initiated an investigation to determine whether Mr. Thompson willfully performed radiographic operations without at least one other qualified individual present.

    The NRC investigation found that Mr. Thompson had performed radiography on numerous bridge components for a client of AET in Gary, Indiana, in the week prior to February 1, 2015, with a qualified radiographer's assistant. After that work was completed, the radiography film was determined to be out of specification. The customer requested the work be re-done, which would take several hours. Mr. Thompson decided to redo the work himself on February 1, 2015. He arrived at the client's facility, retrieved the radiography camera and proceeded to re-do all the work. Mr. Thompson then submitted the radiography film to the client and AET.

    On the following day, February 2, 2015, AET reviewed the radiography film and questioned Mr. Thompson about when he had performed the work. Mr. Thompson indicated that he completed the work on February 1, 2015. AET then examined key card entry data from the client's security office and determined that Mr. Thompson worked alone, contrary to 10 CFR 34.41(a). Mr. Thompson later admitted to working alone and stated during the OI investigation that, although he knew that NRC rules required radiography be performed only when another qualified individual was present, he felt it was more important to complete the work than to follow those regulations.

    By letter dated October 16, 2016, the NRC informed Mr. Thompson that the NRC was considering escalated enforcement action for apparent violations of NRC's deliberate misconduct rule, 10 CFR 30.10, because he engaged in conduct he knew to be contrary to NRC regulations. Specifically, on February 1, 2015, Mr. Thompson performed radiographic operations without another radiographer or qualified individual present, which resulted in AET being in violation of 10 CFR 34.41(a). The NRC's October 16, 2016, letter provided Mr. Thompson the opportunity to request a predecisional enforcement conference (PEC), provide a written response, or request alternative dispute resolution (ADR) with the NRC in an attempt to resolve issues associated with these apparent violations. Mr. Thompson has not subsequently contacted the NRC to request a PEC, provide a written response, or request ADR.

    Based on the evidence gathered during the inspection and the OI investigation, the NRC has concluded that Mr. Thompson engaged in deliberate misconduct in violation of 10 CFR 30.10(a)(1). Mr. Thompson engaged in deliberate misconduct that caused AET to be in violation of 10 CFR 34.41(a) by performing radiographic operations alone on February 1, 2015, at a temporary job site in Gary, Indiana.

    III.

    Based on the above, the NRC has concluded that Mr. Curtis Thompson engaged in deliberate misconduct, in violation of 10 CFR 30.10(a)(1) that has caused the Licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 34.41(a). American Engineering Testing, Inc., is required to follow those requirements by the license issued to it pursuant to 10 CFR part 34. The NRC must be able to rely on the Licensee and its employees to act with integrity and comply with NRC requirements. Mr. Thompson's action in causing AET to violate 10 CFR 34.41(a) raises serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements.

    Consequently, the NRC lacks the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Mr. Thompson was permitted at this time to be involved in NRC-licensed activities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Mr. Thompson be prohibited from any involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of 1 year from the date of this Order. Additionally, Mr. Thompson is required to notify the NRC of his first employment in NRC-licensed activities for a period of 1 year following the prohibition period. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of Mr. Thompson's conduct described above is such that the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be immediately effective.

    IV.

    Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81,161b, 161i, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 30.10, it is hereby ordered, effective upon the date of issuance, that:

    1. Mr. Thompson is prohibited for 1 year from the date of this Order from performing, supervising, directing, or in any other way conducting NRC-licensed activities. NRC-licensed activities are those activities that are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, including, but not limited to, those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted in the NRC's jurisdiction pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20.

    2. If Mr. Thompson is currently involved in NRC-licensed activities with another licensee, he must cease those activities immediately. In addition, Mr. Thompson must immediately inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer, and provide a copy of this Order to the employer.

    3. For a period of 1 year after the 1-year period of prohibition has expired, Mr. Thompson shall, within 20 days of acceptance of his first employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities or his becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities, as defined in Paragraph IV.1 above, provide notice to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, of the name, address and telephone number of the employer or the entity where he is, or will be, involved in the NRC-licensed activities. In the notification, Mr. Thompson shall include a statement of his commitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and the basis why the Commission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements.

    The Director, Office of Enforcement, or designee, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Thompson of good cause.

    V.

    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. Thompson must submit a written answer to this Order under oath or affirmation within 30 days of its issuance. Mr. Thompson's failure to respond to this Order could result in additional enforcement action in accordance with the Commission's Enforcement Policy (ADAMS Accession Number ML16271A446). Any person adversely affected by this Order may submit a written answer to this Order within 30 days of its issuance. In addition, Mr. Thompson and any other person adversely affected by this Order may request a hearing on this Order within 30 days of its issuance. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to answer or request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-001, and include a statement of good cause for the extension.

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.

    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. For example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

    If a person other than Mr. Thompson requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f).

    If a hearing is requested by Mr. Thompson or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearings. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), Mr. Thompson may, in addition to demanding a hearing at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 30 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of February 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Patricia K. Holahan, Director, Office of Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02677 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0243] Information Collection: “Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Well Logging” AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Well Logging.”

    DATES:

    Submit comments by April 10, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0243. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Mail comments to: David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Mail Stop: T-5 F53, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0243 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0243.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The supporting statement is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16301A192.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    NRC's Clearance Officer: A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by contacting NRC's Clearance Officer, David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email: [email protected]

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0243 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

    II. Background

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.

    1. The title of the information collection: 10 CFR part 39, “Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Well Logging.”

    2. OMB approval number: 3150-0130.

    3. Type of submission: Extension.

    4. The form number, if applicable: N/A.

    5. How often the collection is required or requested: Applications for new licenses and amendments may be submitted at any time (on occasion). Applications for renewal are submitted every 10 years. Reports are submitted as events occur.

    6. Who will be required or asked to respond: Applicants for and holders of specific licenses authorizing the use of licensed radioactive material for radiography.

    7. The estimated number of annual responses: 2,226.

    8. The estimated number of annual respondents: 200.

    9. The estimated number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 43,331.

    10. Abstract: Part 39 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), establishes radiation safety requirements for the use of radioactive material for well logging. The information in the applications, reports and records is used by the NRC staff to ensure that the health and safety of the public is protected and that licensee possession and use of source and byproduct material is in compliance with license and regulatory requirements.

    III. Specific Requests for Comments

    The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:

    1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?

    2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?

    3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?

    4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of February, 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02709 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 40-9083; NRC-2017-0036] Source Materials License No. SUC-1593, Amendment 2, Davy Crockett Depleted Uranium at Various United States Army Installations AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    License amendment; issuance; opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an amendment to Source Materials License No. SUC-1593, issued to the U.S. Army Installation Command (Army). The Army submitted site-specific Environmental Radiation Monitoring Plans (ERMPs) and site-specific dose modeling that are consistent with the programmatic ERMP and the dose modeling methodology approved by License Amendment 1. All site-specific ERMPs meet license conditions (LCs) 18 and 19. License condition 18 was modified indicating that each site-specific ERMP shall be fully implemented within 6 months of approval of License Amendment 2 and LC 19 was deleted because the Army's submittal met this LC. The programmatic ERMP, dated September 15, 2016, was determined to be identical to the approved programmatic ERMP except for the removal of RESRAD environmental default parameters and has been incorporated into the license by reference.

    DATES:

    A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by April 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0036 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0036. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document (If that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy Snyder, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6822, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction

    In a letter dated September 15, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A221), the Army submitted documents as required by License Conditions (LCs) 18 and 19 of Source Materials License No. SUC-1593, Amendment 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A234) to the NRC. The NRC reviewed the Army's submittal in support of LC 18, and found that each site-specific environmental radiation monitoring plan (ERMP) is consistent with the previously approved programmatic approach for preparation of site-specific ERMPs. Therefore, the NRC determined that these plans are acceptable. Also, in support of LC 19, the NRC verified that the Army provided site-specific dose assessments for each Radiation Control Area (RCA) demonstrating that doses from each RCA did not exceed 1.0 × 10−2 mSv/yr (1.0 mrem/yr) TEDE.

    Two unsolicited comment letters (ADAMS Accession No. ML17010A188) on the submittal for the Pohakuloa radiological control areas were received. These letters and were considered by the NRC staff in this licensing action.

    As a result, the NRC approved the site-specific ERMPs and amended the license to incorporate the site-specific ERMPs; modified the license to incorporate the September 15, 2016 Programmatic ERMP; modified LC 18 to state that within 6 months from the effective date of License Amendment 2, the Army shall fully implement each installation's site-specific ERMPs; and deleted LC 19 from the license.

    For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated September 15, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A221).

    II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.

    As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.

    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.

    Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.

    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by April 10, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

    III. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.

    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. For example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of February 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Theodore Smith, Branch Chief (Acting), Material Decommissioning Branch, Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02678 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. MC2017-84 and CP2017-113; MC2017-85 and CP2017-114; MC2017-86 and CP2017-115; MC2017-87 and CP2017-116; MC2017-88 and CP2017-117; MC2017-89 and CP2017-118; MC2017-90 and CP2017-119] New Postal Products AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing recent Postal Service filings for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: February 13, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Docketed Proceeding(s) I. Introduction

    The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.

    Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.

    The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of the Postal Service's request(s), if any, can be accessed through compliance with the requirements of 39 CFR 3007.40.

    The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.

    II. Docketed Proceeding(s)

    1. Docket No(s).: MC2017-84 and CP2017-113; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 290 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: February 3, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Curtis E. Kidd; Comments Due: February 13, 2017.

    2. Docket No(s).: MC2017-85 and CP2017-114; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 291 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: February 3, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Curtis E. Kidd; Comments Due: February 13, 2017.

    3. Docket No(s).: MC2017-86 and CP2017-115; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 292 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: February 3, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Erin Mahagan; Comments Due: February 13, 2017.

    4. Docket No(s).: MC2017-87 and CP2017-116; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 293 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: February 3, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Erin Mahagan; Comments Due: February 13, 2017.

    5. Docket No(s).: MC2017-88 and CP2017-117; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Parcel Select and Parcel Return Service Contract 6 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: February 3, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Kenneth R. Moeller; Comments Due: February 13, 2017.

    6. Docket No(s).: MC2017-89 and CP2017-118; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add First-Class Package Service Contract 73 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: February 3, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Helen Vettori; Comments Due: February 13, 2017.

    7. Docket No(s).: MC2017-90 and CP2017-119; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Parcel Select Contract 21 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: February 3, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Kenneth R. Moeller; Comments Due: February 13, 2017.

    This notice will be published in the Federal Register.

    Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02676 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79953; File No. SR-C2-2017-007] Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Consolidated Audit Trail February 3, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on January 30, 2017, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “C2”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.3 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 The Exchange originally filed this proposed rule change on January 17, 2017 under File No. SR-C2-2017-006, and the Exchange subsequently withdrew that filing on January 30, 2017 and filed this proposed rule change.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to adopt Chapter 6, Section F to implement the compliance rule (“Compliance Rule”) regarding the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the “CAT NMS Plan” or the “Plan”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    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.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., BOX Options Exchange LLC, C2, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”), Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), International Securities Exchange, LLC, Investors' Exchange LLC, ISE Gemini, LLC, ISE Mercury, LLC, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC, NASDAQ BX, Inc., NASDAQ PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, National Stock Exchange, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc. (collectively, the “Participants”) filed with the Commission, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act 4 and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS thereunder,5 the CAT NMS Plan.6 The Participants filed the Plan to comply with Rule 613 of Regulation NMS under the Act. The Plan was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 17, 2016,7 and approved by the Commission, as modified, on November 15, 2016.8

    4 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.

    5 17 CFR 242.608.

    6See Letter from the Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated September 30, 2014; and Letter from Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated February 27, 2015. On December 24, 2015, the Participants submitted an amendment to the CAT NMS Plan. See Letter from Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated December 23, 2015.

    7 Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 77724 (Apr. 27, 2016), 81 FR 30614 (May 17, 2016).

    8 Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 79318 (Nov. 15, 2016), 81 FR 84696 (Nov. 23, 2016) (“Approval Order”).

    The Plan is designed to create, implement and maintain a consolidated audit trail (“CAT”) that would capture customer and order event information for orders in NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities, across all markets, from the time of order inception through routing, cancellation, modification, or execution in a single consolidated data source. Each Participant is required to enforce compliance by its Industry Members, as applicable, with the provisions of the Plan, by adopting a Compliance Rule applicable to their Industry Members.9 As is described more fully below, proposed Chapter 6, Section F sets forth the Compliance Rule to require Industry Members to comply with the provisions of the CAT NMS Plan. Proposed Section F includes twelve proposed Rules covering the following areas: (1) Definitions; (2) clock synchronization; (3) Industry Member Data reporting; (4) Customer information reporting; (5) Industry Member information reporting; (6) time stamps; (7) clock synchronization rule violations; (8) connectivity and data transmission; (9) development and testing; (10) recordkeeping; (11) timely, accurate and complete data; and (12) compliance dates. Each of these proposed Rules are discussed in detail below.

    9See SEC Rule 613(g)(1).

    CBOE, an exchange affiliate of C2, submitted rule filing SR-CBOE-2017-006 [sic]10 on the same date as this rule filing (the “CBOE rule filing”). The CBOE rule filing proposes to adopt Chapter VI, Section F to add the Compliance Rule to CBOE's rules. C2 proposes to incorporate by reference into Chapter 6 of its Rules CBOE Chapter VI, Section F as it does in other parts of C2's Rules (see, for example, Section E of Chapter 6, Chapters 9 through 19, and Chapter 24 of C2's Rules). Therefore, C2 proposes to state in proposed Section F of Chapter 6 in its Rules the rules contained in Section F of CBOE Chapter VI relating to the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) Compliance Rule, as such rules may be in effect from time to time, will apply to C2 and are hereby incorporated into this Chapter. The Terms “Exchange” and “CBOE” in Section F of CBOE Chapter VI will also mean C2 for purposes of C2's Section F. C2 notes proposed CBOE Chapter VI, Section F is not yet effective and will not be until the Commission approves the CBOE rule filing. C2 proposes Chapter 6, Section F become effective in C2's Rules when CBOE Chapter VI, Section F becomes effective.11

    10 The Commission notes that the correct file number is SR-CBOE-2017-012.

    11 The Exchange proposes to request an exemption from the rule filing requirements of Section 19(b) of the Act for changes to C2 Chapter 6, Section F to the extent such rules are effected solely by virtue of a change to CBOE Chapter VI, Section F.

    This rule filing describes the rule text in the CBOE rule filing. The CBOE rule filing, including the text of the proposed rule language of Chapter VI, Section F of CBOE's rules, is available on CBOE's and C2's Web sites.

    (1) Definitions

    Proposed Rule 6.85 (Definitions) sets forth the definitions for the terms used in proposed Section F. Each of the defined terms in proposed Rule 6.85 is discussed in detail in this section.

    (A) Account Effective Date (i) Customer Information Approach

    SEC Rule 613 requires that numerous data elements be reported to the CAT to ensure there is sufficient information to create the lifecycle of an order, and provide regulators with sufficient detail about an order to perform their regulatory duties. Certain required elements are intended to ensure that the regulators can identify the Customer's associated with orders. For example, SEC Rule 613(c)(7)(i)(A) requires an Industry Member to report the “Customer-ID” for each Customer for the original receipt or origination of an order. “Customer-ID” is defined in SEC Rule 613(j)(5) to mean “with respect to a customer, a code that uniquely and consistently identifies such customer for purposes of providing data to the Central Repository.” SEC Rule 613(c)(8) requires Industry Members to use the same Customer-ID for each Customer. The SEC granted the Participants exemptive relief to permit the use of an alternative approach to the requirement that an Industry Member report a Customer-ID for every Customer upon original receipt or origination.12 The alternative approach is called the Customer Information Approach.

    12See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77265 (March 1, 2016), 81 FR 11856 (March 7, 2016) (“Exemption Order”); see also Letter from Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated January 30, 2015 at 12 (“Exemptive Request Letter”); and CAT NMS Plan at Appendix C, Section A.1(a)(iii).

    Under the Customer Information Approach, the CAT NMS Plan would require each Industry Member to assign a unique Firm Designated ID to each Customer. As the Firm Designated ID, Industry Members would be permitted to use an account number or any other identifier defined by the firm, provided each identifier is unique across the firm for each business date (i.e., a single firm may not have multiple separate customers with the same identifier on any given date). Prior to their commencement of reporting to the CAT, Industry Members would submit an initial set of Customer information to the Central Repository, including the Firm Designated ID, Customer Identifying Information and Customer Account Information (which may include, as applicable, the Customer's name, address, date of birth, individual tax payer identifier number (“ITIN”)/social security number (“SSN”), individual's role in the account (e.g., primary holder, joint holder, guardian, trustee, person with power of attorney) and LEI and/or Larger Trader ID (“LTID”)). This process is referred to as the customer definition process.

    In accordance with the Customer Information Approach, Industry Members would be required to report only the Firm Designated ID for each new order submitted to the Central Repository, rather than the “Customer-ID” with individual order events. Within the Central Repository, each Customer would be uniquely identified by identifiers or a combination of identifiers such as ITIN/SSN, date of birth, and as applicable, LEI and LTID. The Plan Processor would be required to use these unique identifiers to map orders to specific Customers across all Industry Members and Participants. To ensure information identifying a Customer is up to date, Industry Members would be required to submit to the Central Repository daily and periodic updates for reactivated accounts, newly established accounts, and revised Firm Designated IDs or associated reportable Customer information.

    (ii) Definition of Account Effective Date

    In connection with the Customer Information Approach, Industry Members would be required to report Customer Account Information to the Central Repository. “Customer Account Information” is defined in SEC Rule 613(j)(4) to “include, but not be limited to, account number, account type, customer type, date account opened, and large trader identifier (if applicable).” Therefore, when reporting Customer Account Information, an Industry Member is required to report the date an account was opened. The Participants requested and received an exemption to allow an “Account Effective Date” to be reported in lieu of an account open date in certain limited circumstances. The definition of “Account Effective Date” as set forth in paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6.85 describes those limited circumstances in which an Industry Member may report an “Account Effective Date” rather than the account open date. The proposed definition is the same as the definition of “Account Effective Date” set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, provided, however, that specific dates have replaced the descriptions of those dates set forth in Section 1.1 of the Plan.

    Specifically, paragraph (a)(i) defines “Account Effective Date to mean, with regard to those circumstances in which an Industry Member has established a trading relationship with an institution but has not established an account with that institution: (A) When the trading relationship was established prior to November 15, 2018 for Industry Members other than Small Industry Members, or prior to November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members, either (1) the date the relationship identifier was established within the Industry Member; (2) the date when trading began (i.e., the date the first order was received) using the relevant relationship identifier; or (3) if both dates are available, the earlier date will be used to the extent that the dates differ; or (B) when the trading relationship was established on or after November 15, 2018 for Industry Members other than Small Industry Members, or on or after November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members, the date the Industry Member established the relationship identifier, which would be no later than the date the first order was received.

    Paragraph (a)(ii) states that an “Account Effective Date” means, where an Industry Member changes back office providers or clearing firms prior to November 15, 2018 for Industry Members other than Small Industry Members, or prior to November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members, the date an account was established at the relevant Industry Member, either directly or via transfer.

    Paragraph (a)(iii) states that an “Account Effective Date” means, where an Industry Member acquires another Industry Member prior to November 15, 2018 for Industry Members other than Small Industry Members, or prior to November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members, the date an account was established at the relevant Industry Member, either directly or via transfer.

    Paragraph (a)(iv) states that “Account Effective Date” means, where there are multiple dates associated with an account established prior to November 15, 2018 for Industry Members other than Small Industry Members, or prior to November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members, the earliest available date.

    Paragraph (a)(v) states that an “Account Effective Date” means, with regard to Industry Member proprietary accounts established prior to November 15, 2018 for Industry Members other than Small Industry Members, or prior to November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members: (A) the date established for the account in the Industry Member or in a system of the Industry Member or (B) the date when proprietary trading began in the account (i.e., the date on which the first orders were submitted from the account). With regard to paragraphs (a)(ii) through (v), the Account Effective Date will be no later than the date trading occurs at the Industry Member or in the Industry Member's system.

    (B) Active Account

    Under the Customer Information Approach, Industry Members are required to report Customer Identifying Information and Customer Account Information for only those accounts that are active. This will alleviate the need for Industry Members to update such information for non-active accounts, but still ensure that the Central Repository will collect audit trail data for Customer accounts that have any Reportable Events. Accordingly, paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines an “Active Account” as an account that has had activity in Eligible Securities within the last six months. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (C) Allocation Report (i) Allocation Report Approach

    SEC Rule 613(c)(7)(vi)(A) requires each Industry Member to record and report to the Central Repository “the account number for any subaccounts to which the execution is allocated (in whole or in part).” The SROs requested and received from the SEC exemptive relief from SEC Rule 613 for an alternative to this approach (“Allocation Report Approach”). The Allocation Report Approach would permit Industry Members to record and report to the Central Repository an Allocation Report that includes, among other things, the Firm Designated ID for any account(s) to which executed shares are allocated when an execution is allocated in whole or part in lieu of requiring the reporting of the account number for any subaccount to which an execution is allocated, as is required by SEC Rule 613.13 Under SEC Rule 613, regulators would be able to link the subaccount to which an allocation was made to a specific order. In contrast, under the Allocation Report Approach, regulators would only be able to link an allocation to the account to which it was made, and not to a specific order.

    13See Exemptive Request Letter at 26-27; and Exemption Order.

    (ii) Definition of Allocation Report

    To assist in implementing the Allocation Report Approach, paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines an “Allocation Report.” Specifically, an “Allocation Report” means a report made to the Central Repository by an Industry Member that identifies the Firm Designated ID for any account(s), including subaccount(s), to which executed shares are allocated and provides the security that has been allocated, the identifier of the firm reporting the allocation, the price per share of shares allocated, the side of shares allocated, the number of shares allocated to each account, and the time of the allocation; provided, for the avoidance of doubt, any such Allocation Report shall not be required to be linked to particular orders or executions. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (D) Business Clock

    To create the required audit trail, Industry Members are required to record the date and time of various Reportable Events to the Central Repository. Industry Members will use “Business Clocks” to record such dates and times. Accordingly, paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “Business Clock” as a clock used to record the date and time of any Reportable Event required to be reported under proposed Section F. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, except C2 proposes to replace the phrase “under SEC Rule 613” at the end of the definition in Section 1.1 of the Plan with the phrase “under this Rule Series.” This change is intended to recognize that the Industry Members' obligations with regard to the CAT are set forth in proposed Section F.

    (E) CAT

    Paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “CAT” to mean the consolidated audit trail contemplated by SEC Rule 613. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (F) CAT NMS Plan

    Paragraph (f) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “CAT NMS Plan” to mean the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail, as amended from time to time.

    (G) CAT-Order-ID (i) Daisy Chain Approach

    Under the CAT NMS Plan, the Daisy Chain Approach is used to link and reconstruct the complete lifecycle of each Reportable Event in CAT. According to this Approach, Industry Members assign their own identifiers to each order event. Within the Central Repository, the Plan Processor later replaces the identifier provided by the Industry Member for each Reportable Event with a single identifier, called the CAT Order-ID, for all order events pertaining to the same order. This CAT Order-ID is used to link the Reportable Events related to the same order.

    (ii) Definition of CAT-Order-ID

    To implement the Daisy Chain Approach, paragraph (g) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “CAT-Order-ID.” The term “CAT-Order-ID” is defined to mean a unique order identifier or series of unique order identifiers that allows the Central Repository to efficiently and accurately link all Reportable Events for an order, and all orders that result from the aggregation or disaggregation of such order. This is the same definition as set forth in SEC Rule 613(j)(1), and Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines “CAT-Order-ID” by reference to SEC Rule 613(j)(1).

    (H) CAT Reporting Agent

    The CAT NMS Plan permits an Industry Member to use a third party, such as a vendor, to report the required data to the Central Repository on behalf of the Industry Member.14 Such a third party, referred to in this proposed Section F as a “CAT Reporting Agent,” would be one type of a Data Submitter, that is, a party that submits data to the Central Repository. Paragraph (h) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “CAT Reporting Agent” to mean a Data Submitter that is a third party that enters into an agreement with an Industry Member pursuant to which the CAT Reporting Agent agrees to fulfill such Industry Member's obligations under proposed Section F.

    14 Appendix C, Section A.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    This definition is based on FINRA's definition of a “Reporting Agent” as set forth in FINRA's rule related to its Order Audit Trail System (“OATS”). Specifically, FINRA Rule 7410(n) defines a “Reporting Agent” as a third party that enters into any agreement with a member pursuant to which the Reporting Agent agrees to fulfill such member's reporting obligations under Rule 7450. The Reporting Agent for OATS fulfills a similar role to the CAT Reporting Agent.

    (I) Central Repository

    Paragraph (i) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “Central Repository” to mean the repository responsible for the receipt, consolidation, and retention of all information reported to the CAT pursuant to SEC Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, except C2 uses the phrase “CAT NMS Plan” in place of the phrase “this Agreement.”

    (J) Compliance Threshold

    Paragraph (j) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “Compliance Threshold” as having the meaning set forth in proposed Rule 6.95(d). This definition has the same substantive meaning as the definition set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. As discussed in detail below with regard to proposed Rule 6.95(d), each Industry Member is required to meet a separate compliance threshold which will be an Industry Member-specific rate that may be used as the basis for further review or investigation into the Industry Member's performance with regard to the CAT. This Industry Member-specific rate is the “Compliance Threshold.”

    (K) Customer

    Industry Members are required to submit to the Central Repository certain information related to their Customers, including Customer Identifying Information and Customer Account Information, as well as data related to their Customer's Reportable Events. Accordingly, paragraph (k) of proposed Rule 6.85 proposes to define the term “Customer.” Specifically, the term “Customer” would be defined to mean: (i) The account holder(s) of the account at an Industry Member originating the order; and (ii) any person from whom the Industry Member is authorized to accept trading instructions for such account, if different from the account holder(s). This is the same definition as set forth in SEC Rule 613(j)(3), except C2 proposes to replace the references to a registered broker-dealer or broker-dealer with a reference to an Industry Member for consistency of terms used in proposed Section F. C2 also notes that Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines “Customer” by reference to SEC Rule 613(j)(3).

    (L) Customer Account Information

    As discussed above, under the Customer Information Approach, Industry Members are required to report Customer Account Information to the Central Repository as part of the customer definition process. Accordingly, C2 proposes to define the term “Customer Account Information” to clarify what customer information would need to be reported to the Central Repository.

    Paragraph (l) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “Customer Account Information” to include, in part, account number, account type, customer type, date account opened, and large trader identifier (if applicable). Proposed Rule 6.85(l), however, provides an alternative definition of “Customer Account Information” in two limited circumstances. First, in those circumstances in which an Industry Member has established a trading relationship with an institution but has not established an account with that institution, the Industry Member will: (i) Provide the Account Effective Date in lieu of the “date account opened”; (ii) provide the relationship identifier in lieu of the “account number”; and (iii) identify the “account type” as a “relationship.” Second, in those circumstances in which the relevant account was established prior to November 15, 2018 for Industry Members other than Small Industry Members, or prior to November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members, and no “date account opened” is available for the account, the Industry Member will provide the Account Effective Date in the following circumstances: (i) Where an Industry Member changes back office providers or clearing firms and the date account opened is changed to the date the account was opened on the new back office/clearing firm system; (ii) where an Industry Member acquires another Industry Member and the date account opened is changed to the date the account was opened on the post-merger back office/clearing firm system; (iii) where there are multiple dates associated with an account in an Industry Member's system, and the parameters of each date are determined by the individual Industry Member; and (iv) where the relevant account is an Industry Member proprietary account. The proposed definition is the same as the definition of “Customer Account Information” set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, provided, however, that specific dates have replaced the descriptions of those dates set forth in Section 1.1 of the Plan.

    (M) Customer Identifying Information

    As discussed above, under the Customer Information Approach, Industry Members are required to report Customer Identifying Information to the Central Repository as part of the customer definition process. Accordingly, C2 proposes to define the term “Customer Account Information” to clarify what Customer information would need to be reported to the Central Repository.

    Paragraph (m) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “Customer Identifying Information” to mean information of sufficient detail to identify a Customer. With respect to individuals, “Customer Identifying Information” includes, but is not limited to: Name, address, date of birth, individual tax payer identification number (“ITIN”)/social security number (“SSN”), individual's role in the account (e.g., primary holder, joint holder, guardian, trustee, person with the power of attorney). With respect to legal entities, “Customer Identifying Information” includes, but is not limited to, name, address, Employer Identification Number (“EIN”)/Legal Entity Identifier (“LEI”) or other comparable common entity identifier, if applicable. The definition further notes that an Industry Member that has an LEI for a Customer must submit the Customer's LEI in addition to other information of sufficient detail to identify the Customer. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (N) Data Submitter

    The CAT NMS Plan uses the term “Data Submitter” to refer to any person that reports data to the Central Repository.15 Such Data Submitters may include those entities that are required to submit data to the Central Repository (e.g., national securities exchanges, national securities associations and Industry Members), third-parties that may submit data to the CAT on behalf of CAT Reporters (i.e., CAT Reporting Agents), and outside parties that are not required to submit data to the CAT but from which the CAT may receive data (e.g., securities information processors (“SIPs”)). To include this term in proposed Section F, C2 proposes to define “Data Submitter” in paragraph (n) of proposed Rule 6.85. Specifically, paragraph (n) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines a “Data Submitter” to mean any person that reports data to the Central Repository, including national securities exchanges, national securities associations, broker-dealers, the SIPs for the CQS, CTA and the UTP Plans and the Plan for Reporting of Consolidated Options Last Sale Reports and Quotation Information (“OPRA”), and certain other vendors or third parties that may submit data to the Central Repository on behalf of Industry Members.

    15 Appendix C, Section A.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (O) Eligible Security

    The reporting requirements of proposed Section F only apply to Reportable Events in Eligible Securities. Currently, an Eligible Security includes NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities. Accordingly, paragraph (o) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “Eligible Security” to include: (i) All NMS Securities; and (ii) all OTC Equity Securities. The terms “NMS Securities” and “OTC Equity Securities” are defined, in turn, below. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (P) Error Rate (i) Maximum Error Rate

    Under the CAT NMS Plan, the Operating Committee sets the maximum Error Rate that the Central Repository would tolerate from an Industry Member reporting data to the Central Repository.16 The Operating Committee reviews and resets the maximum Error Rate, at least annually.17 If an Industry Member reports CAT data to the Central Repository with errors such that their error percentage exceeds the maximum Error Rate, then such Industry Member would not be in compliance with the CAT NMS Plan or Rule 613.18 As such, C2 or the SEC “may [sic] take appropriate action against an Industry Member for failing to comply with its CAT reporting obligations.19 The CAT NMS Plan sets the initial Error Rate at 5%.20 It is anticipated that the maximum Error Rate will be reviewed and lowered by the Operating Committee once Industry Members begin to report to the Central Repository.21

    16 Section 6.5(d)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    17 Appendix C, Section A.3(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    18 Appendix C, Section A.3(b) of the CAT NMS Plan; Rule 613(g)-(h).

    19 Appendix C, Section A.3(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    20 Section 6.5(d)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    21 Appendix C, Section A.3(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    The CAT NMS Plan requires the Plan Processor to: (1) Measure and report errors every business day; (2) provide Industry Members daily statistics and error reports as they become available, including a description of such errors; (3) provide monthly reports to Industry Members that detail an Industry Member's performance and comparison statistics; (4) define educational and support programs for Industry Members to minimize Error Rates; and (5) identify, daily, all Industry Members exceeding the maximum allowable Error Rate. To timely correct data-submitted errors to the Central Repository, the CAT NMS Plan requires that the Central Repository receive and process error corrections at all times. Further, the CAT NMS Plan requires that Industry Members be able to submit error corrections to the Central Repository through a web-interface or via bulk uploads or file submissions, and that the Plan Processor, subject to the Operating Committee's approval, support the bulk replacement of records and the reprocessing of such records. The Participants, furthermore, require that the Plan Processor identify Industry Member data submission errors based on the Plan Processor's validation processes.22

    22 Approval Order at 84718.

    (ii) Definition of Error Rate

    To implement the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan related to the Error Rate, C2 proposes to define the term “Error Rate” in proposed Rule 6.85. Paragraph (p) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “Error Rate” to mean the percentage of Reportable Events collected by the Central Repository in which the data reported does not fully and accurately reflect the order event that occurred in the market. This is the same definition as set forth in SEC Rule 613(j)(6), and Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines “Error Rate” by reference to SEC Rule 613(j)(6).

    (Q) Firm Designated ID

    As discussed above, under the Customer Information Approach, the CAT NMS Plan would require each Industry Member to assign a unique Firm Designated ID to each Customer. Industry Members would be permitted to use as the Firm Designated ID an account number or any other identifier defined by the firm, provided each identifier is unique across the firm for each business date (i.e., a single firm may not have multiple separate customers with the same identifier on any given date). Industry Members would be required to report only the Firm Designated ID for each new order submitted to the Central Repository, rather than the “Customer-ID” with individual order events. Accordingly, C2 proposes to define the term “Firm Designated ID” in proposed Rule 6.85. Specifically, paragraph (q) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “Firm Designated ID” to mean a unique identifier for each trading account designated by Industry Members for purposes of providing data to the Central Repository, where each such identifier is unique among all identifiers from any given Industry Member for each business date. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. Industry Members would be permitted to use an account number or any other identifier defined by the firm, provided each identifier is unique across the firm for each business date (i.e., a single firm may not have multiple separate customers with the same identifier on any given date).

    (R) Industry Member

    Paragraph (r) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “Industry Member” to mean a member of a national securities exchange or a member of a national securities association.” This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (S) Industry Member Data

    Paragraph (s) of proposed Rule 6.85 states that the term “Industry Member Data” has the meaning set forth in Rule 6.87(a)(ii). This definition has the same substantive meaning as the definition set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. The definition of “Industry Member Data” is discussed more fully in the discussion below regarding proposed Rule 6.87(a)(ii).

    (T) Initial Plan Processor

    Paragraph (t) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “Initial Plan Processor” to mean the first Plan Processor selected by the Operating Committee in accordance with SEC Rule 613, Section 6.1 of the CAT NMS Plan and the National Market System Plan Governing the Process for Selecting a Plan Processor and Developing a Plan for the Consolidated Audit Trail. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, although the proposed definition uses the full name of the “Selection Plan.”

    (U) Listed Option or Option

    The CAT NMS Plan and proposed Section F applies to Eligible Securities, which includes NMS Securities, which, in turn, includes Listed Options. Certain requirements of proposed Section F apply specifically to Listed Options. Accordingly, paragraph (u) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “Listed Option” or “Option.” Specifically, paragraph (u) of proposed Rule 6.85 states that the term “Listed Option” or “Option” has the meaning set forth in SEC Rule 600(b)(35) of Regulation NMS. SEC Rule 600(b)(35), in turn, defines a listed option as “any option traded on a registered national securities exchange or automated facility of a national securities association.” C2 notes that the proposed definition of “Listed Option” is the same definition as the definition set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (V) Manual Order Event (i) Manual Order Event Approach

    The CAT NMS Plan sets forth clock synchronization and timestamp requirements for Industry Members, which reflect exemptions for Manual Order Events granted by the Commission.23 Specifically, the Plan requires Industry Members to record and report the time of each Reportable Event using timestamps reflecting current industry standards (which must be at least to the millisecond) or, if an Industry Member's order handling and execution system uses timestamps in increments finer than milliseconds, such finer increments, when reporting to the Central Repository. For Manual Order Events, however, the Plan provides that such events must be recorded in increments up to and including one second, provided that Industry Members record and report the time the event is captured electronically in an order handling and execution system (i.e., electronic capture time) in milliseconds. In addition, Industry Members are required to synchronize their respective Business Clocks (other than such Business Clocks used solely for Manual Order Events) at a minimum to within 50 milliseconds of the time maintained by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), and maintain such a synchronization. Each Industry Members is required to synchronize their Business Clocks used solely for Manual Order Events, however, at a minimum to within one second of the time maintained by the NIST.

    23 Exemption Order.

    (ii) Definition of Manual Order Event

    In order to clarify what a Manual Order Event is for clock synchronization and time stamp purposes, C2 proposes to define the term “Manual Order Event” in proposed Rule 6.85. Specifically, paragraph (v) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “Manual Order Event” to mean a non-electronic communication of order-related information for which Industry Members must record and report the time of the event. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (W) Material Terms of the Order

    Proposed Rule 6.87 requires Industry Members to record and report to the Central Repository Material Terms of the Order with certain Reportable Events (e.g., for the original receipt or origination of an order, for the routing of an order). Accordingly, C2 proposes to define the term “Material Terms of the Order” in proposed Rule 6.85. Specifically, paragraph (w) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “Material Terms of the Order” to include: the NMS Security or OTC Equity Security symbol; security type; price (if applicable); size (displayed and non-displayed); side (buy/sell); order type; if a sell order, whether the order is long, short, short exempt;24 open/close indicator (except on transactions in equities); time in force (if applicable); if the order is for a Listed Option, option type (put/call), option symbol or root symbol, underlying symbol, strike price, expiration date, and open/close (except on market maker quotations);25 and any special handling instructions. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    24 The Exchange notes identification of a sell order as long, short, or short exempt does not apply to Option transactions. The Exchange may work with the Operating Committee to seek an amendment to the Plan to reflect this.

    25 The Exchange notes its rules do not require market-makers to identify certain orders, in addition to quotations, as open/close. See Rule 6.38. The Exchange may work with the Operating Committee to seek an amendment to the Plan to reflect this.

    (X) NMS Security

    NMS Securities are one of the types of Eligible Securities for the CAT. Therefore, C2 proposes to define the term “NMS Security” in proposed Rule 6.85. Specifically, paragraph (x) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “NMS Security” to mean any security or class of securities for which transaction reports are collected, processed, and made available pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan, or an effective national market system plan for reporting transactions in Listed Options. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (Y) NMS Stock

    Under the CAT NMS Plan, the Operating Committee may establish different Trading Days for NMS Stocks (as defined in SEC Rule 600(b)(47)), Listed Options, OTC Equity Securities, and any other securities that are included as Eligible Securities from time to time. Accordingly, C2 proposes to define the term “NMS Stock” in paragraph (y) of proposed Rule 6.85(y) to mean any NMS Security other than an option. This is the same definition as set forth in SEC Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS.

    (Z) Operating Committee

    Paragraph (z) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “Operating Committee” to mean the governing body of the CAT NMS, LLC designated as such and described in Article IV of the CAT NMS Plan. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, except C2 proposes to use the phrase “CAT NMS LLC” in place of the phrase “the Company” for clarity.

    (AA) Options Market Maker (i) Options Market Maker Quote Exemption

    SEC Rule 613(c)(7) provides that the CAT NMS Plan must require each Industry Member to record and electronically report to the Central Repository details for each order and each reportable event, including the routing and modification or cancellation of an order. SEC Rule 613(j)(8) defines “order” to include “any bid or offer.” Therefore, under SEC Rule 613, the details for each Options Market Maker quotation must be reported to the Central Repository by both the Options Market Maker and the options exchange to which it routes its quote.

    The SROs, however, requested and received exemptive relief from SEC Rule 613 so that the CAT NMS Plan may permit Options Market Maker quotes to be reported to the Central Repository by the relevant options exchange in lieu of requiring that such reporting be done by both the options exchange and the Options Market Maker, as is required by SEC Rule 613.26 In accordance with the exemptive relief, Options Market Makers would be required to report to the options exchange the time at which a quote in a Listed Option is sent to the options exchange. Such time information also will be reported to the Central Repository by the options exchange in lieu of reporting by the Options Market Maker.

    26See Exemptive Request Letter at 2, and Exemption Order.

    (ii) Definition of Options Market Maker

    To implement the requirements related to Option Market Maker quotes, C2 proposes to define the term “Options Market Maker” in proposed Rule 6.85. Specifically, paragraph (aa) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “Options Market Makers” to mean a broker-dealer registered with an exchange for the purpose of making markets in options contracts traded on the exchange. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (BB) Order

    Section F requires each Industry Member to record and electronically report to the Central Repository certain details for each order. Accordingly, C2 proposes to define the term “Order” in proposed Rule 6.85. Specifically, paragraph (bb) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “Order”, with respect to Eligible Securities, to include: (i) Any order received by an Industry Member from any person; (ii) any order originated by an Industry Member; or (iii) any bid or offer. This is the same definition as set forth in SEC Rule 613(j)(8), except C2 proposes to replace the phrase “member of a national securities exchange or national securities association” with the term “Industry Member.” C2 notes that Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines “Order” by reference to SEC Rule 613(j)(8).

    (CC) OTC Equity Security

    OTC Equity Securities are one of the types of Eligible Securities for the CAT. Therefore, C2 proposes to define the term “OTC Equity Security” in proposed Rule 6.85. Specifically, paragraph (cc) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “OTC Equity Security” to mean any equity security, other than an NMS Security, subject to prompt last sale reporting rules of a registered national securities association and reported to one of such association's equity trade reporting facilities. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (DD) Participant

    Paragraph (dd) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “Participant” to mean each Person identified as such in Exhibit A of the CAT NMS Plan, as amended, in such Person's capacity as a Participant in CAT NMS, LLC. This is the same definition in substance as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (EE) Person

    Paragraph (ee) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “Person” to mean any individual, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, joint venture, trust, business trust, cooperative or association and any heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors and assigns of such Person where the context so permits. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (FF) Plan Processor

    Paragraph (ff) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “Plan Processor” to mean the Initial Plan Processor or any other Person selected by the Operating Committee pursuant to SEC Rule 613 and Sections 4.3(b)(i) and 6.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, and with regard to the Initial Plan Processor, the National Market System Plan Governing the Process for Selecting a Plan Processor and Developing a Plan for the Consolidated Audit Trail, to perform the CAT processing functions required by SEC Rule 613 and set forth in the CAT NMS Plan.

    (GG) Received Industry Member Data

    Paragraph (gg) of proposed Rule 6.85 states that the term “Received Industry Member Data” has the meaning set forth in proposed Rule 6.87(a)(ii). This definition has the same substantive meaning as the definition set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. The definition of “Received Industry Member Data” is discussed more fully in the discussion below regarding proposed Rule 6.87(a)(ii).

    (HH) Recorded Industry Member Data

    Paragraph (hh) of proposed Rule 6.85 states that the term “Recorded Industry Member Data” has the meaning set forth in proposed Rule 6.87(a)(i). This definition has the same substantive meaning as the definition set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. The definition of “Recorded Industry Member Data” is discussed more fully in the discussion below regarding proposed Rule 6.87(a)(i).

    (II) Reportable Event

    Proposed Section F requires each Industry Member to record and electronically report to the Central Repository certain details for each Reportable Event. To clarify these requirements, C2 proposes to define the term “Reportable Event” in proposed Rule 6.85. Specifically, paragraph (ii) of proposed Rule 6.85 states that the term “Reportable Event” includes, but is not limited to, the original receipt or origination, modification, cancellation, routing, execution (in whole or in part) and allocation of an order, and receipt of a routed order. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (JJ) SRO

    Paragraph (jj) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “SRO” to mean any self-regulatory organization within the meaning of Section 3(a)(26) of the Exchange Act. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (KK) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier (i) Existing Identifier Approach

    The SROs requested and received exemptive relief from SEC Rule 613 so that the CAT NMS Plan may permit the Existing Identifier Approach, which would allow an Industry Member to report an existing SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier in lieu of requiring the reporting of a universal CAT-Reporter-ID (that is, a code that uniquely and consistently identifies an Industry Member for purposes of providing data to the Central Repository).27 The CAT NMS Plan reflects the “Existing Identifier Approach” for purposes of identifying each Industry Member associated with an order or Reportable Event. Under the Existing Identifier Approach, Industry Members are required to record and report to the Central Repository an SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier for orders and certain Reportable Events to be used by the Central Repository to assign a unique CAT-Reporter-ID to identify Industry Members.

    27See Exemptive Request Letter at 19, and Exemption Order.

    For the Central Repository to link the SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier to the CAT-Reporter-ID, each SRO will submit to the Central Repository, on a daily basis, all SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifiers used by its Industry Members, as well as information to identify each such Industry Member, including CRD number and LEI, if the SRO has collected such LEI of the Industry Member. Additionally, each Industry Member is required to submit to the Central Repository the CRD number of the Industry Member as well as the LEI of the Industry Member (if the Industry Member has an LEI). The Plan Processor will use this information to assign a CAT-Reporter-ID to each Industry Member for internal use within the Central Repository.

    (ii) Definition of SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier

    To implement the Existing Identifier Approach, C2 proposes to define the term “SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier” in proposed Rule 6.85. Specifically, paragraph (kk) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier” to mean an identifier assigned to an Industry Member by an SRO or an identifier used by a Participant. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. For example, an Industry Member would be permitted to use any existing SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier (e.g., FINRA MPID, NASDAQ MPID, NYSE Mnemonic, CBOE User Acronym and CHX Acronym) when reporting order information to the Central Repository.

    (LL) Small Industry Member

    The requirements of proposed Section F differ to some extent for Small Industry Members versus Industry Members other than Small Industry Members. For example, the compliance dates for reporting data to the CAT are different for Small Industry Members versus other Industry Members. Accordingly, to clarify the requirements that apply to which Industry Members, C2 proposes to define the term “Small Industry Member” in proposed Rule 6.85. Specifically, paragraph (ll) of proposed Rule 6.85 defines the term “Small Industry Member” to mean an Industry Member that qualifies as a small broker-dealer as defined in Rule 0-10(c) under the Act. This is the same in substance as the definition of “Small Industry Member” as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. Specifically, Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines a “Small Industry Member” as “an Industry Member that qualifies as a small broker-dealer as defined in SEC Rule 613.” The definition of a small broker-dealer under SEC Rule 613, in turn, is a small broker-dealer as defined in SEC Rule 0-10(c).

    (MM) Trading Day

    Proposed Rule 6.87(b) establishes the deadlines for reporting certain data to the Central Repository using the term “Trading Day.” Accordingly, C2 proposes to define the term “Trading Day” in proposed Rule 6.85. Specifically, paragraph (mm) of proposed Rule 6.85 states that the term “Trading Day” shall have the meaning as is determined by the Operating Committee. For the avoidance of doubt, the Operating Committee may establish different Trading Days for NMS Stocks (as defined in SEC Rule 600(b)(47), Listed Options, OTC Equity Securities, and any other securities that are included as Eligible Securities from time to time.

    (2) Clock Synchronization

    SEC Rule 613(d)(1) under Regulation NMS requires Industry Members to synchronize their Business Clocks to the time maintained by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), consistent with industry standards. To comply with this provision, Section 6.8 of the Plan sets forth the clock synchronization requirements for Industry Members.28 To implement these provisions with regard to its Industry Members, C2 proposes Rule 6.86 (Clock Synchronization) to require its Industry Members to comply with the clock synchronization requirements of the Plan.

    28 In addition, Section 6.7(a)(ii) of the Plan sets forth the timeline for CAT Reporters to comply with the clock synchronization requirements.

    Paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6.86 sets forth the manner in which Industry Members must synchronize their Business Clocks. Paragraph (a)(i) of proposed Rule 6.86 requires each Industry Member to synchronize its Business Clocks, other than such Business Clocks used solely for Manual Order Events or used solely for the time of allocation on Allocation Reports, at a minimum to within a fifty (50) millisecond tolerance of the time maintained by the NIST atomic clock, and maintain such synchronization. This is the same requirement as set forth in Section 6.8(a)(ii)(A) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    Paragraph (a)(ii) of proposed Rule 6.86 requires each Industry Member to synchronize (A) its Business Clocks used solely for Manual Order Events and (B) its Business Clocks used solely for the time of allocation on Allocation Reports at a minimum to within a one second tolerance of the time maintained by the NIST atomic clock, and maintain such synchronization. This is the same requirement as set forth in Section 6.8(a)(iii) and (iv) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    Paragraph (a)(iii) of proposed Rule 6.86 clarifies that the tolerance described in paragraphs (a)(i) and (ii) of the proposed Rule 6.86 includes all of the following: (A) The time difference between the NIST atomic clock and the Industry Member's Business Clock; (B) the transmission delay from the source; and (C) the amount of drift of the Industry Member's Business Clock. This description of the clock synchronization tolerance is the same as set forth in paragraph (b) of FINRA Rule 4590 (Synchronization of Member Business Clocks).

    Paragraph (a)(iv) of proposed Rule 6.86 requires Industry Members to synchronize their Business Clocks every business day before market open 29 to ensure that timestamps for Reportable Events are accurate. In addition, to maintain clock synchronization, Business Clocks must be checked against the NIST atomic clock and re-synchronized, as necessary, throughout the day. This description of the required frequency of clock synchronization is the same as set forth in paragraph (c) of FINRA Rule 4590 (Synchronization of Member Business Clocks).

    29 CBOE has two separate trading sessions: Regular Trading Hours and Extended Trading Hours. The proposed CBOE rule states this requirement applies before the open of each trading session. However, C2 has only one trading session, so the reference to trading session with respect to C2 applies to its sole trading session.

    Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6.86 sets forth documentation requirements with regard to clock synchronization. Specifically, paragraph (b) requires Industry Members to document and maintain their synchronization procedures for their Business Clocks. The proposed Rule requires Industry Members to keep a log of the times when they synchronize their Business Clocks and the results of the synchronization process. This log is required to include notice of any time a Business Clock drifts more than the applicable tolerance specified in paragraph (a) of the proposed Rule. Such logs must include results for a period of not less than five years ending on the then current date, or for the entire period for which the Industry Member has been required to comply with this Rule if less than five years. These documentation requirements are the same as those set forth in the “Sequencing Orders and Clock Synchronization” section of Appendix C of the CAT NMS Plan. Moreover, these documentation requirements regarding clock synchronization are comparable to those set forth in Supplementary Material .01 of FINRA Rule 4590 (Synchronization of Member Business Clocks).

    Paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 6.86 sets forth certification requirements with regard to clock synchronization. Specifically, paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 6.86 requires each Industry Member to certify to C2 that its Business Clocks satisfy the synchronization requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6.86 periodically in accordance with the certification schedule established by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan. This requirement is the same requirement as set forth in Section 6.8(a)(ii)(B), (iii) and (iv) of the CAT NMS Plan. C2 intends to announce to its Industry Members the certification schedule established by the Operating Committee via Regulatory Circular.

    Paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 6.86 establishes reporting requirements with regard to clock synchronization. Paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 6.86 requires Industry Members to report to the Plan Processor and C2 violations of paragraph (a) of this proposed Rule pursuant to the thresholds set by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan. This requirement is the same requirement as set forth in Section 6.8(a)(ii)(C), (iii) and (iv) of the CAT NMS Plan. C2 intends to announce to its Industry Members the relevant thresholds established by the Operating Committee via Regulatory Circular.

    (3) Industry Member Data Reporting

    SEC Rule 613(c) under Regulation NMS requires the CAT NMS Plan to set forth certain provisions requiring Industry Members to record and report data to the CAT. To comply with this provision, Section 6.4 of the CAT NMS Plan sets forth the data reporting requirements for Industry Members. To implement these provisions with regard to its Industry Members, C2 proposes Rule 6.87 (Industry Member Data Reporting) to require its Industry Members to comply with the Industry Member Data reporting requirements of the Plan. Proposed Rule 6.87 has five sections covering: (a) Recording and reporting Industry Member Data, (b) timing of the recording and reporting, (c) the applicable securities covered by the recording and reporting requirements, (d) the security symbology to be used in the recording and reporting, and (e) error correction requirements, each of which is described below.

    (A) Recording and Reporting Industry Member Data

    Paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6.87 describes the recording and reporting of Industry Member Data to the Central Repository. Paragraph (a) consists of paragraphs (a)(i) through (a)(iii), which cover Recorded Industry Member Data, Received Industry Member Data and Options Market Maker data, respectively. Paragraphs (a)(i) through (a)(iii) of proposed Rule 6.87 set forth the recording and reporting requirements required in Section 6.4(d)(i) through (iii) of the CAT NMS Plan, respectively.

    Paragraph (a)(i) requires, subject to paragraph (a)(iii) regarding Options Market Makers, each Industry Member to record and electronically report to the Central Repository the following details for each order and each Reportable Event, as applicable (“Recorded Industry Member Data”) in the manner prescribed by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan:

    (A) For original receipt or origination of an order: (1) Firm Designated ID(s) for each Customer; (2) CAT-Order-ID; (3) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the Industry Member receiving or originating the order; (4) date of order receipt or origination; (5) time of order receipt or origination (using time stamps pursuant to proposed Rule 6.90); and (6) Material Terms of the Order;

    (B) for the routing of an order: (1) CAT-Order-ID; (2) date on which the order is routed; (3) time at which the order is routed (using time stamps pursuant to proposed Rule 6.90); (4) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the Industry Member routing the order; (5) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the Industry Member or Participant to which the order is being routed; (6) if routed internally at the Industry Member, the identity and nature of the department or desk to which the order is routed; and (7) Material Terms of the Order;

    (C) for the receipt of an order that has been routed, the following information: (1) CAT-Order-ID; (2) date on which the order is received; (3) time at which the order is received (using time stamps pursuant to proposed Rule 6.90); (4) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the Industry Member receiving the order; (5) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the Industry Member or Participant routing the order; and (6) Material Terms of the Order;

    (D) if the order is modified or cancelled: (1) CAT-Order-ID; (2) date the modification or cancellation is received or originated; (3) time at which the modification or cancellation is received or originated (using time stamps pursuant to proposed Rule 6.90); (4) price and remaining size of the order, if modified; (5) other changes in the Material Terms of the Order, if modified; and (6) whether the modification or cancellation instruction was given by the Customer or was initiated by the Industry Member;

    (E) if the order is executed, in whole or in part: (1) CAT-Order-ID; (2) date of execution; (3) time of execution (using time stamps pursuant to proposed Rule 6.90; (4) execution capacity (principal, agency or riskless principal); (5) execution price and size; (6) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the Industry Member executing the order; and(7) whether the execution was reported pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan or OPRA; and

    (F) other information or additional events as may be prescribed pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan.

    Paragraph (a)(ii) of proposed Rule 6.87 requires, subject to paragraph (a)(iii) regarding Options Market Makers, each Industry Member to record and report to the Central Repository the following, as applicable (“Received Industry Member Data” and collectively with the information referred to in proposed Rule 6.87(a)(i) “Industry Member Data”) in the manner prescribed by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan:

    (A) If the order is executed, in whole or in part: (1) Allocation Report; (2) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the clearing broker or prime broker, if applicable; and (3) CAT-Order-ID of any contra-side order(s);

    (B) if the trade is cancelled, a cancelled trade indicator; and

    (C) for original receipt or origination of an order, the Firm Designated ID for the relevant Customer, and in accordance with Proposed Rule 6.88, Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information for the relevant Customer.

    Paragraph (a)(iii) of proposed Rule 6.87 states that each Industry Member that is an Options Market Maker is not required to report to the Central Repository the Industry Member Data regarding the routing, modification or cancellation of its quotes in Listed Options. Each Industry Member that is an Options Market Maker, however, is required to report to the Exchange the time at which its quote in a Listed Option is sent to the Exchange (and, if applicable, any subsequent quote modification time and/or cancellation time when such modification or cancellation is originated by the Options Market Maker). This paragraph implements the Options Market Maker Quote Exemption, as discussed above.

    (B) Timing of Recording and Reporting

    Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6.87 describes the requirements related to the timing of recording and reporting of Industry Member Data. Paragraphs (b)(i) through (b)(iii) of proposed Rule 6.87 set forth the requirements related to the timing of the recording and reporting requirements required in Section 6.4(b)(i) through (ii) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    Paragraph (b)(i) of proposed Rule 6.87 requires each Industry Member to record Recorded Industry Member Data contemporaneously with the applicable Reportable Event. Paragraph (b)(ii) of proposed Rule 6.87 requires each Industry Member to report: (A) Recorded Industry Member Data to the Central Repository by 8:00 a.m. Eastern time on the Trading Day following the day the Industry Member records such Recorded Industry Member Data; and (B) Received Industry Member Data to the Central Repository by 8:00 a.m. Eastern time on the Trading Day following the day the Industry Member receives such Received Industry Member Data. Paragraph (b)(iii) states that Industry Members may, but are not required to, voluntarily report Industry Member Data prior to the applicable 8:00 a.m. Eastern time deadline.

    (C) Applicable Securities

    Paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 6.87 describes the securities to which the recording and reporting requirements of proposed Rule 6.87 apply. Paragraphs (c)(i) and (c)(ii) of proposed Rule 6.87 set forth the description of applicable securities as set forth in Section 6.4(c)(i) and (ii) of the CAT NMS Plan, respectively. Paragraph (c)(i) of proposed Rule 6.87 requires each Industry Member to record and report to the Central Repository the Industry Member Data as set forth in paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6.87 for each NMS Security registered or listed for trading on an exchange or admitted to unlisted trading privileges on an exchange. Paragraph (c)(ii) of proposed Rule 6.87 requires each Industry Member to record and report to the Central Repository the Industry Member Data as set forth in paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6.87 for each Eligible Security for which transaction reports are required to be submitted to a national securities association.

    (D) Security Symbology

    Paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 6.87 describes the security symbology that Industry Members are required to use when reporting Industry Member Data to the Central Repository. Paragraph (d)(i) of proposed Rule 6.87 requires, for each exchange-listed Eligible Security, each Industry Member to report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository using the symbology format of the exchange listing the security. This requirement implements the requirement set forth in Section 2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to use the listing exchange symbology when reporting data to the Central Repository for exchange-listed Eligible Securities.

    For each Eligible Security that is not exchange-listed, however, there is no listing exchange to provide the symbology format. Moreover, to date, the requisite symbology format has not been determined. Therefore, paragraph (d)(ii) of proposed Rule 6.87 requires, for each Eligible Security that is not exchange-listed, each Industry Member to report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository using such symbology format as approved by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan. C2 intends to announce to its Industry Members the relevant symbology formats established by the Operating Committee via Regulatory Circular.

    (E) Error Correction

    To ensure that the CAT contains accurate data, the CAT NMS Plan requires Industry Members to correct erroneous data submitted to the Central Repository. Therefore, C2 proposes to adopt paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 6.87, which addresses the correction of erroneous data reported to the Central Repository. Paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 6.87 requires, for each Industry Member for which errors in Industry Member Data submitted to the Central Repository have been identified by the Plan Processor or otherwise, that such Industry Member submit corrected Industry Member Data to the Central Repository by 8:00 a.m. Eastern time on T+3. This requirement implements the error correction requirement set forth in Section 6 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (4) Customer Information Reporting

    Section 6.4(d)(iv) of the CAT NMS Plan requires Industry Members to submit to the Central Repository certain information related to their Customers in accordance with the Customer Information Approach discussed above. C2 proposes Rule 6.88 (Customer Information Reporting) to implement this provision of the CAT NMS Plan with regard to its Industry Members. Specifically, paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6.88 requires each Industry Member to submit to the Central Repository the Firm Designated ID, Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information for each of its Customers with an Active Account prior to such Industry Member's commencement of reporting to the Central Repository and in accordance with the deadlines set forth in Rule 6.93.

    Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6.88 requires each Industry Member to submit to the Central Repository any updates, additions or other changes to the Firm Designated ID, Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information for each of its Customers with an Active Account on a daily basis.

    Paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 6.88 requires each Industry Member, on a periodic basis as designated by the Plan Processor and approved by the Operating Committee, to submit to the Central Repository a complete set of Firm Designated IDs, Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information for each of its Customers with an Active Account. This periodic refresh is intended to ensure that the Central Repository has the most current information identifying a Customer. C2 intends to announce to its Industry Members when such a periodic refresh is required by the Plan Processor and the Operating Committee via Regulatory Circular.

    Finally, paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 6.88 addresses the correction of erroneous Customer data reported to the Central Repository to ensure an accurate audit trail. Paragraph (d) requires, for each Industry Member for which errors in Firm Designated ID, Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information for each of its Customers with an Active Account submitted to the Central Repository have been identified by the Plan Processor or otherwise, such Member to submit corrected data to the Central Repository by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on T+3. This requirement implements the error correction requirement set forth in Appendix C of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (5) Industry Member Information Reporting

    Section 6.4(d)(vi) of the CAT NMS Plan requires Industry Members to submit to the Central Repository information sufficient to identify such Industry Member, including CRD number and LEI, if such LEI has been obtained, in accordance with the Existing Identifier Approach discussed above. C2 proposes Rule 6.89 (Industry Member Information Reporting) to implement this provision of the CAT NMS Plan with regard to its Industry Members. Specifically, proposed Rule 6.89 requires each Industry Member to submit to the Central Repository information sufficient to identify such Industry Member, including CRD number and LEI, if such LEI has been obtained, prior to such Industry Member's commencement of reporting to the Central Repository and in accordance with the deadlines set forth in Rule 6.93, and keep such information up to date as necessary.

    (6) Time Stamps

    SEC Rule 613(d)(3) under Regulation NMS sets forth requirements for time stamps used by CAT Reporters in recording and reporting data to the CAT.30 To comply with this provision, Section 6.8(b) of the Plan sets forth time stamp requirements for Industry Members. To implement this provision with regard to its Industry Members, C2 proposes Rule 6.90 (Time Stamps) to require its Industry Members to comply with the time stamp requirements of the Plan.

    30 17 CFR 242.613(d)(3).

    Paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6.90 sets forth the time stamp increments to be used by Industry Members in their CAT reporting. Paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Rule 6.90 requires each Industry Member to record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in milliseconds, subject to paragraphs (a)(ii) and (b) of proposed Rule 6.90. To the extent that any Industry Member's order handling or execution systems utilize time stamps in increments finer than milliseconds, paragraph (a)(ii) of proposed Rule 6.90 requires such Industry Member to record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in such finer increment, subject to paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6.90 regarding Manual Order Events and Allocation Reports.

    Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6.90 sets forth the permissible time stamp increments for Manual Order Events and Allocation Reports. Specifically, paragraph (b)(i) of proposed Rule 6.90 permits each Industry Member to record and report Manual Order Events to the Central Repository in increments up to and including one second, provided that each Industry Member is required to record and report the time when a Manual Order Event has been captured electronically in an order handling and execution system of such Member (i.e., electronic capture time) in milliseconds. In addition, paragraph (b)(ii) of proposed Rule 6.90 permits each Industry Member to record and report the time of Allocation Reports in increments up to and including one second.

    (7) Clock Synchronization Rule Violations

    Proposed Rule 6.91 (Clock Synchronization Rule Violations) describes potential violations of the clock synchronization time period requirements set forth in proposed Section F. Proposed Rule 6.91 states that an Industry Member that engages in a pattern or practice of reporting Reportable Events outside of the required clock synchronization time period as set forth in this Rule Series without reasonable justification or exceptional circumstances may be considered in violation of this Rule. This provision implements the requirements of Section 6.8 of the CAT NMS Plan which requires the Compliance Rule to provide that a pattern or practice of reporting events outside of the required clock synchronization time period without reasonable justification or exceptional circumstances may be considered a violation of SEC Rule 613 or the CAT NMS Plan.

    (8) Connectivity and Data Transmission

    Proposed Rule 6.92 (Connectivity and Data Transmission) addresses connectivity and data transmission requirements related to the CAT. Paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6.92 describes the format(s) for reporting Industry Member Data to the Central Repository, thereby implementing the formatting requirements as set forth in Section 6.4(a) of the CAT NMS Plan. Specifically, paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6.92 requires each Industry Member to transmit data as required under the CAT NMS Plan to the Central Repository utilizing such format(s) as may be provided by the Plan Processor and approved by the Operating Committee.

    Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6.92 addresses connectivity requirements related to the CAT. Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6.92 requires each Industry Member to connect to the Central Repository using a secure method(s), including, but not limited to, private line(s) and virtual private network connection(s). This provision implements the connectivity requirements set forth in Section 4 of Appendix D to the CAT NMS Plan.

    Paragraph (c) permits Industry Members to use CAT Reporting Agents to fulfill their data reporting obligations related to the CAT. Paragraph (c) is based on FINRA Rule 7450(c), which permits OATS Reporting Members to enter into agreements with Reporting Agents to fulfill the OATS obligations of the OATS Reporting Member. Specifically, paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 6.92 states that any Industry Member may enter into an agreement with a CAT Reporting Agent pursuant to which the CAT Reporting Agent agrees to fulfill the obligations of such Industry Member under proposed Section F. Any such agreement must be evidenced in writing, which specifies the respective functions and responsibilities of each party to the agreement that are required to effect full compliance with the requirements of proposed Section F. C2 notes that, currently, no standardized form agreement for CAT Reporting Agent arrangements has been adopted. Paragraph (c)(ii) of proposed Rule 6.92 requires that all written documents evidencing an agreement with a CAT Reporting Agent be maintained by each party to the agreement. Paragraph (c)(iii) of proposed Rule 6.92 states that each Industry Member remains primarily responsible for compliance with the requirements of proposed Section F, notwithstanding the existence of an agreement described in paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 6.92.

    (9) Development and Testing

    C2 proposes Rule 6.93 (Development and Testing) to address requirements for Industry Members related to CAT development and testing. Paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6.93 sets forth the testing requirements and deadlines for Industry Members to develop and commence reporting to the Central Repository. These requirements are set forth in Appendix C to the CAT NMS Plan.

    Paragraph (a)(i) sets forth the deadlines related to connectivity and acceptance testing. Industry Members (other than Small Industry Members) are required to begin connectivity and acceptance testing with the Central Repository no later than August 15, 2018, and Small Industry Members are required to begin connectivity and acceptance testing with the Central Repository no later than August 15, 2019.

    Paragraph (a)(ii) sets forth the deadlines related to reporting Customer and Industry Member information. Paragraph (a)(ii)(A) requires Industry Members (other than Small Industry Members) to begin reporting Customer and Industry Member information, as required by proposed Rules 6.88(a) and 6.89, respectively, to the Central Repository for processing no later than October 15, 2018. Paragraph (a)(ii)(B) requires Small Industry Members to begin reporting Customer and Industry Member information, as required by proposed Rules 6.88(a) and 6.89, respectively, to the Central Repository for processing no later than October 15, 2019.

    Paragraph (a)(iii) sets forth the deadlines related to the submission of order data. Under paragraph (a)(iii)(A), Industry Members (other than Small Industry Members) are permitted, but not required, to submit order data for testing purposes beginning no later than May 15, 2018. In addition, Industry Members (other than Small Industry Members) are required to participate in the coordinated and structured testing of order submission, which will begin no later than August 15, 2018. Under paragraph (a)(iii)(B), Small Industry Members are permitted, but not required, to submit order data for testing purposes beginning no later than May 15, 2019. In addition, Small Industry Members are required to participate in the coordinated and structured testing of order submission, which will begin no later than August 15, 2019.

    Paragraph (a)(iv) states that Industry Members are permitted, but not required to, submit Quote Sent Times on Options Market Maker quotes, beginning no later than October 15, 2018

    Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6.93 implements the requirement under the CAT NMS Plan that Industry Members participate in required industry testing with the Central Repository.31 Specifically, proposed Rule 6.93 requires that each Industry Member participate in testing related to the Central Repository, including any industry-wide disaster recovery testing, pursuant to the schedule established pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan. C2 intends to announce to its Industry Members the schedule established pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan via Regulatory Circular.

    31 Adopting Release at 84725.

    (10) Recordkeeping

    Proposed Rule 6.94 (Recordkeeping) sets forth the recordkeeping obligations related to the CAT for Industry Members. Proposed Rule 6.94 requires each Industry Member to maintain and preserve records of the information required to be recorded under proposed Section F for the period of time and accessibility specified in SEC Rule 17a-4(b). The records required to be maintained and preserved under proposed Section F may be immediately produced or reproduced on “micrographic media” as defined in SEC Rule 17a-4(f)(1)(i) or by means of “electronic storage media” as defined in SEC Rule 17a-4(f)(1)(ii) that meet the conditions set forth in SEC Rule 17a-4(f) and be maintained and preserved for the required time in that form. Proposed Rule 6.94 is based on FINRA Rule 7440(a)(5), which sets forth the recordkeeping requirements related to OATS.

    (11) Timely, Accurate and Complete Data

    SEC Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan emphasize the importance of the timeliness, accuracy, completeness and integrity of the data submitted to the CAT.32 Accordingly, proposed Rule 6.95 (Timely, Accurate and Complete Data) implements this requirement with regard to Industry Members. Paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6.95 requires that Industry Members record and report data to the Central Repository as required by proposed Section F in a manner that ensures the timeliness, accuracy, integrity and completeness of such data.

    32See SEC Rule 613(e)(4)(i)(D)(ii); and Section 6.5(d) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    In addition, without limiting the general requirement as set forth in paragraph (a), paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6.95 requires Industry Members to accurately provide the LEIs in their records as required by proposed Section F and states that Industry Members may not knowingly submit inaccurate LEIs to the Central Repository. Paragraph (b) notes, however, that this requirement does not impose any additional due diligence obligations on Industry Members with regard to LEIs for CAT purposes. Accordingly, this provision does not impose any due diligence obligations beyond those that may exist today with respect to information associated with an LEI. Although Industry Members will not be required to perform additional due diligence with regard to the LEIs for CAT purposes, Industry Members will be required to accurately provide the LEIs in their records and may not knowingly submit inaccurate LEIs to the CAT. Paragraph (b) is consistent with the SEC's statements in the Approval Order for the CAT NMS Plan regarding an Industry Member's obligations regarding LEIs.33

    33 Approval Order at 84745.

    Paragraph (c) states that, if an Industry Member reports data to the Central Repository with errors such that its error percentage exceeds the maximum Error Rate established by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan, then such Industry Member would not be in compliance with proposed Section F. As discussed above, the initial maximum Error Rate is 5%, although the Error Rate is expected to be reduced over time. C2 intends to announce to its Industry Members changes to the Error Rate established pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan via Regulatory Circular.

    Furthermore, paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 6.95 addresses Compliance Thresholds related to reporting data to the CAT. Proposed Rule 6.95 states that each Industry Member is required to meet a separate compliance threshold which will be an Industry Member-specific rate that may be used as the basis for further review or investigation into the Industry Member's performance with regard to the CAT (the “Compliance Thresholds”). Compliance Thresholds will compare an Industry Member's error rate to the aggregate Error Rate over a period of time to be defined by the Operating Committee. Compliance Thresholds will be set by the Operating Committee, and will be calculated at intervals to be set by the Operating Committee.34 Compliance Thresholds will include compliance with the data reporting and clock synchronization requirements. Proposed Rule 6.95 states that an Industry Member's performance with respect to its Compliance Threshold will not signify, as a matter of law, that such Industry Member has violated proposed Section F.

    34 Appendix C of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (12) Compliance Dates

    Proposed Rule 6.96 (Compliance Dates) sets forth the compliance dates for the various provisions of proposed Section F. Paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6.96 states that, except as set forth in paragraphs (b) and (c) of proposed Rule 6.96 or otherwise set forth in proposed Section F, the compliance date for proposed Section F is the approval date of the filing.35

    35 Proposed Section F, except for provisions otherwise stated in the proposed rule change, will become effective upon approval of this rule filing. As proposed Section F will not be inserted into CBOE's Rules, and thus incorporated into C2's Rules, until that time, the proposed rule text states: “Except as set forth in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Rule or otherwise set forth in this Section F, the Rules in this Section F are effective.”

    Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6.96 establishes the compliance dates for the clock synchronization requirements as set forth in proposed Rule 6.96. Paragraph (b)(i) states that each Industry Member shall comply with 6.86 with regard to Business Clocks that capture time in milliseconds commencing on or before March 15, 2017. Paragraph (b)(ii) states that each Industry Member shall comply with Rule 6.86 with regard to Business Clocks that do not capture time in milliseconds commencing on or before February 19, 2018. The compliance date set forth in paragraph (b)(i) reflects the exemptive relief the Participants intend to request with regard to the clock synchronization requirements related to Business Clocks that do not capture time in milliseconds.

    Paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 6.96 establishes the compliance dates for the data recording and reporting requirements for Industry Members. Paragraph (c)(i) requires each Industry Member (other than Small Industry Members) to record and report the Industry Member Data to the Central Repository by November 15, 2018. Paragraph (c)(ii) requires that each Industry Member that is a Small Industry Member to record and report the Industry Member Data to the Central Repository by November 15, 2019. Such compliance dates are consistent with the compliance dates set forth in SEC Rule 613(a)(3)(v) and (vi), and Section 6.7(a)(v) and (vi) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.36 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 37 requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in 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, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 38 requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers and the Section 6(b)(8) 39 requirement that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate.

    36 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    37 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    38Id.

    39 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).

    The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it implements, interprets or clarifies the provisions of the Plan, and is designed to assist the Exchange and its Industry Members in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the Commission noted the Plan “is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.” 40 To the extent that this proposal implements, interprets or clarifies the Plan and applies specific requirements to Industry Members, the Exchange believes that this proposal furthers the objectives of the Plan, as identified by the Commission, and is therefore consistent with the Act.

    40 Approval Order at 84697.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C2 notes that the proposed rule change implements provisions of the CAT NMS Plan, and is designed to assist C2 in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. C2 also notes that proposed Section F implementing provisions of the CAT NMS Plan will apply equally to all firms that trade NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities. In addition, all national securities exchanges and FINRA are proposing rules virtually identical to proposed Section F. Therefore, this is not a competitive rule filing, and, therefore, it does not impose a burden on competition.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:

    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or

    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    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:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-C2-2017-007 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2017-007. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2017-007 and should be submitted on or before March 2, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.41

    41 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02650 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79962; File No. SR-BatsEDGA-2017-03] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rules 4.5 Through 4.16 To Implement the Compliance Rule Regarding the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail February 3, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on January 30, 2017, Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.3 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 The Exchange originally filed this proposed rule change on January 17, 2017 under File No. SR-BatsEDGA-2017-02, and the Exchange subsequently withdrew that filing on January 30, 2017 and filed this proposed rule change.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to adopt Rules 4.5 through 4.16 to implement the compliance rule (“Compliance Rule”) regarding the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the “CAT NMS Plan” or “Plan”).4

    4 Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this rule filing are defined as set forth herein or in the CAT NMS Plan.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at www.bats.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    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.

    (A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., BOX Options Exchange LLC, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., International Securities Exchange, LLC, Investors' Exchange LLC, ISE Gemini, LLC, ISE Mercury, LLC, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC, NASDAQ BX, Inc., NASDAQ PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, National Stock Exchange, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc. (collectively, the “Participants”) filed with the Commission, pursuant to Section 11A of the Exchange Act 5 and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS thereunder,6 the CAT NMS Plan.7 The Participants filed the Plan to comply with Rule 613 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act. The Plan was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 17, 2016,8 and approved by the Commission, as modified, on November 15, 2016.9

    5 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.

    6 17 CFR 242.608.

    7See Letter from the Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated September 30, 2014; and Letter from Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated February 27, 2015. On December 24, 2015, the Participants submitted an amendment to the CAT NMS Plan. See Letter from Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated December 23, 2015.

    8 Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 77724 (Apr. 27, 2016), 81 FR 30614 (May 17, 2016).

    9 Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 79318 (Nov. 15, 2016), 81 FR 84696 (Nov. 23, 2016) (“Approval Order”).

    The Plan is designed to create, implement and maintain a consolidated audit trail (“CAT”) that would capture customer and order event information for orders in NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities, across all markets, from the time of order inception through routing, cancellation, modification, or execution in a single consolidated data source. Each Participant is required to enforce compliance by its Industry Members, as applicable, with the provisions of the Plan, by adopting a Compliance Rule applicable to their Industry Members.10 As is described more fully below, the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16 set forth the Compliance Rule to require Industry Members to comply with the provisions of the CAT NMS Plan. The Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16 include twelve Proposed Rules covering the following areas: (1) Definitions; (2) clock synchronization; (3) Industry Member Data reporting; (4) Customer information reporting; (5) Industry Member information reporting; (6) time stamps; (7) clock synchronization rule violations; (8) connectivity and data transmission; (9) development and testing; (10) recordkeeping; (11) timely, accurate and complete data; and (12) compliance dates. Each of these Proposed Rules are discussed in detail below.

    10See SEC Rule 613(g)(1).

    (i) Definitions

    Proposed Rule 4.5 (Consolidated Audit Trail—Definitions) sets forth the definitions for the terms used in the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16. Each of the defined terms in Proposed Rule 4.5 is discussed in detail in this section.

    (A) Account Effective Date (I) Customer Information Approach

    SEC Rule 613 requires that numerous data elements be reported to the CAT to ensure there is sufficient information to create the lifecycle of an order, and provide regulators with sufficient detail about an order to perform their regulatory duties. Certain required elements are intended to ensure that the regulators can identify the Customer's associated with orders. For example, SEC Rule 613(c)(7)(i)(A) requires an Industry Member to report the “Customer-ID” for each Customer for the original receipt or origination of an order. “Customer-ID” is defined in SEC Rule 613(j)(5) to mean “with respect to a customer, a code that uniquely and consistently identifies such customer for purposes of providing data to the Central Repository.” SEC Rule 613(c)(8) requires Industry Members to use the same Customer-ID for each Customer. The SEC granted the Participants exemptive relief to permit the use of an alternative approach to the requirement that an Industry Member report a Customer-ID for every Customer upon original receipt or origination.11 The alternative approach is called the Customer Information Approach.

    11See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77265 (March 1, 2016), 81 FR 11856 (March 7, 2016) (“Exemption Order”). See also Letter from Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated January 30, 2015 at 12 (“Exemptive Request Letter”); and CAT NMS Plan at Appendix C, Section A.1(a)(iii).

    Under the Customer Information Approach, the CAT NMS Plan would require each Industry Member to assign a unique Firm Designated ID to each Customer. As the Firm Designated ID, Industry Members would be permitted to use an account number or any other identifier defined by the firm, provided each identifier is unique across the firm for each business date (i.e., a single firm may not have multiple separate customers with the same identifier on any given date). Prior to their commencement of reporting to the CAT, Industry Members would submit an initial set of Customer information to the Central Repository, including the Firm Designated ID, Customer Identifying Information and Customer Account Information (which may include, as applicable, the Customer's name, address, date of birth, individual tax payer identifier number (“ITIN”)/social security number (“SSN”), individual's role in the account (e.g., primary holder, joint holder, guardian, trustee, person with power of attorney) and LEI and/or Larger Trader ID (“LTID”)). This process is referred to as the customer definition process.

    In accordance with the Customer Information Approach, Industry Members would be required to report only the Firm Designated ID for each new order submitted to the Central Repository, rather than the “Customer-ID” with individual order events. Within the Central Repository, each Customer would be uniquely identified by identifiers or a combination of identifiers such as ITIN/SSN, date of birth, and as applicable, LEI and LTID. The Plan Processor would be required to use these unique identifiers to map orders to specific Customers across all Industry Members and Participants. To ensure information identifying a Customer is up to date, Industry Members would be required to submit to the Central Repository daily and periodic updates for reactivated accounts, newly established accounts, and revised Firm Designated IDs or associated reportable Customer information.

    (II) Definition of Account Effective Date

    In connection with the Customer Information Approach, Industry Members would be required to report Customer Account Information to the Central Repository. “Customer Account Information” is defined in SEC Rule 613(j)(4) to “include, but not be limited to, account number, account type, customer type, date account opened, and large trader identifier (if applicable).” Therefore, when reporting Customer Account Information, an Industry Member is required to report the date an account was opened. The Participants requested and received an exemption to allow an “Account Effective Date” to be reported in lieu of an account open date in certain limited circumstances. The definition of “Account Effective Date” as set forth in Paragraph (a) of Proposed Rule 4.5 describes those limited circumstances in which an Industry Member may report an “Account Effective Date” rather than the account open date. The proposed definition is the same as the definition of “Account Effective Date” set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, provided, however, that specific dates have replaced the descriptions of those dates set forth in Section 1.1 of the Plan.

    Specifically, Paragraph (a)(1) defines “Account Effective Date to mean, with regard to those circumstances in which an Industry Member has established a trading relationship with an institution but has not established an account with that institution: (1) When the trading relationship was established prior to November 15, 2018 for Industry Members other than Small Industry Members, or prior to November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members, either (a) the date the relationship identifier was established within the Industry Member; (b) the date when trading began (i.e., the date the first order was received) using the relevant relationship identifier; or (c) if both dates are available, the earlier date will be used to the extent that the dates differ; or (2) when the trading relationship was established on or after November 15, 2018 for Industry Members other than Small Industry Members, or on or after November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members, the date the Industry Member established the relationship identifier, which would be no later than the date the first order was received.

    Paragraph (a)(2) of Proposed Rule 4.5 states that an “Account Effective Date” means, where an Industry Member changes back office providers or clearing firms prior to November 15, 2018 for Industry Members other than Small Industry Members, or prior to November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members, the date an account was established at the relevant Industry Member, either directly or via transfer.

    Paragraph (a)(3) states that an “Account Effective Date” means, where an Industry Member acquires another Industry Member prior to November 15, 2018 for Industry Members other than Small Industry Members, or prior to November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members, the date an account was established at the relevant Industry Member, either directly or via transfer.

    Paragraph (a)(4) states that “Account Effective Date” means, where there are multiple dates associated with an account established prior to November 15, 2018 for Industry Members other than Small Industry Members, or prior to November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members, the earliest available date.

    Paragraph (a)(5) states that an “Account Effective Date” means, with regard to Industry Member proprietary accounts established prior to November 15, 2018 for Industry Members other than Small Industry Members, or prior to November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members: (1) The date established for the account in the Industry Member or in a system of the Industry Member or (2) the date when proprietary trading began in the account (i.e., the date on which the first orders were submitted from the account). With regard to paragraphs (a)(2)-(5), the Account Effective Date will be no later than the date trading occurs at the Industry Member or in the Industry Member's system.

    (B) Active Account

    Under the Customer Information Approach, Industry Members are required to report Customer Identifying Information and Customer Account Information for only those accounts that are active. This will alleviate the need for Industry Members to update such information for non-active accounts, but still ensure that the Central Repository will collect audit trail data for Customer accounts that have any Reportable Events. Accordingly, paragraph (b) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines an “Active Account” as an account that has had activity in Eligible Securities within the last six months. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (C) Allocation Report (I) Allocation Report Approach

    SEC Rule 613(c)(7)(vi)(A) requires each Industry Member to record and report to the Central Repository “the account number for any subaccounts to which the execution is allocated (in whole or in part).” The SROs requested and received from the SEC exemptive relief from SEC Rule 613 for an alternative to this approach (“Allocation Report Approach”). The Allocation Report Approach would permit Industry Members to record and report to the Central Repository an Allocation Report that includes, among other things, the Firm Designated ID for any account(s) to which executed shares are allocated when an execution is allocated in whole or part in lieu of requiring the reporting of the account number for any subaccount to which an execution is allocated, as is required by SEC Rule 613.12 Under SEC Rule 613, regulators would be able to link the subaccount to which an allocation was made to a specific order. In contrast, under the Allocation Report Approach, regulators would only be able to link an allocation to the account to which it was made, and not to a specific order.

    12See Exemptive Request Letter at 26-27; and Exemption Order.

    (II) Definition of Allocation Report

    To assist in implementing the Allocation Report Approach, paragraph (c) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines an “Allocation Report.” Specifically, an “Allocation Report” means a report made to the Central Repository by an Industry Member that identifies the Firm Designated ID for any account(s), including subaccount(s), to which executed shares are allocated and provides the security that has been allocated, the identifier of the firm reporting the allocation, the price per share of shares allocated, the side of shares allocated, the number of shares allocated to each account, and the time of the allocation; provided, for the avoidance of doubt, any such Allocation Report shall not be required to be linked to particular orders or executions. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (D) Business Clock

    To create the required audit trail, Industry Members are required to record the date and time of various Reportable Events to the Central Repository. Industry Members will use “Business Clocks” to record such dates and times. Accordingly, paragraph (d) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “Business Clock” as a clock used to record the date and time of any Reportable Event required to be reported under Rules 4.5 through 4.16. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, except the Exchange proposes to replace the phrase “under SEC Rule 613” at the end of the definition in Section 1.1 of the Plan with the phrase “under Rules 4.5 through 4.16.” This change is intended to recognize that the Industry Members' obligations with regard to the CAT are set forth in Rules 4.5 through 4.16.

    (E) CAT

    Paragraph (e) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “CAT” to mean the consolidated audit trail contemplated by SEC Rule 613. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (F) CAT NMS Plan

    Paragraph (f) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “CAT NMS Plan” to mean the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail, as amended from time to time.

    (G) CAT-Order-ID (I) Daisy Chain Approach

    Under the CAT NMS Plan, the Daisy Chain Approach is used to link and reconstruct the complete lifecycle of each Reportable Event in CAT. According to this Approach, Industry Members assign their own identifiers to each order event. Within the Central Repository, the Plan Processor later replaces the identifier provided by the Industry Member for each Reportable Event with a single identifier, called the CAT Order-ID, for all order events pertaining to the same order. This CAT Order-ID is used to link the Reportable Events related to the same order.

    (II) Definition of CAT-Order-ID

    To implement the Daisy Chain Approach, Paragraph (g) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “CAT-Order-ID.” The term “CAT-Order-ID” is defined to mean a unique order identifier or series of unique order identifiers that allows the Central Repository to efficiently and accurately link all Reportable Events for an order, and all orders that result from the aggregation or disaggregation of such order. This is the same definition as set forth in SEC Rule 613(j)(1), and Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines “CAT-Order-ID” by reference to SEC Rule 613(j)(1).

    (H) CAT Reporting Agent

    The CAT NMS Plan permits an Industry Member to use a third party, such as a vendor, to report the required data to the Central Repository on behalf of the Industry Member.13 Such a third party, referred to in the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16 as a “CAT Reporting Agent,” would be one type of a Data Submitter, that is, a party that submits data to the Central Repository. Paragraph (h) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “CAT Reporting Agent” to mean a Data Submitter that is a third party that enters into an agreement with an Industry Member pursuant to which the CAT Reporting Agent agrees to fulfill such Industry Member's reporting obligations under Rules 4.5 through 4.16.

    13 Appendix C, Section A.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    This definition is based on FINRA's definition of a “Reporting Agent” as set forth in FINRA's rule related to its Order Audit Trail System (“OATS”). Specifically, FINRA Rule 7410(n) defines a “Reporting Agent” as a third party that enters into any agreement with a member pursuant to which the Reporting Agent agrees to fulfill such member's obligations under Rule 7450. The Reporting Agent for OATS fulfills a similar role to the CAT Reporting Agent.

    (I) Central Repository

    Paragraph (i) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “Central Repository” to mean the repository responsible for the receipt, consolidation, and retention of all information reported to the CAT pursuant to SEC Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, except the Exchange uses the phrase “CAT NMS Plan” in place of the phrase “this Agreement.”

    (J) Compliance Threshold

    Paragraph (j) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “Compliance Threshold” as having the meaning set forth in Proposed Rule 4.15(d). This definition has the same substantive meaning as the definition set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. As discussed in detail below with regard to Proposed Rule 4.15(d), each Industry Member is required to meet a separate compliance threshold which will be an Industry Member-specific rate that may be used as the basis for further review or investigation into the Industry Member's performance with regard to the CAT. This Industry Member-specific rate is the “Compliance Threshold.”

    (K) Customer

    Industry Members are required to submit to the Central Repository certain information related to their Customers, including Customer Identifying Information and Customer Account Information, as well as data related to their Customer's Reportable Events. Accordingly, Paragraph (k) of Proposed Rule 4.5 proposes to define the term “Customer.” Specifically, the term “Customer” would be defined to mean: (1) The account holder(s) of the account at an Industry Member originating the order; and (2) any person from whom the Industry Member is authorized to accept trading instructions for such account, if different from the account holder(s). This is the same definition as set forth in SEC Rule 613(j)(3), except the Exchange proposes to replace the references to a registered broker-dealer or broker-dealer with a reference to an Industry Member for consistency of terms used in the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16. The Exchange also notes that Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines “Customer” by reference to SEC Rule 613(j)(3).

    (L) Customer Account Information

    As discussed above, under the Customer Information Approach, Industry Members are required to report Customer Account Information to the Central Repository as part of the customer definition process. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to define the term “Customer Account Information” to clarify what customer information would need to be reported to the Central Repository.

    Paragraph (l) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “Customer Account Information” to include, in part, account number, account type, customer type, date account opened, and large trader identifier (if applicable). Proposed Rule 4.5(l), however, provides an alternative definition of “Customer Account Information” in two limited circumstances. First, in those circumstances in which an Industry Member has established a trading relationship with an institution but has not established an account with that institution, the Industry Member will: (1) Provide the Account Effective Date in lieu of the “date account opened”; (2) provide the relationship identifier in lieu of the “account number”; and (3) identify the “account type” as a “relationship.” Second, in those circumstances in which the relevant account was established prior to November 15, 2018 for Industry Members other than Small Industry Members, or prior to November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members, and no “date account opened” is available for the account, the Industry Member will provide the Account Effective Date in the following circumstances: (1) Where an Industry Member changes back office providers or clearing firms and the date account opened is changed to the date the account was opened on the new back office/clearing firm system; (2) where an Industry Member acquires another Industry Member and the date account opened is changed to the date the account was opened on the post-merger back office/clearing firm system; (3) where there are multiple dates associated with an account in an Industry Member's system, and the parameters of each date are determined by the individual Industry Member; and (4) where the relevant account is an Industry Member proprietary account. The proposed definition is the same as the definition of “Customer Account Information” set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, provided, however, that specific dates have replaced the descriptions of those dates set forth in Section 1.1 of the Plan.

    (M) Customer Identifying Information

    As discussed above, under the Customer Information Approach, Industry Members are required to report Customer Identifying Information to the Central Repository as part of the customer definition process. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to define the term “Customer Account Information” to clarify what Customer information would need to be reported to the Central Repository.

    Paragraph (m) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “Customer Identifying Information” to mean information of sufficient detail to identify a Customer. With respect to individuals, “Customer Identifying Information” includes, but is not limited to: Name, address, date of birth, individual tax payer identification number (“ITIN”)/social security number (“SSN”), individual's role in the account (e.g., primary holder, joint holder, guardian, trustee, person with the power of attorney). With respect to legal entities, “Customer Identifying Information” includes, but is not limited to, name, address, Employer Identification Number (“EIN”)/Legal Entity Identifier (“LEI”) or other comparable common entity identifier, if applicable. The definition further notes that an Industry Member that has an LEI for a Customer must submit the Customer's LEI in addition to other information of sufficient detail to identify the Customer. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (N) Data Submitter

    The CAT NMS Plan uses the term “Data Submitter” to refer to any person that reports data to the Central Repository.14 Such Data Submitters may include those entities that are required to submit data to the Central Repository (e.g., national securities exchanges, national securities associations and Industry Members), third-parties that may submit data to the CAT on behalf of CAT Reporters (i.e., CAT Reporting Agents), and outside parties that are not required to submit data to the CAT but from which the CAT may receive data (e.g., securities information processors (“SIPs”)). To include this term in the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16, the Exchange proposes to define “Data Submitter” in paragraph (n) of Proposed Rule 4.5. Specifically, paragraph (n) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines a “Data Submitter” to mean any person that reports data to the Central Repository, including national securities exchanges, national securities associations, broker-dealers, the SIPs for the CQS, CTA, UTP and Plan for Reporting of Consolidated Options Last Sale Reports and Quotation Information (“OPRA”) Plans, and certain other vendors or third parties that may submit data to the Central Repository on behalf of Industry Members.

    14 Appendix C, Section A.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (O) Eligible Security

    The reporting requirements of the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16 only apply to Reportable Events in Eligible Securities. Currently, an Eligible Security includes NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities. Accordingly, paragraph (p) [sic] of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “Eligible Security” to include: (1) All NMS Securities; and (2) all OTC Equity Securities. The terms “NMS Securities” and “OTC Equity Securities” are defined, in turn, below. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (P) Error Rate (I) Maximum Error Rate

    Under the CAT NMS Plan, the Operating Committee sets the maximum Error Rate that the Central Repository would tolerate from an Industry Member reporting data to the Central Repository.15 The Operating Committee reviews and resets the maximum Error Rate, at least annually.16 If an Industry Member reports CAT data to the Central Repository with errors such that their error percentage exceeds the maximum Error Rate, then such Industry Member would not be in compliance with the CAT NMS Plan or Rule 613.17 As such, the Exchange or the SEC “may [sic] take appropriate action against an Industry Member for failing to comply with its CAT reporting obligations.18 The CAT NMS Plan sets the initial Error Rate at 5%.19 It is anticipated that the maximum Error Rate will be reviewed and lowered by the Operating Committee once Industry Members begin to report to the Central Repository.20

    15 Section 6.5(d)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    16 Appendix C, Section A.3(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    17 Appendix C, Section A.3(b) of the CAT NMS Plan; Rule 613(g)-(h).

    18 Appendix C, Section A.3(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    19 Section 6.5(d)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    20 Appendix C, Section A.3(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    The CAT NMS Plan requires the Plan Processor to: (1) Measure and report errors every business day; (2) provide Industry Members daily statistics and error reports as they become available, including a description of such errors; (3) provide monthly reports to Industry Members that detail an Industry Member's performance and comparison statistics; (4) define educational and support programs for Industry Members to minimize Error Rates; and (5) identify, daily, all Industry Members exceeding the maximum allowable Error Rate. To timely correct data-submitted errors to the Central Repository, the CAT NMS Plan requires that the Central Repository receive and process error corrections at all times. Further, the CAT NMS Plan requires that Industry Members be able to submit error corrections to the Central Repository through a web-interface or via bulk uploads or file submissions, and that the Plan Processor, subject to the Operating Committee's approval, support the bulk replacement of records and the reprocessing of such records. The Participants, furthermore, require that the Plan Processor identify Industry Member data submission errors based on the Plan Processor's validation processes.21

    21 Approval Order at 84718.

    (II) Definition of Error Rate

    To implement the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan related to the Error Rate, the Exchange proposes to define the term “Error Rate” in Proposed Rule 4.5. Paragraph (p) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “Error Rate” to mean the percentage of Reportable Events collected by the Central Repository in which the data reported does not fully and accurately reflect the order event that occurred in the market. This is the same definition as set forth in SEC Rule 613(j)(6), and Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines “Error Rate” by reference to SEC Rule 613(j)(6).

    (Q) Firm Designated ID

    As discussed above, under the Customer Information Approach, the CAT NMS Plan would require each Industry Member to assign a unique Firm Designated ID to each Customer. Industry Members would be permitted to use as the Firm Designated ID an account number or any other identifier defined by the firm, provided each identifier is unique across the firm for each business date (i.e., a single firm may not have multiple separate customers with the same identifier on any given date). Industry Members would be required to report only the Firm Designated ID for each new order submitted to the Central Repository, rather than the “Customer-ID” with individual order events. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to define the term “Firm Designated ID” in Proposed Rule 4.5. Specifically, paragraph (q) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “Firm Designated ID” to mean a unique identifier for each trading account designated by Industry Members for purposes of providing data to the Central Repository, where each such identifier is unique among all identifiers from any given Industry Member for each business date. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. Industry Members would be permitted to use an account number or any other identifier defined by the firm, provided each identifier is unique across the firm for each business date (i.e., a single firm may not have multiple separate customers with the same identifier on any given date).

    (R) Industry Member

    Paragraph (r) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “Industry Member” to mean a member of a national securities exchange or a member of a national securities association.” This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (S) Industry Member Data

    Paragraph (s) of Proposed Rule 4.5 states that the term “Industry Member Data” has the meaning set forth in Rule 4.7(a)(2). This definition has the same substantive meaning as the definition set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. The definition of “Industry Member Data” is discussed more fully in the discussion below regarding Proposed Rule 4.7(a)(2).

    (T) Initial Plan Processor

    Paragraph (t) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “Initial Plan Processor” to mean the first Plan Processor selected by the Operating Committee in accordance with SEC Rule 613, Section 6.1 of the CAT NMS Plan and the National Market System Plan Governing the Process for Selecting a Plan Processor and Developing a Plan for the Consolidated Audit Trail. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, although the proposed definition uses the full name of the “Selection Plan.”

    (U) Listed Option or Option

    The CAT NMS Plan and the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16 apply to Eligible Securities, which includes NMS Securities, which, in turn, includes Listed Options. Certain requirements of the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16 apply specifically to Listed Options. Accordingly, Paragraph (u) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “Listed Option” or “Option.” Specifically, paragraph (u) of Proposed Rule 4.5 states that the term “Listed Option” or “Option” has the meaning set forth in SEC Rule 600(b)(35) of Regulation NMS. SEC Rule 600(b)(35), in turn, defines a listed option as “any option traded on a registered national securities exchange or automated facility of a national securities association.” The Exchange notes that the proposed definition of “Listed Option” is the same definition as the definition set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (V) Manual Order Event (I) Manual Order Event Approach

    The CAT NMS Plan sets forth clock synchronization and timestamp requirements for Industry Members which reflect exemptions for Manual Order Events granted by the Commission.22 Specifically, the Plan requires Industry Members to record and report the time of each Reportable Event using timestamps reflecting current industry standards (which must be at least to the millisecond) or, if an Industry Member's order handling or execution systems use timestamps in increments finer than milliseconds, such finer increments, when reporting to the Central Repository. For Manual Order Events, however, the Plan provides that such events must be recorded in increments up to and including one second, provided that Industry Members record and report the time the event is captured electronically in an order handling and execution system (“Electronic Capture Time”) in milliseconds. In addition, Industry Members are required to synchronize their respective Business Clocks (other than such Business Clocks used solely for Manual Order Events) at a minimum to within 50 milliseconds of the time maintained by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), and maintain such a synchronization. Each Industry Member is required to synchronize their Business Clocks used solely for Manual Order Events, however, at a minimum to within one second of the time maintained by the NIST.

    22 Exemption Order.

    (II) Definition of Manual Order Event

    In order to clarify what a Manual Order Event is for clock synchronization and time stamp purposes, the Exchange proposes to define the term “Manual Order Event” in Proposed Rule 4.5. Specifically, paragraph (v) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “Manual Order Event” to mean a non-electronic communication of order-related information for which Industry Members must record and report the time of the event. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (W) Material Terms of the Order

    Proposed Rule 4.7 requires Industry Members to record and report to the Central Repository Material Terms of the Order with certain Reportable Events (e.g., for the original receipt or origination of an order, for the routing of an order). Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to define the term “Material Terms of the Order” in Proposed Rule 4.5. Specifically, paragraph (w) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “Material Terms of the Order” to include: The NMS Security or OTC Equity Security symbol; security type; price (if applicable); size (displayed and non-displayed); side (buy/sell); order type; if a sell order, whether the order is long, short, short exempt; open/close indicator (except on transactions in equities); time in force (if applicable); if the order is for a Listed Option, option type (put/call), option symbol or root symbol, underlying symbol, strike price, expiration date, and open/close (except on market maker quotations); and any special handling instructions. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (X) NMS Security

    NMS Securities are one of the types of Eligible Securities for the CAT. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to define the term “NMS Security” in Proposed Rule 4.5. Specifically, paragraph (x) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “NMS Security” to mean any security or class of securities for which transaction reports are collected, processed, and made available pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan, or an effective national market system plan for reporting transactions in Listed Options. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (Y) NMS Stock

    Under the CAT NMS Plan, the Operating Committee may establish different Trading Days for NMS Stocks (as defined in SEC Rule 600(b)(47)), Listed Options, OTC Equity Securities, and any other securities that are included as Eligible Securities from time to time. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to define the term “NMS Stock” in Paragraph (y) of Proposed Rule 4.5 to mean any NMS Security other than an option. This is the same definition as set forth in SEC Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS.

    (Z) Operating Committee

    Paragraph (z) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “Operating Committee” to mean the governing body of the CAT NMS, LLC designated as such and described in Article IV of the CAT NMS Plan. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, except the Exchange proposes to use the phrase “CAT NMS LLC” in place of the phrase “the Company” for clarity.

    (AA) Options Market Maker (I) Options Market Maker Quote Exemption

    SEC Rule 613(c)(7) provides that the CAT NMS Plan must require each Industry Member to record and electronically report to the Central Repository details for each order and each reportable event, including the routing and modification or cancellation of an order. SEC Rule 613(j)(8) defines “order” to include “any bid or offer.” Therefore, under SEC Rule 613, the details for each Options Market Maker quotation must be reported to the Central Repository by both the Options Market Maker and the options exchange to which it routes its quote.

    The SROs, however, requested and received exemptive relief from SEC Rule 613 so that the CAT NMS Plan may permit Options Market Maker quotes to be reported to the Central Repository by the relevant options exchange in lieu of requiring that such reporting be done by both the options exchange and the Options Market Maker, as is required by SEC Rule 613.23 In accordance with the exemptive relief, Options Market Makers would be required to report to the options exchange the time at which a quote in a Listed Option is sent to the options exchange. Such time information also will be reported to the Central Repository by the options exchange in lieu of reporting by the Options Market Maker

    23See Exemptive Request Letter at 2, and Exemption Order.

    (II) Definition of Options Market Maker

    To implement the requirements related to Option Market Maker quotes, the Exchange proposes to define the term “Options Market Maker” in Proposed Rule 4.5. Specifically, paragraph (aa) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “Options Market Makers” to mean a broker-dealer registered with an exchange for the purpose of making markets in options contracts traded on the exchange. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (BB) Order

    The Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16 require each Industry Member to record and electronically report to the Central Repository certain details for each order. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to define the term “Order” in Proposed Rule 4.5. Specifically, paragraph (bb) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “Order”, with respect to Eligible Securities, to include: (1) Any order received by an Industry Member from any person; (2) any order originated by an Industry Member; or (3) any bid or offer. This is the same definition as set forth in SEC Rule 613(j)(8), except the Exchange proposes to replace the phrase “member of a national securities exchange or national securities association” with the term “Industry Member.” The Exchange notes that Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines “Order” by reference to SEC Rule 613(j)(8).

    (CC) OTC Equity Security

    OTC Equity Securities are one of the types of Eligible Securities for the CAT. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to define the term “OTC Equity Security” in Proposed Rule 4.5. Specifically, paragraph (cc) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “OTC Equity Security” to mean any equity security, other than an NMS Security, subject to prompt last sale reporting rules of a registered national securities association and reported to one of such association's equity trade reporting facilities. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (DD) Participant

    Paragraph (dd) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “Participant” to mean each Person identified as such in Exhibit A of the CAT NMS Plan, as amended, in such Person's capacity as a Participant in CAT NMS, LLC. This is the same definition in substance as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (EE) Person

    Paragraph (ee) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “Person” to mean any individual, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, joint venture, trust, business trust, cooperative or association and any heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors and assigns of such Person where the context so permits. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (FF) Plan Processor

    Paragraph (ff) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “Plan Processor” to mean the Initial Plan Processor or any other Person selected by the Operating Committee pursuant to SEC Rule 613 and Sections 4.3(b)(i) and 6.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, and with regard to the Initial Plan Processor, the National Market System Plan Governing the Process for Selecting a Plan Processor and Developing a Plan for the Consolidated Audit Trail, to perform the CAT processing functions required by SEC Rule 613 and set forth in the CAT NMS Plan.

    (GG) Received Industry Member Data

    Paragraph (gg) of Proposed Rule 4.5 states that the term “Received Industry Member Data” has the meaning set forth in Rule 4.7(a)(2). This definition has the same substantive meaning as the definition set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. The definition of “Received Industry Member Data” is discussed more fully in the discussion below regarding Proposed Rule 4.7(a)(2).

    (HH) Recorded Industry Member Data

    Paragraph (hh) of Proposed Rule 4.5 states that the term “Recorded Industry Member Data” has the meaning set forth in Rule 4.7(a)(1). This definition has the same substantive meaning as the definition set forth in in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. The definition of “Recorded Industry Member Data” is discussed more fully in the discussion below regarding Proposed Rule 4.7(a)(1).

    (II) Reportable Event

    The Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16 require each Industry Member to record and electronically report to the Central Repository certain details for each Reportable Event. To clarify these requirements, the Exchange proposes to define the term “Reportable Event” in Proposed Rule 4.5. Specifically, paragraph (ii) of Proposed Rule 4.5 states that the term “Reportable Event” includes, but is not limited to, the original receipt or origination, modification, cancellation, routing, execution (in whole or in part) and allocation of an order, and receipt of a routed order. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (JJ) SRO

    Paragraph (jj) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “SRO” to mean any self-regulatory organization within the meaning of Section 3(a)(26) of the Exchange Act. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (KK) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier (I) Existing Identifier Approach

    The SROs requested and received exemptive relief from SEC Rule 613 so that the CAT NMS Plan may permit the Existing Identifier Approach, which would allow an Industry Member to report an existing SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier in lieu of requiring the reporting of a universal CAT-Reporter-ID (that is, a code that uniquely and consistently identifies an Industry Member for purposes of providing data to the Central Repository).24 The CAT NMS Plan reflects the “Existing Identifier Approach” for purposes of identifying each Industry Member associated with an order or Reportable Event. Under the Existing Identifier Approach, Industry Members are required to record and report to the Central Repository an SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier for orders and certain Reportable Events to be used by the Central Repository to assign a unique CAT-Reporter-ID to identify Industry Members.

    24See Exemptive Request Letter at 19, and Exemption Order.

    For the Central Repository to link the SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier to the CAT-Reporter-ID, each SRO will submit to the Central Repository, on a daily basis, all SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifiers used by its Industry Members or itself; and information to identify each such Industry Member, including the CRD number and LEI if such LEI has been obtained, and itself, including LEI, if such LEI has been obtained. Additionally, each Industry Member is required to submit to the Central Repository information sufficient to identify such Industry Member, including CRD number and LEI, if such LEI has been obtained. The Plan Processor will use this information to assign a CAT-Reporter-ID to each Industry Member for internal use within the Central Repository.

    (II) Definition of SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier

    To implement the Existing Identifier Approach, the Exchange proposes to define the term “SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier” in Proposed Rule 4.5. Specifically, paragraph (kk) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier” to mean an identifier assigned to an Industry Member by an SRO or an identifier used by a Participant. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. For example, an Industry Member would be permitted to use any existing SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier (e.g., FINRA MPID, NASDAQ MPID, NYSE Mnemonic, CBOE User Acronym and CHX Acronym) when reporting order information to the Central Repository.

    (LL) Small Industry Member

    The requirements of the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16 differ to some extent for Small Industry Members versus Industry Members other than Small Industry Members. For example, the compliance dates for reporting data to the CAT are different for Small Industry Members versus other Industry Members. Accordingly, to clarify the requirements that apply to which Industry Members, the Exchange proposes to define the term “Small Industry Member” in Proposed Rule 4.5. Specifically, paragraph (ll) of Proposed Rule 4.5 defines the term “Small Industry Member” to mean an Industry Member that qualifies as a small broker-dealer as defined in Rule 0-10(c) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This is the same in substance as the definition of “Small Industry Member” as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. Specifically, Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines a “Small Industry Member” as “an Industry Member that qualifies as a small broker-dealer as defined in SEC Rule 613.” The definition of a small broker-dealer under SEC Rule 613, in turn, is a small broker-dealer as defined in SEC Rule 0-10(c).

    (MM) Trading Day

    Proposed Rule 4.7(b) establishes the deadlines for reporting certain data to the Central Repository using the term “Trading Day.” Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to define the term “Trading Day” in Proposed Rule 4.5. Specifically, Paragraph (mm) of Proposed Rule 4.5 states that the term “Trading Day” shall have the meaning as is determined by the Operating Committee. For the avoidance of doubt, the Operating Committee may establish different Trading Days for NMS Stocks (as defined in SEC Rule 600(b)(47), Listed Options, OTC Equity Securities, and any other securities that are included as Eligible Securities from time to time.

    (ii) Clock Synchronization

    SEC Rule 613(d)(1) under Regulation NMS requires Industry Members to synchronize their Business Clocks to the time maintained by NIST, consistent with industry standards. To comply with this provision, Section 6.8 of the Plan sets forth the clock synchronization requirements for Industry Members.25 To implement these provisions with regard to its Industry Members, the Exchange proposes Rule 4.6 (Consolidated Audit Trail—Clock Synchronization) to require its Industry Members to comply with the clock synchronization requirements of the Plan.

    25 In addition, Section 6.7(a)(ii) of the Plan sets forth the timeline for CAT Reporters to comply with the clock synchronization requirements.

    Paragraph (a) of Proposed Rule 4.6 sets forth the manner in which Industry Members must synchronize their Business Clocks. Paragraph (a)(1) of Proposed Rule 4.6 requires each Industry Member to synchronize its Business Clocks, other than such Business Clocks used solely for Manual Order Events or used solely for the time of allocation on Allocation Reports, at a minimum to within a fifty (50) millisecond tolerance of the time maintained by the NIST atomic clock, and maintain such synchronization. This is the same requirement as set forth in Section 6.8(a)(ii)(A) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    Paragraph (a)(2) of Proposed Rule 4.6 requires each Industry Member to synchronize (1) its Business Clocks used solely for Manual Order Events and (2) its Business Clocks used solely for the time of allocation on Allocation Reports at a minimum to within a one second tolerance of the time maintained by the NIST atomic clock, and maintain such synchronization. This is the same requirement as set forth in Section 6.8(a)(iii) and (iv) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    Paragraph (a)(3) of Proposed Rule 4.6 clarifies that the tolerance described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of the Proposed Rule 4.6 includes all of the following: (1) The time difference between the NIST atomic clock and the Industry Member's Business Clock; (2) the transmission delay from the source; and (3) the amount of drift of the Industry Member's Business Clock. This description of the clock synchronization tolerance is the same as set forth in paragraph (b) of FINRA Rule 4590 (Synchronization of Member Business Clocks).

    Paragraph (a)(4) of Proposed Rule 4.6 requires Industry Members to synchronize their Business Clocks every business day before market open to ensure that timestamps for Reportable Events are accurate. In addition, to maintain clock synchronization, Business Clocks must be checked against the NIST atomic clock and re-synchronized, as necessary, throughout the day. This description of the required frequency of clock synchronization is the same as set forth in paragraph (c) of FINRA Rule 4590 (Synchronization of Member Business Clocks).

    Paragraph (b) of Proposed Rule 4.6 sets forth documentation requirements with regard to clock synchronization. Specifically, paragraph (b) requires Industry Members to document and maintain their synchronization procedures for their Business Clocks. The Proposed Rule requires Industry Members to keep a log of the times when they synchronize their Business Clocks and the results of the synchronization process. This log is required to include notice of any time a Business Clock drifts more than the applicable tolerance specified in paragraph (a) of the Proposed Rule. Such logs must include results for a period of not less than five years ending on the then current date, or for the entire period for which the Industry Member has been required to comply with this Rule if less than five years. These documentation requirements are the same as those set forth in the “Sequencing Orders and Clock Synchronization” section of Appendix C of the CAT NMS Plan. Moreover, these documentation requirements regarding clock synchronization are comparable to those set forth in Supplementary Material .01 of FINRA Rule 4590 (Synchronization of Member Business Clocks).

    Paragraph (c) of Proposed Rule 4.6 sets forth certification requirements with regard to clock synchronization. Specifically, paragraph (c) of Proposed Rule 4.6 requires each Industry Member to certify to the Exchange that its Business Clocks satisfy the synchronization requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of Proposed Rule 4.6 periodically in accordance with the certification schedule established by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan. This requirement is the same requirement as set forth in Section 6.8(a)(ii)(B), (iii) and (iv) of the CAT NMS Plan. The Exchange intends to announce to its Industry Members the certification schedule established by the Operating Committee via Regulatory Circular.

    Paragraph (d) of Proposed Rule 4.6 establishes reporting requirements with regard to clock synchronization. Paragraph (d) of Proposed Rule 4.6 requires Industry Members to report to the Plan Processor and the Exchange, violations of paragraph (a) of this Rule pursuant to the thresholds set by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan. This requirement is the same requirement as set forth in Section 6.8(a)(ii)(C), (iii) and (iv) of the CAT NMS Plan. The Exchange intends to announce to its Industry Members the relevant thresholds established by the Operating Committee via Regulatory Circular.

    (iii) Industry Member Data Reporting

    SEC Rule 613(c) under Regulation NMS requires the CAT NMS Plan to set forth certain provisions requiring Industry Members to record and report data to the CAT. To comply with this provision, Section 6.4 of the CAT NMS Plan sets forth the data reporting requirements for Industry Members. To implement these provisions with regard to its Industry Members, the Exchange proposes Rule 4.7 (Consolidated Audit Trail—Industry Member Data Reporting) to require its Industry Members to comply with the Industry Member Data reporting requirements of the Plan. Proposed Rule 4.7 has six sections [sic] covering: (1) Recording and reporting Industry Member Data, (2) timing of the recording and reporting, (3) the applicable securities covered by the recording and reporting requirements, (4) the security symbology to be used in the recording and reporting, and (5) error correction requirements, each of which is described below.

    (A) Recording and Reporting Industry Member Data

    Paragraph (a) of Proposed Rule 4.7 describes the recording and reporting of Industry Member Data to the Central Repository. Paragraph (a) consists of paragraphs (a)(1)-(a)(3), which cover Recorded Industry Member Data, Received Industry Member Data and Options Market Maker data, respectively. Paragraphs (a)(1)-(a)(3) of Proposed Rule 4.7 set forth the recording and reporting requirements required in Section 6.4(d)(i)-(iii) of the CAT NMS Plan, respectively.

    Paragraph (a)(1) requires, subject to paragraph (a)(3) regarding Options Market Makers, each Industry Member to record and electronically report to the Central Repository the following details for each order and each Reportable Event, as applicable (“Recorded Industry Member Data”) in the manner prescribed by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan:

    • For original receipt or origination of an order: (1) Firm Designated ID(s) for each Customer; (2) CAT-Order-ID; (3) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the Industry Member receiving or originating the order; (4) date of order receipt or origination; (5) time of order receipt or origination (using timestamps pursuant to Proposed Rule 4.10); and (6) Material Terms of the Order;

    • for the routing of an order: (1) CAT-Order-ID; (2) date on which the order is routed; (3) time at which the order is routed (using timestamps pursuant to Proposed Rule 4.10); (4) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the Industry Member routing the order; (5) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the Industry Member or Participant to which the order is being routed; (6) if routed internally at the Industry Member, the identity and nature of the department or desk to which the order is routed; and (7) Material Terms of the Order;

    • for the receipt of an order that has been routed, the following information: (1) CAT-Order-ID; (2) date on which the order is received; (3) time at which the order is received (using timestamps pursuant to Proposed Rule 4.10); (4) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the Industry Member receiving the order; (5) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the Industry Member or Participant routing the order; and (6) Material Terms of the Order;

    • if the order is modified or cancelled: (1) CAT-Order-ID; (2) date the modification or cancellation is received or originated; (3) time at which the modification or cancellation is received or originated (using timestamps pursuant to Proposed Rule 4.10); (4) price and remaining size of the order, if modified; (5) other changes in the Material Terms of the Order, if modified; and (6) whether the modification or cancellation instruction was given by the Customer or was initiated by the Industry Member;

    • if the order is executed, in whole or in part: (1) CAT-Order-ID; (2) date of execution; (3) time of execution (using timestamps pursuant to Proposed Rule 4.10; (4) execution capacity (principal, agency or riskless principal); (5) execution price and size; (6) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the Industry Member executing the order; (7) whether the execution was reported pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan or the Plan for Reporting of Consolidated Options Last Sale Reports and Quotation Information; and

    • other information or additional events as may be prescribed pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan.

    Paragraph (a)(2) of Proposed Rule 4.7 requires, subject to paragraph (a)(3) regarding Options Market Makers, each Industry Member to record and report to the Central Repository the following, as applicable (“Received Industry Member Data” and collectively with the information referred to in Rule 4.7(a)(1) “Industry Member Data”) in the manner prescribed by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan:

    • If the order is executed, in whole or in part: (1) An Allocation Report; (2) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the clearing broker or prime broker, if applicable; and (3) CAT-Order-ID of any contra-side order(s);

    • if the trade is cancelled, a cancelled trade indicator; and

    • for original receipt or origination of an order, the Firm Designated ID for the relevant Customer, and in accordance with Proposed Rule 4.8, Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information for the relevant Customer.

    Paragraph (a)(3) of Proposed Rule 4.7 states that each Industry Member that is an Options Market Maker is not required to report to the Central Repository the Industry Member Data regarding the routing, modification or cancellation of its quotes in Listed Options. Each Industry Member that is an Options Market Maker, however, is required to report to the Exchange the time at which its quote in a Listed Option is sent to the Exchange (and, if applicable, any subsequent quote modification time and/or cancellation time when such modification or cancellation is originated by the Options Market Maker). This paragraph implements the Options Market Maker Quote Exemption, as discussed above.

    (B) Timing of Recording and Reporting

    Paragraph (b) of Proposed Rule 4.7 describes the requirements related to the timing of recording and reporting of Industry Member Data. Paragraphs (b)(1)-(b)(3) of Proposed Rule 4.7 set forth the requirements related to the timing of the recording and reporting requirements required in Section 6.4(b)(i)-(ii) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    Paragraph (b)(1) of Proposed Rule 4.7 requires each Industry Member to record Recorded Industry Member Data contemporaneously with the applicable Reportable Event. Paragraph (b)(2) of Proposed Rule 4.7 requires each Industry Member to report: (1) Recorded Industry Member Data to the Central Repository by 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time on the Trading Day following the day the Industry Member records such Recorded Industry Member Data; and (2) Received Industry Member Data to the Central Repository by 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time on the Trading Day following the day the Industry Member receives such Received Industry Member Data. Paragraph (b)(3) states that Industry Members may, but are not required to, voluntarily report Industry Member Data prior to the applicable 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time deadline.

    (C) Applicable Securities

    Paragraph (c) of Proposed Rule 4.7 describes the securities to which the recording and reporting requirements of Proposed Rule 4.7 apply. Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of Proposed Rule 4.7 set forth the description of applicable securities as set forth in Section 6.4(c)(i) and (ii) of the CAT NMS Plan, respectively. Paragraph (c)(1) of Proposed Rule 4.7 requires each Industry Member to record and report to the Central Repository the Industry Member Data as set forth in paragraph (a) of Proposed Rule 4.7 for each NMS Security registered or listed for trading on such exchange or admitted to unlisted trading privileges on such exchange. Paragraph (c)(2) of Proposed Rule 4.7 requires each Industry Member to record and report to the Central Repository the Industry Member Data as set forth in paragraph (a) of this Proposed Rule 4.7 for each Eligible Security for which transaction reports are required to be submitted to FINRA.

    (D) Security Symbology

    Paragraph (d) of Proposed Rule 4.7 describes the security symbology that Industry Members are required to use when reporting Industry Member Data to the Central Repository. Paragraph (d)(1) of Proposed Rule 4.7 requires, for each exchange-listed Eligible Security, each Industry Member to report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository using the symbology format of the exchange listing the security. This requirement implements the requirement set forth in Section 2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to use the listing exchange symbology when reporting data to the Central Repository for exchange-listed Eligible Securities.

    For each Eligible Security that is not exchange-listed, however, there is no listing exchange to provide the symbology format. Moreover, to date, the requisite symbology format has not been determined. Therefore, Paragraph (d)(2) of Proposed Rule 4.7 requires, for each Eligible Security that is not exchange-listed, each Industry Member to report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository using such symbology format as approved by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan. The Exchange intends to announce to its Industry Members the relevant symbology formats established by the Operating Committee via Regulatory Circular.

    (E) Error Correction

    To ensure that the CAT contains accurate data, the CAT NMS Plan requires Industry Members to correct erroneous data submitted to the Central Repository. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to adopt paragraph (e) of Proposed Rule 4.7, which addresses the correction of erroneous data reported to the Central Repository. Paragraph (e) of Proposed Rule 4.7 requires, for each Industry Member for which errors in Industry Member Data submitted to the Central Repository have been identified by the Plan Processor or otherwise, that such Industry Member submit corrected Industry Member Data to the Central Repository by 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time on T+3. This requirement implements the error correction requirement set forth in Section 6 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (iv) Customer Information Reporting

    Section 6.4(d)(iv) of the CAT NMS Plan requires Industry Members to submit to the Central Repository certain information related to their Customers in accordance with the Customer Information Approach discussed above. The Exchange proposes Rule 4.8 (Consolidated Audit Trail—Customer Information Reporting) to implement this provision of the CAT NMS Plan with regard to its Industry Members. Specifically, paragraph (a) of Proposed Rule 4.8 requires each Industry Member to submit to the Central Repository the Firm Designated ID, Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information for each of its Customers with an Active Account prior to such Industry Member's commencement of reporting to the Central Repository and in accordance with the deadlines set forth in Rule 4.13. Paragraph (b) of Proposed Rule 4.8 requires each Industry Member to submit to the Central Repository any updates, additions or other changes to the Firm Designated ID, Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information for each of its Customers with an Active Account on a daily basis. Paragraph (c) of Proposed Rule 4.8 requires each Industry Member, on a periodic basis as designated by the Plan Processor and approved by the Operating Committee, to submit to the Central Repository a complete set of Firm Designated IDs, Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information for each of its Customers with an Active Account. This periodic refresh is intended to ensure that the Central Repository has the most current information identifying a Customer. The Exchange intends to announce to its Industry Members when such a periodic refresh is required by the Plan Processor and the Operating Committee via Regulatory Circular.

    Finally, paragraph (d) of Proposed Rule 4.8 addresses the correction of erroneous Customer data reported to the Central Repository to ensure an accurate audit trail. Paragraph (d) requires, for each Industry Member for which errors in Firm Designated ID, Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information for each of its Customers with an Active Account submitted to the Central Repository have been identified by the Plan Processor or otherwise, such Member to submit corrected data to the Central Repository by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on T+3. This requirement implements the error correction requirement set forth in Appendix C of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (v) Industry Member Information Reporting

    Section 6.4(d)(vi) of the CAT NMS Plan requires Industry Members to submit to the Central Repository information sufficient to identify such Industry Member, including CRD number and LEI, if such LEI has been obtained, in accordance with the Existing Identifier Approach discussed above. The Exchange proposes Rule 4.9 (Consolidated Audit Trail—Industry Member Information Reporting) to implement this provision of the CAT NMS Plan with regard to its Industry Members. Specifically, Proposed Rule 4.9 requires each Industry Member to submit to the Central Repository information sufficient to identify such Industry Member, including CRD number and LEI, if such LEI has been obtained, prior to such Industry Member's commencement of reporting to the Central Repository and in accordance with the deadlines set forth in Rule 4.13, and keep such information up to date as necessary.

    (vi) Time Stamps

    SEC Rule 613(d)(3) under Regulation NMS sets forth requirements for time stamps used by CAT Reporters in recording and reporting data to the CAT.26 To comply with this provision, Section 6.8(b) of the Plan sets forth time stamp requirements for Industry Members. To implement this provision with regard to its Industry Members, the Exchange proposes new Rule 4.10 (Consolidated Audit Trail—Time Stamps) to require its Industry Members to comply with the time stamp requirements of the Plan.

    26 17 CFR 242.613(d)(3).

    Paragraph (a) of Proposed Rule 4.10 sets forth the time stamp increments to be used by Industry Members in their CAT reporting. Paragraph (a)(1) of Proposed Rule 4.10 requires each Industry Member to record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in milliseconds, subject to paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) of Proposed Rule 4.10. To the extent that any Industry Member's order handling or execution systems utilize time stamps in increments finer than milliseconds, paragraph (a)(2) of Proposed Rule 4.10 requires such Industry Member to record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in such finer increment, subject to paragraph (b) of Proposed Rule 4.10 regarding Manual Order Events and Allocation Reports.

    Paragraph (b) of Proposed Rule 4.10 sets forth the permissible time stamp increments for Manual Order Events and Allocation Reports. Specifically, paragraph (b)(1) of Proposed Rule 4.10 permits each Industry Member to record and report Manual Order Events to the Central Repository in increments up to and including one second, provided that each Industry Member is required to record and report the time when a Manual Order Event has been captured electronically in an order handling and execution system of such Member (“Electronic Capture Time”) in milliseconds. In addition, paragraph (b)(2) of Proposed Rule 4.10 permits each Industry Member to record and report the time of Allocation Reports in increments up to and including one second.

    (vii) Clock Synchronization Rule Violations

    Proposed Rule 4.11 (Consolidated Audit Trail—Clock Synchronization Rule Violations) describes potential violations of the clock synchronization time period requirements set forth in the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16. Proposed Rule 4.11 states that an Industry Member that engages in a pattern or practice of reporting Reportable Events outside of the required clock synchronization time period as set forth in the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16 without reasonable justification or exceptional circumstances may be considered in violation of this Rule. This provision implements the requirements of Section 6.8 of the CAT NMS Plan which requires the Compliance Rule to provide that a pattern or practice of reporting events outside of the required clock synchronization time period without reasonable justification or exceptional circumstances may be considered a violation of SEC Rule 613 or the CAT NMS Plan.

    (viii) Connectivity and Data Transmission

    Proposed Rule 4.12 (Consolidated Audit Trail—Connectivity and Data Transmission) addresses connectivity and data transmission requirements related to the CAT. Paragraph (a) of Proposed Rule 4.12 describes the format(s) for reporting Industry Member Data to the Central Repository, thereby implementing the formatting requirements as set forth in Section 6.4(a) of the CAT NMS Plan. Specifically, paragraph (a) of Proposed Rule 4.12 requires each Industry Member to transmit data as required under the CAT NMS Plan to the Central Repository utilizing such format(s) as may be provided by the Plan Processor and approved by the Operating Committee.

    Paragraph (b) of Proposed Rule 4.12 addresses connectivity requirements related to the CAT. Paragraph (b) of Proposed Rule 4.12 requires each Industry Member to connect to the Central Repository using a secure method(s), including, but not limited to, private line(s) and virtual private network connection(s). This provision implements the connectivity requirements set forth in Section 4 of Appendix D to the CAT NMS Plan.

    Paragraph (c) permits Industry Members to use CAT Reporting Agents to fulfill their data reporting obligations related to the CAT. Paragraph (c) is based on FINRA Rule 7450(c), which permits OATS Reporting Members to enter into agreements with Reporting Agents to fulfill the OATS obligations of the OATS Reporting Member. Specifically, Paragraph (c)(1) of Proposed Rule 4.12 states that any Industry Member may enter into an agreement with a CAT Reporting Agent pursuant to which the CAT Reporting Agent agrees to fulfill the obligations of such Industry Member under the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16. Any such agreement must be evidenced in writing, which specifies the respective functions and responsibilities of each party to the agreement that are required to effect full compliance with the requirements of the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16. The Exchange notes that, currently, no standardized form agreement for CAT Reporting Agent arrangements has been adopted. Paragraph (c)(2) of Proposed Rule 4.12 requires that all written documents evidencing an agreement with a CAT Reporting Agent be maintained by each party to the agreement. Paragraph (c)(3) states that each Industry Member remains primarily responsible for compliance with the requirements of the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16, notwithstanding the existence of an agreement described in paragraph (c) of Proposed Rule 4.12.

    (ix) Development and Testing

    The Exchange proposes Rule 4.13 (Consolidated Audit Trail—Development and Testing) to address requirements for Industry Members related to CAT development and testing. Paragraph (a) of Proposed Rule 4.13 sets forth the testing requirements and deadlines for Industry Members to develop and commence reporting to the Central Repository. These requirements are set forth in Appendix C to the CAT NMS Plan.

    Paragraph (a)(1) sets forth the deadlines related to connectivity and acceptance testing. Industry Members (other than Small Industry Members) are required to begin connectivity and acceptance testing with the Central Repository no later than August 15, 2018, and Small Industry Members are required to begin connectivity and acceptance testing with the Central Repository no later than August 15, 2019.

    Paragraph (a)(2) sets forth the deadlines related to reporting Customer and Industry Member information. Paragraph (a)(2)(i) requires Industry Members (other than Small Industry Members) to begin reporting Customer and Industry Member information, as required by Rules 4.8(a) and 4.9, respectively, to the Central Repository for processing no later than October 15, 2018. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) requires Small Industry Members to begin reporting Customer and Industry Member information, as required by Rules 4.8(a) and 4.9, respectively, to the Central Repository for processing no later than October 15, 2019.

    Paragraph (a)(3) sets forth the deadlines related to the submission of order data. Under paragraph (a)(3)(i), Industry Members (other than Small Industry Members) are permitted, but not required, to submit order data for testing purposes beginning no later than May 15, 2018. In addition, Industry Members (other than Small Industry Members) are required to participate in the coordinated and structured testing of order submission, which will begin no later than August 15, 2018. Under paragraph (a)(3)(ii), Small Industry Members are permitted, but not required, to submit order data for testing purposes beginning no later than May 15, 2019. In addition, Small Industry Members are required to participate in the coordinated and structured testing of order submission, which will begin no later than August 15, 2019.

    Paragraph (a)(4) states that Industry Members are permitted, but not required to, submit Quote Sent Times on Options Market Maker quotes, beginning no later than October 15, 2018.

    Paragraph (b) of Proposed Rule 4.13 implements the requirement under the CAT NMS Plan that Industry Members participate in required industry testing with the Central Repository.27 Specifically, Proposed Rule 4.13 requires that each Industry Member participate in testing related to the Central Repository, including any industry-wide disaster recovery testing, pursuant to the schedule established pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan. The Exchange intends to announce to its Industry Members the schedule established pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan via Regulatory Circular.

    27 Approval Order at 84725.

    (x) Recordkeeping

    Proposed Rule 4.14 (Consolidated Audit Trail—Recordkeeping) sets forth the recordkeeping obligations related to the CAT for Industry Members. Proposed Rule 4.14 requires each Industry Member to maintain and preserve records of the information required to be recorded in accordance with the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16, for the period of time and accessibility specified in SEC Rule 17a-4(b). The records required to be maintained and preserved in accordance with Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16, may be immediately produced or reproduced on “micrographic media” as defined in SEC Rule 17a-4(f)(1)(i) or by means of “electronic storage media” as defined in SEC Rule 17a-4(f)(1)(ii) that meet the conditions set forth in SEC Rule 17a-4(f) and be maintained and preserved for the required time in that form. Proposed Rule 4.14 is based on FINRA Rule 7440(a)(5), which sets forth the recordkeeping requirements related to OATS.

    (xi) Timely, Accurate and Complete Data

    SEC Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan emphasize the importance of the timeliness, accuracy, completeness and integrity of the data submitted to the CAT.28 Accordingly, Proposed Rule 4.15 (Consolidated Audit Trail—Timely, Accurate and Complete Data) implements this requirement with regard to Industry Members. Paragraph (a) of Proposed Rule 4.15 requires that Industry Members record and report data to the Central Repository as required by the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16 in a manner that ensures the timeliness, accuracy, integrity and completeness of such data.

    28See SEC Rule 613(e)(4)(i)(D)(ii); and Section 6.5(d) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    In addition, without limiting the general requirement as set forth in paragraph (a), paragraph (b) of Proposed Rule 4.15 requires Industry Members to accurately provide the LEIs in their records as required by the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16 and states that Industry Members may not knowingly submit inaccurate LEIs to the Central Repository. Paragraph (b) notes, however, that this requirement does not impose any additional due diligence obligations on Industry Members with regard to LEIs for CAT purposes. Accordingly, this provision does not impose any due diligence obligations beyond those that may exist today with respect to information associated with an LEI. Although Industry Members will not be required to perform additional due diligence with regard to the LEIs for CAT purposes, Industry Members will be required to accurately provide the LEIs in their records and may not knowingly submit inaccurate LEIs to the CAT. Paragraph (b) is consistent with the SEC's statements in the Approval Order for the CAT NMS Plan regarding an Industry Member's obligations regarding LEIs.29

    29 Approval Order at 84745.

    Paragraph (c) states that, if an Industry Member reports data to the Central Repository with errors such that its error percentage exceeds the maximum Error Rate established by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan, then such Industry Member would not be in compliance with the Rules 4.5 through 4.16. As discussed above, the initial maximum Error Rate is 5%, although the Error Rate is expected to be reduced over time. The Exchange intends to announce to its Industry Members changes to the Error Rate established pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan via Regulatory Circular.

    Furthermore, paragraph (d) of Proposed Rule 4.15 addresses Compliance Thresholds related to reporting data to the CAT. Proposed Rule 4.15 states that each Industry Member is required to meet a separate compliance threshold which will be an Industry Member-specific rate that may be used as the basis for further review or investigation into the Industry Member's performance with regard to the CAT (the “Compliance Thresholds”). Compliance Thresholds will compare an Industry Member's error rate to the aggregate Error Rate over a period of time to be defined by the Operating Committee. Compliance Thresholds will be set by the Operating Committee, and will be calculated at intervals to be set by the Operating Committee.30 Compliance Thresholds will include compliance with the data reporting and clock synchronization requirements. Proposed Rule 4.15 states that an Industry Member's performance with respect to its Compliance Threshold will not signify, as a matter of law, that such Industry Member has violated the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16.

    30 Appendix C of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (xii) Compliance Dates

    Proposed Rule 4.16 (Consolidated Audit Trail—Compliance Dates) sets forth the compliance dates for the various provisions of the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Rule set forth the additional details with respect to the compliance date of the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16. Unless otherwise noted, the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16 will be fully effective upon approval by the Commission and Members must comply with their terms.

    Paragraph (b) of Proposed Rule 4.16 establishes the compliance dates for the clock synchronization requirements as set forth in Proposed Rule 4.6. Paragraph (b)(1) states that each Industry Member shall comply with Rule 4.6 with regard to Business Clocks that capture time in milliseconds commencing on or before March 15, 2017. Paragraph (b)(2) states that each Industry Member shall comply with Rule 4.6 with regard to Business Clocks that do not capture time in milliseconds commencing on or before February 19, 2018. The compliance date set forth in paragraph (b)(1) reflects the exemptive relief requested by the Participants with regard to the clock synchronization requirements related to Business Clocks that do not capture time in milliseconds.31

    31See Letter from Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, dated January 17, 2017, requesting exemptive relief from SEC Rule 613(a)(3)(iii) and Section 6.7(a)(ii) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    Paragraph (c) of Proposed Rule 4.16 establishes the compliance dates for the data recording and reporting requirements for Industry Members. Paragraph (c)(1) requires each Industry Member (other than Small Industry Members) to record and report the Industry Member Data to the Central Repository by November 15, 2018. Paragraph (c)(2) requires that each Industry Member that is a Small Industry Member to record and report the Industry Member Data to the Central Repository by November 15, 2019. Such compliance dates are consistent with the compliance dates set forth in SEC Rule 613(a)(3)(v) and (vi), and Section 6.7(a)(v) and (vi) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,32 which require, among other things, that the Exchange's rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,33 which requires that the Exchange's rules not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate.

    32 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    33 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).

    The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it implements, interprets or clarifies the provisions of the Plan, and is designed to assist the Exchange and its Industry Members in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan “is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.” 34 To the extent that this proposal implements, interprets or clarifies the Plan and applies specific requirements to Industry Members, the Exchange believes that this proposal furthers the objectives of the Plan, as identified by the SEC, and is therefore consistent with the Act.

    34 Approval Order at 84697.

    (B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change implements provisions of the CAT NMS Plan, and is designed to assist the Exchange in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. The Exchange also notes that the Proposed Rules 4.5 through 4.16 implement provisions of the CAT NMS Plan will apply equally to all firms that trade NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities. In addition, all national securities exchanges and FINRA are proposing similar rules to apply the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan to their members. Therefore, this is not a competitive rule filing, and, therefore, it does not impose a burden on competition.

    (C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the Exchange consents, the Commission will: (a) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    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:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-BatsEDGA-2017-03 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsEDGA-2017-03. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsEDGA-2017-03 and should be submitted on or before March 2, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.35

    35 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02643 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79964; File No. SR-FINRA-2016-039] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Partial Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4512 (Customer Account Information) and Adopt FINRA Rule 2165 (Financial Exploitation of Specified Adults), as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1 February 3, 2017. I. Introduction

    On October 19, 2016, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to amend FINRA Rule 4512 (Customer Account Information) and adopt new FINRA Rule 2165 (Financial Exploitation of Specified Adults). The proposed rule change would: (1) Require members to make reasonable efforts to obtain the name of and contact information for a trusted contact person for a customer's account; and (2) permit members to place temporary holds on disbursements of funds or securities from the accounts of specified customers, where there is a reasonable belief that these customers have been, are being, or will be subject to financial exploitation).3

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See File No. SR-FINRA-2016-039.

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on November 7, 2016.4 The public comment period closed on November 28, 2016. The Commission received twenty-one (21) comment letters on the Proposal.5 On December 7, 2016, FINRA extended the time period in which the Commission must approve the Proposal, disapprove the Proposal, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the Proposal to February 3, 2017.6 On January 19, 2017, FINRA filed a response to the comment letters,7 along with Partial Amendment No. 1 to the Proposal.

    4See Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4512 (Customer Account Information) and Adopt FINRA Rule 2165 (Financial Exploitation of Specified Adults), Exchange Act Release No. 34-79215; File No. SR-FINRA-2016-039 (Nov. 1, 2016); 81 FR 78238 (Nov. 7, 2016) (“Proposal”).

    5See Tamra K. Solmon, Associate General Counsel, Investment Company Institute (“ICI”) (Nov. 28, 2016); Gary Sanders, Counsel and Vice President, Government Relations, National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors (“NAIFA”) (Nov. 28, 2016); Catherine J. Weatherford, President & CEO, Insured Retirement Institute (“IRI”) (Nov. 28 2016); Eric Arnold and Clifford Kirsch, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan LLP, on behalf of the Committee of Annuity Insurers (“CAI”) (Nov. 28, 2016); Robert J. McCarthy, Director of Regulatory Policy, Wells Fargo Advisors (“Wells Fargo”) (Nov. 28, 2016); W. Alan Smith, Deputy General Counsel, Janney Montgomery Scott LLC, Philadelphia, PA (“Janney”) (Nov. 28, 2016); William A. Jacobson, Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School and Director, Cornell Securities Law Clinic, and Alexander K. Brehan, 2017 J.D. Candidate, Cornell Law School (“Cornell”) (Nov. 28, 2016); Nicole G. Iannarone, Director, Investor Advocacy Clinic, Assistant Clinical Professor, and David Hsu, Student Intern, Georgia State University College of Law (“GSU”) (Nov. 28, 2016); Carrie L. Chelko, Esq., Chief Counsel, Lincoln Financial Network (“Lincoln”) (Nov. 28, 2016); David T. Bellaire, Esq., Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Financial Services Institute (“FSI”) (Nov. 28, 2016); Marnie C. Lambert, President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, Norman, OK (“PIABA”) (Nov. 28, 2016); Lisa J. Bleier, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, SIFMA, Washington, DC (Nov. 28, 2016); Atasia Richardson and Alyse Velger, Student Interns, and Elissa Germaine, Supervising Attorney, Pace Investor Rights Clinic, Elisabeth Haub School of Law, Pace University, White Plains, NY (“PIRC”) (Nov. 28, 2016); Mike Rothman, President, NASAA, and Minnesota Commissioner of Commerce (“NASAA”) (Nov. 28, 2016); Richard Foster, Financial Services Roundtable, Washington, DC (“FSR”) (Nov. 28, 2016); David P. Bergers, General Counsel, LPL Financial LLC (“LPL”) (Nov. 28, 2016); Jigar Gandhi, Counsel, American Counsel of Life Insurers (“ACLI”) (Nov. 28, 2016); Michael Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer, Bond Dealers of America (“BDA”) (Nov. 28, 2016); Jesse Hill, Principal, Government and Regulatory Relations, Edward Jones (“Edward Jones”) (Nov. 28, 2016); Manisha Kimmel, Chief Regulatory Officer, Wealth Management, Thomson Reuters (“Thomson Reuters”) (Dec. 5, 2016); and Rick Fleming, Investor Advocate, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the Investor Advocate (“Investor Advocate”) (Dec. 28, 2016). The comment letters are available on FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA, at the Commission's Web site at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2016-039/finra2016039.shtml, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    6See Letter from Jeanette Wingler, Associate General Counsel, FINRA, to Katherine England, Assistant Director, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, dated December 7, 2016.

    7See Letter from Jeanette Wingler, Associate General Counsel, FINRA, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange the Commission, dated January 19, 2017 (“FINRA Response Letter”). The FINRA Response Letter and the text of Partial Amendment No. 1 are available on FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA, at the Commission's Web site at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2016-039/finra2016039.shtml, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    This order provides notice of the filing of Partial Amendment No. 1 and approves the Proposal, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.

    II. Description of the Proposal  8

    8 The subsequent description of the Proposal is substantially excerpted from FINRA's description in the Proposal. See Proposal, 81 FR at 78238-78257.

    A. Background

    With the aging of the U.S. population, financial exploitation of seniors and other vulnerable adults is a serious and growing problem.9 FINRA's experience with the FINRA Securities Helpline for Seniors® (“Seniors Helpline”) has highlighted issues relating to financial exploitation of seniors and other vulnerable adults.10 A number of reports and studies also have explored various aspects of this important topic.11 Moreover, studies indicate that financial exploitation is the most common form of elder abuse.12 Financial exploitation can be difficult for any investor, but it can be particularly devastating for seniors and other vulnerable adults, many of whom are living on fixed incomes without the ability to offset significant losses over time or through other means.13 Financial exploitation can occur suddenly, and once funds leave an account they can be difficult, if not impossible, to recover, especially when they ultimately are transferred outside of the U.S.14 Members need more effective tools that will allow them to quickly and effectively address suspected financial exploitation of seniors and other vulnerable adults. Currently, however, FINRA rules do not explicitly permit members to contact a non-account holder or to place a temporary hold on disbursements of funds or securities where there is a reasonable belief of financial exploitation of a senior or other vulnerable adult.

    9See The MetLife Study of Elder Financial Abuse: Crimes of Occasion, Desperation, and Predation Against America's Elders (June 2011) (discussing the increasing prevalence of elder financial abuse) (hereinafter “MetLife Study”). See also FINRA Investor Education Foundation, Financial Fraud and Fraud Susceptibility in the United States: Research Report from a 2012 National Survey (2013) (which found that U.S. adults age 65 and older are more likely to be targeted for financial fraud, including investment scams, and more likely to lose money once targeted) (hereinafter “FINRA Foundation Study”).

    10See FINRA Launches Toll-Free FINRA Securities Helpline for Seniors (April 20, 2015). See also Report on the FINRA Securities Helpline for Seniors (December 2015) (stating that from its launch on April 20, 2015 until December 2015, the Seniors Helpline received more than 2,500 calls with an average call duration of nearly 25 minutes) (hereinafter “Seniors Helpline Report”); FINRA Securities Helpline for Seniors Marks First Year, with $1.3 Million Returned to Investors (April 20, 2016) (stating that, “To date, the helpline has fielded more than 4,200 calls, recovering over $1.3 million in voluntary reimbursements from firms since its launch in April 2015”).

    11See, e.g., National Senior Investor Initiative: A Coordinated Series of Examinations, SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations and FINRA (April 15, 2015) (hereinafter “Senior Investor Initiative”); MetLife Study; and Seniors Helpline Report.

    12See Interagency Guidance on Privacy Laws and Reporting Financial Abuse of Older Adults, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Federal Trade Commission, National Credit Union Administration, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and SEC (September 24, 2013) (hereinafter “Interagency Guidance”) (citing Acierno, R., M. A. Hernandez, A. B. Amstadter, H. S. Resnick, K. Steve, W. Muzzy, and D. G. Kilpatrick, “Prevalence and Correlates of Emotional, Physical, Sexual and Financial Abuse and Potential Neglect in the United States: The National Elder Mistreatment Study,” American Journal of Public Health 100(2): 292-97; Lifespan of Greater Rochester, Inc., et al., Under the Radar: New York State Elder Abuse Prevention Study, (Rochester, NY: Lifespan of Greater Rochester, Inc., May 2011)) (hereinafter “New York State Elder Abuse Prevention Study”).

    13See Seniors Helpline Report.

    14See Seniors Helpline Report.

    To address these issues, the Proposal would provide members with a way to quickly respond to situations in which they have a reasonable basis to believe that financial exploitation of vulnerable adults has occurred or will be attempted. FINRA believes that a member can better protect its customers from financial exploitation if the member can: (1) Place a temporary hold on a disbursement of funds or securities from a customer's account; and (2) notify a customer's trusted contact person when there is concern that, among other things, the customer may be the victim of financial exploitation. These measures will assist members in thwarting financial exploitation of seniors and other vulnerable adults before potentially ruinous losses occur. As discussed below, FINRA is proposing a number of safeguards to help ensure that there is not a misapplication of the Proposal and that customers' ordinary disbursements are not disrupted.

    According to FINRA, a small number of states have enacted statutes that permit financial institutions, including broker-dealers, to place temporary holds on “disbursements” or “transactions” if financial exploitation of covered persons is suspected.15 In addition, the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) created a model state act to protect vulnerable adults from financial exploitation (“NASAA model”). Due to the small number of state statutes currently in effect and the lack of a federal standard in this area, FINRA believes that the Proposal would aid in the creation of a uniform national standard for the benefit of members and their customers.

    15See, e.g. , DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 31, § 3910 (2015); MO. REV. STAT. §§ 409.600-.630 (2015); WASH. REV. CODE §§ 74.34.215, 220 (2015); and IND. CODE ANN. § 23-19-4.1 (2016).

    B. Terms of the Proposal 1. Trusted Contact Person

    The Proposal would amend Rule 4512 to require members to make reasonable efforts to obtain the name of and contact information for a trusted contact person upon the opening of a non-institutional customer's account.16 It would also require that the trusted contact person be age 18 or older.17 While the Proposal did not specify what contact information should be obtained for a trusted contact person, FINRA noted that a mailing address, telephone number and email address for the trusted contact person may be the most useful information for members.

    16See proposed Rule 4512(a)(1)(F).

    17See proposed Rule 4512(a)(1)(F).

    The Proposal would not prohibit members from opening and maintaining an account if a customer fails to identify a trusted contact person as long as the member made reasonable efforts to obtain a name and contact information.18 FINRA stated that asking a customer to provide the name and contact information for a trusted contact person ordinarily would constitute reasonable efforts to obtain the information and would satisfy the Proposal's requirements.

    18See proposed Supplementary Material .06(b) to Rule 4512.

    The Proposal would not require a member to attempt to obtain the name of and contact information for a trusted contact person for accounts in existence prior to the effective date of the Proposal (“existing accounts”) until such time as the member updates the information for the account either in the course of the member's routine and customary business or as otherwise required by applicable laws or rules.19 With respect to any account subject to the requirements of Exchange Act Rule 17a-3(a)(17) to periodically update customer records, the Proposal would require a member to make reasonable efforts to obtain or, if previously obtained, to update where appropriate, the name and contact information for a trusted contact person in the manner and timeframes required under Exchange Act Rule 17a-3(a)(17).20 With regard to updating the contact information once provided for other accounts that are not subject to the requirements in Exchange Act Rule 17a-3, FINRA stated that a member should consider asking the customer to review and update the name of and contact information for a trusted contact person on a periodic basis or when there is a reason to believe that there has been a change in the customer's situation.21

    19See Rule 4512(b).

    20See proposed Supplementary Material .06(c) to Rule 4512. The reference to the requirements of Rule 17a-3(a)(17) includes the requirements of Rule 17a-3(a)(17)(i)(A) in conjunction with Rule 17a-3(a)(17)(i)(D). In this regard, Rule 17a-3(a)(17)(i)(D) provides that the account record requirements in Rule 17a-3(a)(17)(i)(A) only apply to accounts for which the member, broker or dealer is, or has within the past 36 months been, required to make a suitability determination under the federal securities laws or under the requirements of a self-regulatory organization of which it is a member.

    21 A customer's request to change his or her trusted contact person may be a possible red flag of financial exploitation. For example, a senior customer instructing his registered representative to change his trusted contact person from an immediate family member to a previously unknown third party may be a red flag of financial exploitation.

    The Proposal would also require, at the time of account opening, a member to disclose in writing (which may be electronic) to the customer that the member or an associated person is authorized to contact the trusted contact person and disclose information about the customer's account to address possible financial exploitation, to confirm the specifics of the customer's current contact information, health status, or the identity of any legal guardian, executor, trustee or holder of a power of attorney, or as otherwise permitted by proposed Rule 2165. With respect to any account that was opened pursuant to a prior FINRA rule, a member would be required to provide this disclosure in writing, which may be electronic, when updating the information for the account pursuant to Rule 4512(b) either in the course of the member's routine and customary business or as otherwise required by applicable laws or rules.22

    22See proposed Supplementary Material .06(a) to Rule 4512. A member would be required to provide the disclosure at account opening or when updating information for existing accounts pursuant to Rule 4512(b), even if a customer fails to identify a trusted contact person. Among other things, such disclosure may assist a customer in making an informed decision about whether to provide the trusted contact person information.

    FINRA believes that members and customers will benefit from the trusted contact information in many different settings. For example, consistent with the disclosure, if a member has been unable to contact a customer after multiple attempts, a member could contact a trusted contact person to inquire about the customer's current contact information. Or if a customer is known to be ill or infirm and the member has been unable to contact the customer after multiple attempts, the member could contact a trusted contact person to inquire about the customer's health status. A member also could reach out to a trusted contact person if it suspects that the customer may be suffering from Alzheimer's disease, dementia or other forms of diminished capacity. A member could contact a trusted contact person to address possible financial exploitation of the customer before placing a temporary hold on a disbursement. In addition, as discussed below, pursuant to proposed Rule 2165, when information about a trusted contact person is available, a member must notify the trusted contact person orally or in writing, which may be electronic, if the member has placed a temporary hold on a disbursement of funds or securities from a customer's account, unless the member reasonably believes that the trusted contact person is engaged in the financial exploitation.23

    23See proposed Rule 2165(b)(1)(B)(ii).

    The trusted contact person is intended to be a resource for the member in administering the customer's account, protecting assets and responding to possible financial exploitation. A member may use its discretion in relying on any information provided by the trusted contact person. A member may elect to notify an individual that he or she was named as a trusted contact person; however, the Proposal would not require such notification.

    2. Temporary Hold on Disbursement of Funds or Securities

    The Proposal would permit a member that reasonably believes that financial exploitation may be occurring to place a temporary hold on the disbursement of funds or securities from the account of a “specified adult” customer.24 The Proposal would create no obligation to withhold a disbursement of funds or securities where financial exploitation may be occurring. In this regard, Supplementary Material to proposed Rule 2165 would explicitly state that the Rule provides members with a safe harbor from FINRA Rules 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade), 2150 (Improper Use of Customers' Securities or Funds; Prohibition Against Guarantees and Sharing in Accounts) and 11870 (Customer Account Transfer Contracts) “when members exercise discretion in placing temporary holds on disbursements of funds or securities from the accounts of specified adults under the circumstances denoted in the Rule.” 25 The proposed safe harbor would not apply to a decision not to place a hold; rather, as stated in the proposed rule, members would be provided with a safe harbor from certain FINRA rules when exercising their discretion to place a temporary hold. The proposed Supplementary Material would further state that the Rule does not require members to place temporary holds on disbursements of funds or securities from the account of a specified adult.26

    24See proposed Rule 2165(b)(1). Members also must consider any obligations under FINRA Rule 3310 (Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program) and the reporting of suspicious transactions required under 31 U.S.C. 5318(g) and the implementing regulations thereunder.

    25See proposed Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 2165. As discussed further below, Partial Amendment No. 1 clarifies the scope of Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 2165 by adding the words “associated persons” to the Proposal's safe harbor, and by providing that the safe harbor is available when members exercise discretion in placing a temporary hold “consistent with the requirements of this Rule.

    26See proposed Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 2165. FINRA understands that some members, pursuant to state law or their own policies, may already place temporary holds on disbursements from customers' accounts where financial exploitation is suspected.

    FINRA believes that “specified adults” may be particularly susceptible to financial exploitation.27 Proposed Rule 2165 would define “specified adult” as: (A) A natural person age 65 and older; 28 or (B) a natural person age 18 and older who the member reasonably believes has a mental or physical impairment that renders the individual unable to protect his or her own interests.29 Supplementary Material to proposed Rule 2165 would provide that a member's reasonable belief that a natural person age 18 and older has a mental or physical impairment that renders the individual unable to protect his or her own interests may be based on the facts and circumstances observed in the member's business relationship with the person.30 The Proposal would define the term “account” to mean any account of a member for which a specified adult has the authority to transact business.31

    27See Senior Investor Initiative (noting the increase in persons aged 65 and older living in the United States and the concentration of wealth in those persons during a time of downward yield pressure on conservative income-producing investments). See also FINRA Foundation Study (noting that respondents age 65 and over were more likely to be solicited to invest in a potentially fraudulent opportunity (93%), more likely to engage with the offer (49%) and more likely to have lost money (16%) than younger respondents); MetLife Study (noting the many forms of vulnerability that “make elders more susceptible to [financial] abuse,” including, among others, poor physical or mental health, lack of mobility, and isolation); Protecting Elderly Investors from Financial Exploitation: Questions to Consider (February 5, 2015) (noting that one of the greatest risk factors for diminished capacity is age).

    28See, e.g., Aging Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration on Aging (referring to the “older population” as persons “65 years or older”); Senior Investor Initiative (noting the examinations underlying the report “focused on investors aged 65 years old or older”).

    29See proposed Rule 2165(a)(1).

    30See proposed Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 2165. A member also may rely on other sources of information in making a determination under proposed Rule 2165(a)(1) (e.g., a court or government agency order finding a customer to be legally incompetent).

    31See proposed Rule 2165(a)(2).

    Because financial abuse may take many forms, FINRA has proposed a broad definition of “financial exploitation.” Specifically, financial exploitation would mean: (A) The wrongful or unauthorized taking, withholding, appropriation, or use of a specified adult's funds or securities; or (B) any act or omission by a person, including through the use of a power of attorney, guardianship, or any other authority, regarding a specified adult, to: (i) Obtain control, through deception, intimidation or undue influence, over the specified adult's money, assets or property; or (ii) convert the specified adult's money, assets or property.32

    32See proposed Rule 2165(a)(4).

    The Proposal would permit a member to place a temporary hold on a disbursement of funds or securities from the account of a specified adult if the member reasonably believes that financial exploitation of the specified adult has occurred, is occurring, has been attempted or will be attempted.33 A temporary hold pursuant to proposed Rule 2165 may be placed on a particular suspicious disbursement(s) but not on other, non-suspicious disbursements.34 The Proposal would not apply to transactions in securities.35

    33See proposed Rule 2165(b)(1)(A).

    34 FINRA recognizes that a single disbursement could involve all of the assets in an account.

    35 For example, the Proposal would not apply to a customer's order to sell his shares of a stock. However, if a customer requested that the proceeds of a sale of shares of a stock be disbursed out of his account at the member, then the Proposal could apply to the disbursement of the proceeds where the customer is a “specified adult” and there is reasonable belief of financial exploitation.

    The Proposal would require that a member's written supervisory procedures identify the title of each person authorized to place, terminate or extend a temporary hold on behalf of the member pursuant to Rule 2165. The Proposal would require that any such person be an associated person of the member who serves in a supervisory, compliance or legal capacity for the member.36

    36See proposed Rule 2165(c)(2). This provision is intended to ensure that a member's decision to place a temporary hold is elevated to an associated person with appropriate authority.

    If a member places a temporary hold, the Proposal would require the member to immediately initiate an internal review of the facts and circumstances that caused the member to reasonably believe that financial exploitation of the specified adult has occurred, is occurring, has been attempted or will be attempted.37 In addition, the Proposal would require the member to provide notification of the hold and the reason for the hold to all parties authorized to transact business on the account, including, but not limited to, the customer, and, if available, the trusted contact person, no later than two business days after the date that the member first placed the hold.38 While oral or written (including electronic) notification would be permitted under the Proposal, a member would be required to retain records evidencing the notification.39

    37See proposed Rule 2165(b)(1)(C).

    38See proposed Rule 2165(b)(1)(B). FINRA understands that a member may not necessarily be able to speak with or otherwise get a response from such persons within the two-business-day period. FINRA would consider, for example, a member's mailing a letter, sending an email, or placing a telephone call and leaving a message with appropriate person(s) within the two-business-day period to constitute notification for purposes of proposed Rule 2165. Moreover, as further discussed herein, FINRA would consider the inability to contact a trusted contact person to mean that the trusted contact person was not available for purposes of the Rule.

    39See proposed Rule 2165(d).

    The Proposal would not preclude a member from terminating a temporary hold after communicating with either the customer or trusted contact person. FINRA believes that a customer's objection to a temporary hold or information obtained during an exchange with the customer or trusted contact person may be used in determining whether a hold should be placed or lifted. FINRA believes that, while not dispositive, members should weigh a customer's objection against other information in determining whether a hold should be placed or lifted.

    While the Proposal would not require notifying the customer's registered representative of suspected financial exploitation, a customer's registered representative may be the first person to detect potential financial exploitation. If the detection occurs in another way, a member may choose to notify and discuss the suspected financial exploitation with the customer's registered representative.

    For purposes of proposed Rule 2165, FINRA would consider the lack of an identified trusted contact person, the inability to contact the trusted contact person or a person's refusal to act as a trusted contact person to mean that the trusted contact person was not available.40 A member may use the temporary hold provision under proposed Rule 2165 when a trusted contact person is not available.

    40 Moreover, as discussed below, Partial Amendment No. 1 provides an exception from the proposed requirement in Rule 2165 to notify not later than two business days after placing a temporary hold all parties authorized to transact business on an account if a party is unavailable or if the member reasonably believes that the party has engaged, is engaged, or will engage in the financial exploitation of a Specified Adult.

    The temporary hold authorized by proposed Rule 2165 would expire not later than 15 business days after the date that the member first placed the temporary hold on the disbursement of funds or securities, unless sooner terminated or extended by an order of a state regulator or agency or court of competent jurisdiction.41 In addition, provided that the member's internal review of the facts and circumstances supports its reasonable belief that the financial exploitation of the specified adult has occurred, is occurring, has been attempted or will be attempted, the Proposal would permit the member to extend the temporary hold for an additional 10 business days, unless sooner terminated or extended by an order of a state regulator or agency or court of competent jurisdiction.42

    41See proposed Rule 2165(b)(2).

    42See proposed Rule 2165(b)(3). As discussed below, Partial Amendment No. 1 clarifies that a member may place a temporary hold for up to 25 business days when the Rule's requirements are met, unless the temporary hold is “otherwise” terminated or extended by a state regulator or agency of competent jurisdiction or a court of competent jurisdiction.

    Proposed Rule 2165 would require members to retain records related to compliance with the Rule, which shall be readily available to FINRA, upon request. Retained records required by the Proposal are records of: (1) Requests for disbursement that may constitute financial exploitation of a specified adult and the resulting temporary hold; (2) the finding of a reasonable belief that financial exploitation has occurred, is occurring, has been attempted or will be attempted underlying the decision to place a temporary hold on a disbursement; (3) the name and title of the associated person that authorized the temporary hold on a disbursement; (4) notification(s) to the relevant parties pursuant to the Rule; and (5) the internal review of the facts and circumstances supporting the member's reasonable belief that the financial exploitation of the specified adult has occurred, is occurring, has been attempted or will be attempted.43

    43See proposed Rule 2165(d).

    The Proposal would require a member that anticipates using a temporary hold in appropriate circumstances to establish and maintain written supervisory procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the Rule, including procedures on the identification, escalation and reporting of matters related to financial exploitation of specified adults.44 The Proposal would require that the member's written supervisory procedures identify the title of each person authorized to place, terminate or extend a temporary hold on behalf of the member pursuant to the Rule.45 The Proposal would also require a member that anticipates placing a temporary hold pursuant to the Rule to develop and document training policies or programs reasonably designed to ensure that associated persons comply with the requirements of the Rule.46

    44See proposed Rule 2165(c)(1).

    45See proposed Rule 2165(c)(2).

    46See proposed Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 2165.

    C. Partial Amendment No. 1

    As discussed in FINRA's response to comments, infra, Partial Amendment No. 1 makes the following changes to the Proposal: (1) It clarifies the scope of Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 2165 by adding the words “associated persons” to the Proposal's safe harbor, and by providing that the safe harbor is available when members exercise discretion in placing a temporary hold “consistent with the requirements of this Rule;” (2) it clarifies that a member may place a temporary hold for up to 25 business days when the Rule's requirements are met, unless the temporary hold is “otherwise” terminated or extended by a state regulator or agency of competent jurisdiction or a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) it provides an exception from the proposed requirement in Rule 2165 to notify not later than two business days after placing a temporary hold all parties authorized to transact business on an account if a party is unavailable or if the member reasonably believes that the party has engaged, is engaged, or will engage in the financial exploitation of a Specified Adult; and (4) it extends the Proposal's implementation period from “no later than 180 days following Commission approval” to 12 months from Commission approval.

    III. Summary of Comments and FINRA's Responses

    The Commission received twenty-one (21) comment letters on the Proposal,47 and a response letter from FINRA.48 Twenty (20) commenters supported FINRA's efforts to protect seniors and other vulnerable adults but offered suggested modifications as to various aspects of the Proposal.49 The remaining commenter supported the proposed amendments to Rule 4512 regarding a trusted contact person, but opposed the proposed adoption of Rule 2165 that would permit temporary holds on disbursements where there is a reasonable belief of financial exploitation.50 Commenters' concerns and suggested modifications to the Proposal, along with FINRA's corresponding responses, are discussed by topic below.

    47See supra note 5.

    48See supra note 7.

    49See ACLI, BDA, CAI, Edward Jones, GSU, FSI, FSR, ICI, Investor Advocate, IRI, Janney, Lincoln, LPL, NAIFA, NASAA, PIABA, PIRC, SIFMA, Thomson Reuters and Wells Fargo.

    50See Cornell.

    A. Comment Letters in Support of the Proposal

    As noted above, twenty (20) commenters generally supported FINRA's Proposal.51 For instance, one commenter stated that adoption of FINRA's Proposal would better enable its members “to protect seniors and other vulnerable adults from financial exploitation,” and “to reach out to a trusted contact person whenever the member suspects financial exploitation of the account holder or when the member has concerns about the account holder's ability to continue to handle his or her financial affairs.” 52 Another commenter stated that the Proposal was “well-conceived to help member firms protect seniors.” 53 A third commenter asserted that its members had been trying to obtain trusted contact person information, and that the Proposal would provide additional guidance to members, create uniform practices, and make customers more willing to provide the information.54 This commenter also supported the proposed temporary hold on disbursements, which, it argued, would facilitate quick protection for vulnerable adults, while promptly resolving concerns that might be unfounded.55

    51See supra note 46.

    52See ICI.

    53See Janney.

    54See FSI.

    55Id.

    However, these twenty (20) commenters suggested modifications to the Proposal. These suggested modifications, along with FINRA's responses to the commenters, are addressed below.

    B. Suggested Modifications to the Proposal 1. Trusted Contact Person

    As noted above, the Proposal would amend Rule 4512 to require members to make reasonable efforts to obtain the name of and contact information for a trusted contact person upon the opening of a non-institutional customer's account. One commenter contended that, if a customer refuses to provide the trusted contact person information, Rule 4512 should require a member to maintain records of its reasonable efforts to obtain the trusted contact person information and the customer's refusal to provide the information.56 The commenter also believed that the rule text should set forth the minimum contact information that must be obtained (i.e., a name, telephone number, mailing address, email and relationship to customer) and that the information should be added to FINRA's new account application template.57

    56See PIRC.

    57Id.

    In its Response Letter, FINRA acknowledged that Rule 4512 does not specify the manner in which members should evidence compliance with the rule, or what contact information should be obtained for a trusted contact person.58 However, according to FINRA, because Rule 3110 (Supervision) requires members to have supervisory procedures in place that are reasonably designed to achieve compliance with FINRA rules, members would have the flexibility to reasonably design their supervisory systems to achieve compliance with the Proposal's requirements.59 To aid members in complying with the Proposal's requirements, FINRA agreed to update its new account application template to reflect the proposed amendments to Rule 4512.60

    58See FINRA Response Letter.

    59Id.

    60Id.

    a. Notification of Designation

    One commenter suggested modifying the proposed amendments to Rule 4512 to require members to notify an individual that he or she was named as a trusted contact person.61 Another commenter recommended that members voluntarily adopt a practice of notifying the trusted contact person of his or her designation.62

    61See GSU.

    62See Investor Advocate.

    In response, FINRA states its belief that the “administrative burdens of requiring notification would outweigh the benefits.” 63 However, FINRA notes that a member may elect to notify a trusted contact person of his or her designation (e.g., if the member determines that notifying the trusted contact person may be helpful in administering a customer account).64

    63See FINRA Response Letter.

    64Id.

    b. Notification of Temporary Hold

    As discussed above, proposed Rule 2165 would require a member to provide notification of a temporary hold and the reason for the hold to the trusted contact person, if available, not later than two business days after the date that the member first placed the hold. One commenter recommended voluntary, rather than mandatory, notification,65 while another asserted that a member should not be required to notify the trusted contact person if the member determines to lift the hold after speaking with all persons authorized to transact business on the account.66

    65See SIFMA.

    66See FSR.

    In response, FINRA encourages members to attempt to resolve a matter with a customer before placing a temporary hold, “unless a member reasonably believes that doing so would cause further harm to a specified adult.” 67 According to FINRA, if a temporary hold is not placed, there is no requirement in the rule to notify the trusted contact person.68 However, once a member places a temporary hold on a disbursement, FINRA believes a member should be required to notify a trusted contact person.69 In addition, FINRA strongly encourages members to notify the specified adult of the temporary hold as soon as practicable but in no case longer than the two business days required by Rule 2165.70

    67See FINRA Response Letter.

    68Id.

    69Id.

    70Id.

    Another commenter suggested that, rather than disclosing only that the temporary hold was placed, members should have discretion to disclose and discuss any information relevant to the financial exploitation investigation to the trusted contact person.71 In its Response Letter, FINRA states that “the proposed amendments to Rule 4512 explicitly permit members to contact the trusted contact person and disclose information about the customer's account to address possible financial exploitation and as permitted by Rule 2165.” 72 According to FINRA, members are therefore permitted to disclose and discuss information relevant to a financial exploitation investigation to a trusted contact person.73

    71See IRI.

    72See FINRA Response Letter.

    73Id.

    c. Update

    As previously discussed, with respect to an account that was opened pursuant to a prior FINRA rule (“existing account”), Rule 4512(b) requires members to update the trusted contact information for the account whenever they update the account information in the course of their routine and customary business, or as required by other applicable laws or rules. One commenter recommended a shorter recurring timeframe (e.g., annually) during which members must reach out to their non-institutional customers regarding the trusted contact person information.74 In response, FINRA declined to make the suggested change.75 FINRA states that applying the current standard in Rule 4512(b) to the trusted contact person information would ensure that members use reasonable efforts to obtain the information for existing accounts in the course of their routine business, while not imposing undue burdens on members to contact accountholders more frequently.76

    74See PIRC.

    75See FINRA Response Letter.

    76Id.

    With respect to any account subject to the requirements of Exchange Act Rule 17a-3(a)(17) to periodically update customer records, proposed Supplementary Material .06(c) to Rule 4512 would require a member to make reasonable efforts to obtain or, if previously obtained, to update where appropriate the name of and contact information for a trusted contact person consistent with the requirements in Rule 17a-3(a)(17).77 One commenter requested clarification on how the update requirement would apply to automated compliance processes or tech platforms that permit a client to voluntarily change information at their convenience.78 In response, FINRA states that the requirements of Rule 17a-3(a)(17) apply to a wide range of account information and would not be unique to trusted contact person information.79 For any account subject to Rule 17a-3(a)(17), FINRA believes that any automated compliance process or tech platform would need to comply with the requirements of Rule 17a-3(a)(17).80

    77 The Commission notes that, while FINRA Rule 4512 would impose on accounts subject to the requirements of Rule 17a-3(a)(17) a requirement to update trusted contact information, Rule 17a-3(a)(17) by its terms imposes no independent requirement to do so, and Rule 4512 has no effect on a member's obligations under Rule 17a-3(a)(17).

    78See SIFMA.

    79See FINRA Response Letter.

    80Id.

    Another commenter requested confirmation that the obligation to obtain trusted contact person information for existing accounts in the course of the member's routine and customary business would be satisfied where the member updated the account within the 36-month period in accordance with the requirements of Rule 17a-3(a)(17)(i)(D).81 In response, FINRA states that, consistent with the requirements of Rule 4512(b) discussed above, the requirement to update the account information may be triggered earlier than the 36-month period if the member updates the information for the account either in the course of the member's routine and customary business or as otherwise required by applicable laws or rules.82

    81See FSR.

    82See FINRA Response Letter.

    2. Safe Harbor

    As set forth in the Proposal, Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 2165 states that members will be provided a safe harbor from FINRA Rules 2010, 2150 and 11870 when members exercise discretion to place temporary holds on disbursements of funds or securities from the accounts of specified adults under the circumstances denoted in the Rule. Rather than providing a safe harbor when members choose to place temporary holds, three commenters supported requiring members to place temporary holds where there is a reasonable belief of financial exploitation.83 In response, FINRA states its belief that a member can better protect its customers from financial exploitation if the member can use its discretion in placing a temporary hold on a disbursement of funds or securities from a customer's account.84 Accordingly, FINRA declined to make the suggested change.85

    83See GSU, PIABA, and PIRC.

    84See FINRA Response Letter.

    85Id.

    One commenter requested that the safe harbor language be moved into the body of the rule text and the protection be extended to registered representatives of the member.86 In its Response Letter, FINRA states that, because Supplementary Material is part of the rule, it would not move the language as requested.87

    86See NAIFA.

    87See FINRA Response Letter.

    Two commenters requested that the Supplementary Material be revised to explicitly state that the safe harbor applies to associated persons.88 In response, and as discussed in Partial Amendment No. 1, FINRA is proposing to incorporate associated persons into the rule text, which is consistent with FINRA's original interpretation of the scope of the safe harbor.89 FINRA states that, as amended, proposed Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 2165 would explicitly provide that members and their associated persons have a safe harbor from FINRA Rules 2010, 2150 and 11870 when members exercise discretion in placing temporary holds on disbursements of funds or securities from the accounts of specified adults consistent with the requirements of Rule 2165.90

    88See FSR and Wells Fargo.

    89See FINRA Response Letter.

    90Id.

    Another commenter suggested that the inclusion of Rules 2010 and 2150 in Supplementary Material .01 would create protections far beyond the scope of what is necessary to encourage members to act on financial exploitation.91 In response, FINRA states its belief that it is appropriate to include Rules 2010 and 2150 in Supplementary Material .01, as the rules may be implicated by a member's exercise of discretion to place a temporary hold on a disbursement.92 This same commenter also suggested that when a member exercises discretion and chooses not to place a hold, then the member should not be granted a safe harbor from duties that they would otherwise have under FINRA rules.93 In response, and as noted above, FINRA states that the proposed safe harbor does not apply to a decision not to place a hold; rather, proposed Rule 2165 explicitly states that it provides members with a safe harbor under FINRA rules when members exercise discretion in placing a temporary hold on disbursements of funds or securities.94

    91See GSU.

    92See FINRA Response Letter.

    93See GSU.

    94See FINRA Response Letter.

    Another commenter requested revising Rule 2165 to clarify that a member's failure to place a hold on a customer account shall not be deemed to be an abrogation of the member's duties under FINRA rules.95 In its Response Letter, FINRA asserts that Supplementary Material .01 clearly states that proposed Rule 2165 contains a safe harbor, and that the Rule does not require placing a hold on a disbursement.96

    95See ICI.

    96See FINRA Response Letter.

    Three commenters suggested that any associated person acting in good faith should not be subject to complaints reportable on Form U4 (Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer), and that the safe harbor should be extended to include FINRA Rule 4530 (Reporting Requirements).97 In its Response Letter, FINRA states that the proposed safe harbor from FINRA rules would not extend to complaints about an associated person that are reportable on Form U4.98 However, FINRA notes that an associated person may respond to any such complaints on Form U4, including with an explanation of actions taken pursuant to proposed Rule 2165.99 FINRA further states that the proposed safe harbor from FINRA rules would also not extend to reporting required pursuant to Rule 4530, although FINRA would consider whether a member or associated person had acted consistent with the proposed rule when FINRA assesses reported information about a hold on a disbursement.100

    97See BDA, Janney, and SIFMA.

    98See FINRA Response Letter.

    99Id.

    100Id.

    Lastly, a commenter stated that members may be subject to FINRA sanctions (outside of Rules 2010, 2150 and 11870 violations) and private claims, and requested that FINRA extend the safe harbor to cover FINRA sanctions and private claims for members' reasonable determinations regarding whether or not to place a temporary hold on a disbursement.101 Another commenter suggested that the safe harbor be extended to cover protection against liability for actions taken in connection with notifying the appropriate state authorities of financial exploitation.102 In response, FINRA states that proposed Rule 2165 is designed to provide regulatory relief to members by providing a safe harbor from FINRA rules for a determination to place a temporary hold.103 Nevertheless, some states may separately provide immunity to members under state law.104

    101See CAI.

    102See NAIFA.

    103See FINRA Response Letter.

    104Id.

    3. Transactions

    Six commenters supported extending the scope of proposed Rule 2165 to apply to transactions.105 In its Response Letter, FINRA states that, although proposed Rule 2165 does not apply to transactions, FINRA may consider extending the safe harbor to transactions in securities in future rulemaking.106

    105See FSI, IRI, Janney, Reuters, SIFMA and Wells Fargo.

    106See FINRA Response Letter.

    4. Diminished Capacity

    Two commenters suggested extending the safe harbor beyond financial exploitation to address a customer's diminished capacity.107 In its Response letter, FINRA recognizes the challenges members face in addressing diminished capacity and that this is an important issue for further consideration, and that it can make seniors especially vulnerable to financial exploitation.108 FINRA states that a member could contact a trusted contact person if it suspects that the customer may be suffering from Alzheimer's disease, dementia or other forms of diminished capacity.109 FINRA further believes that a person with diminished capacity would generally qualify as a “specified adult” as defined by proposed Rule 2165(a)(1)(B).110

    107See Lincoln and SIFMA.

    108See FINRA Response Letter.

    109Id.

    110Id.

    5. Specified Adults

    Proposed Rule 2165 would define “specified adult” as: (A) A natural person age 65 and older; or (B) a natural person age 18 and older who the member reasonably believes has a mental or physical impairment that renders the individual unable to protect his or her own interests. With respect to persons younger than age 65, two commenters suggested revising the definition to cover other vulnerable persons (e.g., persons who would be deemed vulnerable under state statute).111 In response, FINRA states its belief that the suggested change would present operational challenges for members, as the customers covered by the definition would vary by jurisdiction.112 Furthermore, FINRA recognizes that customers who do not have a physical or mental impairment may also be vulnerable; however, proposed Rule 2165 is intended to cover those customers most susceptible to financial exploitation.113 As such, FINRA declined to make the suggested change at this time.114

    111See NASAA and PIRC.

    112See FINRA Response Letter.

    113Id.

    114Id.

    Another commenter suggested revising proposed Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 2165 to provide that belief of impairment shall not create an assumption or implication that a member or its associated persons are qualified to make, or responsible for making, determinations about impairment.115 As stated in its Response Letter, FINRA declined to revise the rule text as suggested because FINRA does not intend proposed Rule 2165 to create an assumption or implication that a member or its associated persons are qualified to make impairment determinations beyond the limited purposes of the proposed rule.116 FINRA states that the “reasonable belief” standard required by proposed Rule 2165 for a member to place a temporary hold imposes no such requirement.117

    115See NAIFA.

    116See FINRA Response Letter.

    117Id.

    6. Account

    As noted above, proposed Rule 2165 would define “account” to mean any account of a member for which a specified adult has the authority to transact business. One commenter suggested that the definition of “account” may be overly broad, and suggested clarifying that transactions in securities, such as variable insurance products, sold by a broker-dealer, but not custodied in a brokerage account, are not subject to proposed Rule 2165.118 In response, FINRA states that proposed Rule 2165 applies to disbursements of funds or securities out of a customer account, and does not apply to transactions in securities.119

    118See ACLI.

    119See FINRA Response Letter.

    7. Disbursements

    Two commenters expressed concern that a temporary hold pursuant to proposed Rule 2165 may not comply with the requirements of Section 22(e) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“1940 Act”).120 FINRA states in response that most mutual fund customer accounts are serviced and record-kept by intermediaries.121 According to FINRA, in the small proportion of circumstances where mutual fund customers purchase shares directly from the mutual fund, the customer's account may be maintained by a mutual fund's principal underwriter.122 Based on discussions with SEC staff, FINRA does not believe that a broker-dealer's delay of a disbursement of mutual fund redemption proceeds to its customers in reliance on proposed Rule 2165 and based on a reasonable belief of financial exploitation of the customer would be imputed to the mutual fund, including where the broker-dealer is the fund's principal underwriter.123 However, this conclusion is limited to situations where the mutual fund does not have a role in the disbursement of redemption proceeds from the customer's account held by the broker-dealer, including any role in the decision to delay the disbursement of funds in reliance on proposed Rule 2165.124

    120See CAI and Lincoln.

    121See FINRA Response Letter.

    122Id.

    123Id.

    124Id.

    Another commenter requested clarification on how ACATS transfers would be treated under proposed Rule 2165.125 For purposes of proposed Rule 2165, FINRA responds that it would consider disbursements to include ACATS transfers but, as with any temporary hold, a member would need to have a reasonable belief of financial exploitation in order to place a temporary hold on the processing of an ACATS transfer request pursuant to the Rule.126 FINRA recognizes that, depending on the facts and circumstances, placing a temporary hold on the processing of an ACATS transfer request could also lead the member to place a temporary hold on all assets in an account, for the same reasons.127 However, according to FINRA, if a temporary hold is placed on the processing of an ACATS transfer request, the member must permit disbursements from the account where there is not a reasonable belief of financial exploitation regarding such disbursements.128 FINRA also reminds members of the application of FINRA Rule 2140 (Interfering with the Transfer of Customer Accounts in the Context of Employment Disputes) to the extent that there is not a reasonable belief of financial exploitation.129

    125See SIFMA.

    126See FINRA Response Letter.

    127Id.

    128Id.

    129Id.

    Another commenter requested clarification on where funds from a disbursement subject to a temporary hold should be maintained by a member.130 FINRA responds that, while the temporary hold on a disbursement is in effect, the funds or securities would remain in a customer's account and would not be released.131

    130See ACLI.

    131See FINRA Response Letter.

    8. Persons Permitted To Place Temporary Holds

    Proposed Rule 2165 would provide that a member may place the hold on a disbursement, provided that the member's written supervisory procedures identify the title of each person authorized to place, terminate or extend a hold on behalf of the member and that each such person be serving in a supervisory, compliance or legal capacity for the member. One commenter suggested expanding the categories of persons authorized to place holds on behalf of a member to include persons who have been designated by the member to review cases involving specified adults as part of the member's escalation process.132 In its Response Letter, FINRA states that, while the benefits of preventing financial exploitation are significant to both the member and customer, placing a temporary hold on a disbursement is a serious action on the part of a member and may lead to difficult but necessary conversations with customers that could impact the member-customer relationship.133 FINRA believes that the current form of proposed Rule 2165 promotes administrative clarity, that it is reasonable to limit authority for placing holds on disbursements to a select group of individuals associated with the member, that persons serving in a supervisory, compliance or legal capacity are well positioned to make these determinations on behalf of the member, and that such a limitation is not a substantial burden to members that wish to rely on the rule's safe harbor provision.134 Accordingly, FINRA declined to make the suggested revision.135

    132See SIFMA.

    133See FINRA Response Letter.

    134Id.

    135Id.

    9. Period of Temporary Hold

    As set forth in the Proposal, the temporary hold authorized by proposed Rule 2165 would expire not later than 15 business days for any initial period and up to 10 business days in any subsequent period after the date that the member first placed the temporary hold on the disbursement of funds or securities, unless sooner terminated or extended by an order of a state regulator or agency or court of competent jurisdiction. Two commenters suggested that the time periods may not be adequate to give state regulators and agencies or courts time to take action on a matter.136 Another commenter suggested that regulatory approval be required prior to extending a temporary hold beyond the initial 15 business day period.137 FINRA responds that, in proposing the time periods, it has tried to strike a reasonable balance in giving members adequate time to investigate and contact the relevant parties, seeking input from a state regulator or agency or a court order if needed, but also not permitting an open-ended or overly long hold period in recognition of the seriousness of placing a temporary hold on a disbursement.138

    136See IRI and PIRC.

    137See NASAA.

    138See FINRA Response Letter.

    Another commenter stated that the rule text, as set forth in the Proposal, could be read to require the termination or extension of the temporary hold by the state regulator or agency of competent jurisdiction or a court of competent jurisdiction prior to the initial hold being extended for an additional 10 business day period.139 In response, FINRA states that it did not intend to impose any such limitation.140 As discussed in the Partial Amendment No. 1, FINRA states that it is proposing to revise Rule 2165(b)(2) and (3) to provide that a member may place a temporary hold for up to 25 business days when the Rule's requirements are met, unless the temporary hold is “otherwise” terminated or extended by a state regulator or agency of competent jurisdiction or a court of competent jurisdiction.141 According to FINRA, this proposed change is intended to recognize that a state regulator or agency or a court may terminate or extend a hold on a disbursement at any time during the time period provided by proposed Rule 2165(b)(2) and (3).142

    139See SIFMA.

    140See FINRA Response Letter.

    141Id.

    142Id.

    One commenter suggested that Rule 2165 should explicitly provide that a member must terminate a temporary hold as soon as the member's internal review of the facts and circumstances that were the basis for the hold does not support a reasonable belief that financial exploitation is occurring or is attempted.143 In response, FINRA states that it declines to revise the rule text as suggested, but that it would expect a member to lift a temporary hold when it no longer has a reasonable belief of financial exploitation (e.g., when subsequent events indicate that the threat of financial exploitation no longer exists).144

    143See ICI.

    144See FINRA Response Letter.

    10. Notifying All Parties Authorized To Transact Business

    Under proposed Rule 2165(b)(1)(B)(i), a member is required to notify all parties authorized to transact business on an account of the temporary hold and the reason for the temporary hold when the member places a temporary hold on a disbursement. Two commenters expressed concern that the rule text does not contemplate a party being unavailable, and that notifying all parties could lead to increased risk for the customer where a party is the suspected perpetrator of the financial exploitation.145 The commenters suggested providing an exception from the notification requirement where a party is unavailable or where the member reasonably suspects that a party has engaged, is engaged, or will engage in the financial exploitation of the Specified Adult.146 In response, FINRA states its belief that, although a member will need to exercise discretion in forming a reasonable belief that a party authorized to transact business on an account is engaged in the financial exploitation, FINRA also believes it is appropriate to provide an exception from contacting a party authorized to transact business on an account that is comparable to the exception provided for notifying a customer's trusted contact person.147 As stated in Partial Amendment No. 1, FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 2165(b)(1)(B)(i) to provide that a member is required to notify all parties authorized to transact business on an account, unless a party is unavailable or the member reasonably believes that the party has engaged, is engaged, or will engage in the financial exploitation of the Specified Adult.148

    145See LPL and SIFMA.

    146Id.

    147See FINRA Response Letter.

    148Id.

    Another commenter suggested that requiring notification of all parties authorized to transact business on an account could inadvertently interfere with the ability to use the safe harbor in Rule 2165 if a member has trouble locating one or more authorized parties.149 In its Response Letter, FINRA states it does not believe that the notification requirement should impact a member's decision to place a hold as it is a post-hold obligation.150

    149See IRI.

    150See FINRA Response Letter.

    11. Notifying Immediate Family Member

    Due to the privacy and operational challenges noted by commenters in response to the proposal in Regulatory Notice 15-37, the Proposal did not require notifying an immediate family member when a temporary hold is placed. Three commenters supported removing the requirement to contact an immediate family member.151 One commenter agreed that requiring a member to contact an immediate family member may be overly restrictive and result in privacy issues, but suggested that the safe harbor be expanded to cover instances in which a member uses its discretion to contact a person reasonably believed to be connected with the account owner when the trusted contact person is unavailable.152 In its Response Letter, FINRA states that expanding proposed Rule 2165 to authorize members to contact any person reasonably believed to be connected with an account owner may create the same privacy and operational challenges raised by commenters to Regulatory Notice 15-37.153 However, FINRA states that proposed Rule 2165 would not preclude a member from contacting an immediate family member or any other person provided that the member has customer consent to do so.154

    151See GSU, IRI and NASAA.

    152See Wells Fargo.

    153See FINRA Response Letter.

    154Id.

    12. Notification Period

    Proposed Rule 2165 would require the member to provide notification of the temporary hold and the reason for the hold to all parties authorized to transact business on the account and the trusted contact person, if available, no later than two business days after placing the hold. Three commenters suggested extending the time period for notification beyond two business days.155 FINRA declined to extend the time period for notification beyond two business days, given its belief in the need for urgency in dealing with financial exploitation and to remain consistent with the NASAA model state act.156

    155See CAI, IRI and SIFMA.

    156See FINRA Response Letter.

    13. Privacy Considerations

    Three commenters requested clarification on what information may be shared pursuant to the Proposal without violating Regulation S-P.157 In response, FINRA states that disclosures to a trusted contact person pursuant to proposed Rules 2165 and 4512(a)(1)(F) would be consistent with Regulation S-P, because such disclosures would be made with customers' consent or authorization,158 to protect against fraud or unauthorized transactions, or to comply with federal, state, or local laws, rules and other applicable legal requirements, including the requirements of Rule 2165.159

    157See BDA, CAI and FSR.

    158 FINRA notes that, under the Proposal, members would be required to disclose to customers the purposes for obtaining the trusted contact information, including the possible disclosure of account information to a trusted contact in specified circumstances, and customers would authorize or consent to such disclosure by voluntarily providing the trusted contact information. See FINRA Response Letter.

    159See FINRA Response Letter. The Commission staff confirmed the accuracy of this interpretation during discussions with FINRA.

    14. Policies and Procedures

    Proposed Rule 2165 would require a member that anticipates using a temporary hold in appropriate circumstances to establish and maintain written supervisory procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the Rule, including, but not limited to, procedures on the identification, escalation and reporting of matters related to financial exploitation of specified adults. One commenter suggested requiring all members to establish and maintain written supervisory procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the Rule.160 In its Response Letter, FINRA states that, because placing a temporary hold is discretionary, not mandatory, FINRA declines to make the suggested change.161

    160See PIRC.

    161See FINRA Response Letter.

    Another commenter recommended requiring the written supervisory procedures to include provisions designed to ensure that the member lifts a temporary hold as soon as practicable after the member conducts an internal review and finds that the hold is not warranted.162 As noted above, FINRA expects that a member would lift a temporary hold when it no longer has a reasonable belief of financial exploitation.163 This same commenter also suggested that it is unclear whether the member can freeze all owners' access to the account, and recommended that FINRA require a member's written supervisory procedures to include provisions regarding the impact of a temporary hold on those joint account owners who are not believed to be the subject of financial exploitation.164 In response, FINRA states that Proposed Rule 2165 would permit placing a temporary hold only where there is a reasonable belief of financial exploitation and only with regard to a specific disbursement(s).165 Accordingly, FINRA declined to make the suggested change.166

    162See ICI.

    163See FINRA Response Letter.

    164See ICI.

    165See FINRA Response Letter.

    166Id.

    15. Training

    The Proposal would require members to develop and document training policies or programs reasonably designed to ensure that associated persons comply with the requirements of Rule 2165. One commenter supported applying the training requirement to associated persons, but suggested that FINRA should oversee training, including incorporating into its FINRA Rule 1250 (Continuing Education Requirements) training a module on the requirements of the Proposal and recognizing financial exploitation of vulnerable adults.167 In its Response Letter, FINRA states that the Proposal provides members with reasonable discretion in determining how best to structure their training policies or programs.168 FINRA states that, while it has developed material for the Continuing Education Regulatory Element Program that addresses the financial exploitation of senior investors, members are responsible for developing and documenting their training policies and programs.169 FINRA states that it will consider whether to develop additional continuing education content specifically addressing financial exploitation of seniors and providing additional guidance to members, as appropriate.170

    167See GSU.

    168See FINRA Response Letter.

    169Id.

    170Id.

    16. Reporting

    One commenter supported not requiring as part of proposed Rule 2165 that members report financial exploitation to local adult protective services and law enforcement, asserting that such a permissive approach would allow firms and advisors to undertake a reasonable inquiry and to decide whether or not to freeze an account without considering their own potential liability.171 In contrast, several other commenters recommended revising proposed Rule 2165 to require members to report financial exploitation to state and local authorities, such as adult protective services and law enforcement, or FINRA.172 One such commenter also supported requiring members to provide any account information requested by state and local authorities to conduct their investigations.173 Another suggested clarifying in Supplementary Material to Rule 2165 how members should coordinate with a state regulator or agency to confirm or validate suspicions regarding financial exploitation.174

    171See FSI.

    172See Investor Advocate, NAIFA, NASAA and PIABA.

    173See Investor Advocate.

    174See FSR.

    In its Response Letter, FINRA states that, while proposed Rule 2165 does not require members to report a reasonable belief of financial exploitation to a state or local authority, some states mandate such reporting by financial institutions, including broker-dealers.175 Given the varying and evolving reporting requirements under state law, FINRA believes that states are well positioned to determine whether a broker-dealer or any other entity has satisfied its reporting requirements under state law.176 FINRA states that it would expect members to comply with all applicable state requirements, including reporting requirements, and FINRA staff may request records related to state reporting as part of the examination process.177 Even where a state may not require such reporting, FINRA believes that members may find it beneficial to contact relevant state agencies, such as state securities regulators or state or local adult protective services, to assist in resolving matters involving possible financial abuse.178

    175See FINRA Response Letter.

    176Id.

    177Id.

    178Id.

    17. Implementation Period

    If the Commission approves the Proposal, some commenters requested that members have from 12 to 18 months to implement the requirements.179 As a general matter, these commenters noted that additional time is needed to make all of the necessary adjustments to their internal systems, including updates needed to incorporate the trusted contact person-related requirements. As discussed in the Partial Amendment No. 1, FINRA states it has determined to extend the implementation period before effectiveness from “no later than 180 days following Commission approval” to 12 months from Commission approval.180 FINRA intends this extended period of implementation to provide members more time to commit the necessary resources to implement the Proposal.181 FINRA believes this change is an appropriate balance of the commenters' concerns and the strong desire to provide tools to members to address possible financial exploitation under the Proposal as soon as practicable.182

    179See BDA, Edward Jones, FSR, LPL, Reuters, SIFMA and Wells Fargo.

    180See FINRA Response Letter.

    181Id.

    182Id.

    C. Opposition to Proposed Rule 2165

    One commenter supported the proposed amendments to Rule 4512 regarding a trusted contact person, but opposed the proposed adoption of Rule 2165 that would permit temporary holds on disbursements where there is a reasonable belief of financial exploitation.183 This commenter asserted, among other things, that the “reasonable belief” standard for placing the temporary hold was “too low relative to the potential harm to a customer from not being able to withdraw funds or securities,” and that, absent a clearer standard, “Rule 2165 creates an incentive to place a hold on an account as the default response to concerns about a specified adult.” 184 In its Response Letter, FINRA states that it believes the Proposal is needed to provide members with a “defined” way to respond to situations where there is a reasonable belief of financial exploitation of seniors and other vulnerable adults, including the ability to share customer information with a trusted contact person.185 Furthermore, FINRA believes that the Proposal would promote investor protection by providing members with a safe harbor from FINRA rules that might otherwise discourage them from exercising discretion to protect customers through placing a temporary hold on disbursements of funds or securities.186

    183See Cornell.

    184Id.

    185See FINRA Response Letter.

    186Id.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments on Partial Amendment No. 1

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended by Partial Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-FINRA-2016-039 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2016-039. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2016-039 and should be submitted on or before March 2, 2017. V. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully considered the Proposal, the comments received, FINRA's response to the comments, and Partial Amendment No. 1. Based on its review of the record, the Commission finds that the Proposal, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association.187 In particular, the Commission finds that the Proposal, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange Act,188 which requires, among other things, that FINRA's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

    187 In approving the Proposal, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, the Commission has also considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    188 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).

    As discussed above, the Proposal, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, would: (1) Require members to make reasonable efforts to obtain the name of and contact information for a trusted contact person for a customer's account; and (2) permit members to place temporary holds on disbursements of funds or securities from the accounts of specified customers, where there is a reasonable belief that these customers have been, are being, or will be subject to financial exploitation.

    The Commission has considered the twenty-one (21) comment letters received on the Proposal,189 along with FINRA's Response Letter, and Partial Amendment No. 1.190 The Commission acknowledges the supportive commenters' positions, such that adoption of the Proposal would better enable FINRA members “to protect seniors and other vulnerable adults from financial exploitation,” 191 that the Proposal was “well-conceived to help member firms protect seniors,” 192 and that it would provide additional guidance to members, create uniform practices, and make customers more willing to provide trusted contact information.193

    189See supra note 5.

    190See supra note 7.

    191See ICI.

    192See Janney.

    193See FSI.

    The Commission also acknowledges commenters' concerns and recommended modifications to the Proposal. However, it also notes that FINRA's response to comments addresses many of these concerns, and offers additional clarifications regarding FINRA's expectations regarding the operation of the Proposal. For example, FINRA clarified that the notification requirement is a post-hold obligation, and that the proposed safe harbor does not apply to a decision not to place a hold. FINRA also addresses a concern of several commenters through its proposed partial amendment, which makes explicit in the rule text that associated persons are covered by the rule's safe harbor, a position FINRA indicated is consistent with its original interpretation of the scope of the safe harbor. Throughout its response to comments, FINRA has emphasized its attempts to balance members' operational practicalities with the serious investor protection concerns raised both by the specter of financial exploitation and the seriousness of placing a temporary hold on a disbursement. Moreover, FINRA has addressed commenters' questions about the intersection of the Proposal with both Section 22(e) of the 1940 Act, and with Regulation S-P, based on its discussions with Commission staff.

    Taking into consideration the comments and FINRA's responses, the Commission finds that the Proposal is consistent with the Exchange Act. Specifically, the Commission believes that the Proposal will protect investors and the public interest by, among other things, providing FINRA members with means by which they can respond to situations where there is a reasonable belief of financial exploitation of seniors and other vulnerable adults. The Commission additionally believes that the Proposal will promote investor protection by providing FINRA members with a safe harbor from the purported violation of certain FINRA rules, without which such members might otherwise be discouraged from placing a temporary hold on disbursements of funds or securities where there is a reasonable belief of financial exploitation.

    The Commission believes that FINRA's responses, as discussed in more detail above, appropriately addressed commenters' concerns and adequately explained FINRA's reasons for modifying or declining to modify its Proposal. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the approach proposed by FINRA is appropriate and designed to protect investors and the public interest, consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.

    VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) 194 of the Exchange Act that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2016-039), as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, be and hereby is approved on an accelerated basis.

    194Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.195

    195 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02645 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79957; File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2017-07] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New Type of Logical Port Known as a Purge Port February 3, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on January 23, 2017, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,4 which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule to modify its fee schedule applicable to the Exchange's options platform (“EDGX Options”) to identify and to set fees for Purge Ports. The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 22.11, Mass Cancellation of Trading Interest, to reflect the proposed Purge Port functionality.

    The text of the proposed changes to Exchange Rule 22.11 is attached as Exhibit 5A. The proposed changes to the fee schedule are attached as Exhibit 5B. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at www.bats.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    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.

    (A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to modify the Options Logical Port Fee section of the EDGX Options fee schedule to identify and adopt fees for Purge Ports. The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 22.11, Mass Cancellation of Trading Interest, to reflect the proposed Purge Port functionality. The purpose of the proposed rule change is to offer Members,5 including Market Makers,6 with an additional tool to manage risk and exercise additional control over their quotations.

    5 A Member is defined as “any registered broker or dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.” See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).

    6 Market Maker is defined as “an Options Member registered with the Exchange for the purpose of making markets in options contracts traded on the Exchange and that is vested with the rights and responsibilities specified in Chapter XXII of these Rules.” See Exchange Rule 16.1(a)(37).

    Background

    A logical port represents a port established by the Exchange within the Exchange's system for trading and billing purposes. Each logical port established is specific to a Member or non-Member and grants that Member or non-Member the ability to accomplish a specific Member function, such as order entry, order cancellation, or data receipt. In addition, logical ports enable Users,7 including Market Makers, to access information such as execution reports, execution report messages, auction notifications, and administrative data through a single feed. The Exchange also offers a bulk-quoting interface which allows Users of EDGX Options to submit and update multiple bids and offers in one message through logical ports enabled for bulk-quoting.

    7 A User on EDGX Options is either a member of EDGX Options or a sponsored participant who is authorized to obtain access to the Exchange's system pursuant to EDGX Rule 11.3. See Exchange Rule 16.1(a)(63).

    Purge Ports

    The Exchange now proposes to modify the EDGX Options fee schedule to identify fees for Purge Ports, a new type of logical port which would enable Options Members8 to cancel/purge all open orders, or a subset thereof, across multiple logical ports through a single cancel/purge message. The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 22.11, Mass Cancellation of Trading Interest, to reflect the proposed Purge Port functionality. The proposed ports are designed to assist Options Members, including Market Makers, in the management of, and risk control over, their quotes, particularly if the Options Member is dealing with a large number of options. For example, if an Options Member detects market indications that may influence the direction or bias of his or her quotes the Options Member may use the proposed Purge Port(s) to reduce uncertainty and to manage risk by purging all quotes in a number of options seamlessly to avoid unintended executions, while continuing to evaluate the direction of the market. While Purge Ports will be available to all Options Members, the Exchange anticipates they will be used primarily by Market Makers.

    8 “Options Member” is defined as “a firm, or organization that is registered with the Exchange pursuant to Chapter XVII of these Rules for purposes of participating in options trading on EDGX Options as an `Options Order Entry Firm' or `Options Market Maker.'” See Exchange Rule 16.1(a)(38).

    Options Members may currently cancel orders through their existing logical ports and may send a mass cancel message pertaining to multiple contracts cancelling all orders sent though a particular logical port. The Exchange now proposes to expand the ability of Options Members to cancel orders through the proposed Purge Ports, which would enable them to cancel/purge all open orders, or a subset thereof, across multiple logical ports through a single cancel/purge message. The mass cancel request may be limited to a subset of orders by identifying the range of orders to be purged.9 An Options Member may also request via a Purge Port that the Exchange block all or a subset of its new inbound bids, offers, and orders in all series of options or in all options for a specified underlying security. The block will remain in effect until the Options Member requests the Exchange remove the block.

    9 The Options Member may identify a subset of orders based on their own risk profile by selecting orders across series, strike price, and/or expiration date.

    The Exchange proposes to modify the Options Logical Port Fee section of the EDGX Options fee schedule to adopt a fee for Purge Ports of $750 per port/per month. The Exchange also proposed to add language to its fee schedule making clear that logical port fees, including Purge Ports, are limited to logical ports within the primary data center.10 No logical port fees, including for Purge Ports, will be assessed for redundant secondary data center ports. New requests will be prorated for the first month of service. Cancellation requests are billed in full month increments as firms are required to pay for the service for the remainder of the month, unless the session is terminated within the first month of service.

    10 The Exchange does not currently charge fees for other forms of logical port connectivity.

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 22.11, Mass Cancellation of Trading Interest, to reflect the proposed Purge Port functionality. Exchange Rule 22.11 currently states that an Options Member may simultaneously cancel all its bids, offers, and orders in all series of options or in all options for a specified underlying security by requesting the Exchange staff to effect such cancellation. First, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 22.11 to state that an Options Member may also cancel all or a subset of its bids, offers, and orders in all series of options or in all options for a specified underlying security by requesting the Exchange to effect such cancellation.11 The Exchange further proposes to amend Rule 22.11 to state that an Options Member may also request that the Exchange block all or a subset of its new inbound bids, offers, and orders in all series of options or in all options for a specified underlying security. Rule 22.11 will further state that the block will remain in effect until the Options Member requests the Exchange remove the block.

    11 The Exchange also proposes to the remove reference to the Exchange “staff” as such cancellation request may also be through the logical ports or the proposed Purge Ports.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 12 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 13 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,14 in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among Members and other persons using any facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because offering Options Members, including Market Makers, designated Purge Ports would enhance their ability to manage quotes, quote traffic, and their quoting obligations,15 which would, in turn, improve their risk controls to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that the Purge Ports would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities because designating Purge Ports for purges only may encourage better use of such dedicated ports. This may, concurrent with the logical ports that carry quote and other information necessary for market making activities, enable more efficient, as well as fair and reasonable, use of Market Makers' resources. Because Purge Ports, as the name suggests, are only available for purging and not for activities such as order or quote entry, the Purge Ports are not designed to permit unfair discrimination but rather are designed to enable Market Makers to manage their quoting risk and meet their heightened quoting obligations that other market participants are not subject to, which, in turn, benefits all market participants. The Exchange also notes that similar connectivity and functionality is offered by other exchanges.16

    12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    15See Exchange Rules 22.5 and 22.6.

    16See Chapter VII of the NASDAQ PHLX LLC (“Phlx”) pricing schedule (setting forth fees for SQF Purge Ports, which only allow for the mass purging of quotations). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77613 (April 13, 2016), 81 FR 23023 (April 19, 2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-45). See Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (“MIAX”) Rule 519C, Mass Cancellation of Trading Interest (allowing members to remove all or a subset of its quotations in and to block new inbound quotations). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78974 (September 29, 2016), 81 FR 69090 (October 5, 2016) (SR-MIAX-2016-34).

    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will not relieve Market Makers of their continuous quoting obligations under Exchange Rule 22.6 and under Regulation NMS Rule 602.17 Specifically, any interest that is executable against an Options Member's or Market Maker's quotes and orders that is received by the Exchange prior to the time the removal of quotes request will automatically execute at that price, up to the quote's size. Market Makers that purge their quotes will not be relieved of the obligation to provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis, nor will it prohibit the Exchange from taking disciplinary action against a Market Maker for failing to meet their continuous quoting obligation each trading day.

    17 17 CFR 242.602.

    The Exchange believes that its proposed fees should facilitate the ability of the Exchange to recoup some costs associated with Purge Ports as well as provide, maintain, and improve Purge Ports.18 The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer connectivity services as a means to facilitate the trading activities of Members and other participants. Accordingly, fees charged for connectivity are constrained by the active competition for the order flow of such participants as well as demand for market data from the Exchange. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for connectivity, affected Members will opt to terminate their connectivity arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of alternative strategies, including routing to the applicable exchange through another participant or market center or taking that exchange's data indirectly. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only connectivity revenues but also revenues associated with the execution of orders routed to it by affected Members, and, to the extent applicable, market data revenues. The Exchange believes that this competitive dynamic imposes powerful restraints on the ability of any exchange to charge unreasonable fees for connectivity.

    18 Purge Ports will be fee liable on a monthly basis (and not only when such ports are active), which will help the Exchange to recoup the cost of these ports.

    While the Exchange does not currently charge fees for existing logical ports connections, it believes the proposed fee for Purge Ports is equitable and reasonable because the proposed Purge Ports would offer unique functionality by allowing for the sending of a single message to impact multiple orders. Additionally, Purge Port requests may cancel orders submitted over numerous ports and contain added functionality to purge only a subset of these orders. The Exchange also believes the proposed fee for the Purge Ports is equitable and reasonable as compared to the rates proposed by other exchanges for the same functionality.19 In addition, the proposed rate is competitive with that charged by competitor exchanges for similar functionality. For example, Phlx charges a rate of $500 per month for the first five SQF Purge Ports, which only allow for the mass purging of quotations and not the purging of a subset of orders and the blocking of new orders as proposed herein.20 The Exchange also believes clarifying within its fee schedule how Purge Port charges are applied to the primary data center only and pro-rated when subscribed to or terminated mid-month is equitable and reasonable because it adds clarity to the Exchange's fee schedule regarding how the proposed fee would be applied.

    19 The Exchange notes that Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. has also proposed to provide similar purge port functionality for a fee of $750 per month/per port on its equity options platform. See SR-BatsBZX-2017-05 (filed January 20, 2017).

    20See Chapter VII of the Phlx pricing schedule (setting forth fees for SQF Purge Ports). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77613 (April 13, 2016), 81 FR 23023 (April 19, 2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-45).

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to its fee schedule are non-discriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all Members. The proposed Purge Ports are completely voluntary and no Member is required or under any regulatory obligation to utilize them. All Members that voluntarily select this service options will be charged the same amount for the same services. All Members have the option to select any connectivity option, and there is no differentiation among Members with regard to the fees charged for the services offered by the Exchange.

    (B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange believes its proposed amendments to its fee schedule would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. On the contrary, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will enhance competition because it will enable it to offer similar connectivity and functionality as its competitor exchanges.21 In addition, the proposed Purge Ports are completely voluntary and no Member is required or under any regulatory obligation to utilize them. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change represents a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing 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. 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.

    21See supra note 16.

    The Exchange believes that fees for the proposed Purge Ports and connectivity, in general, are constrained by the robust competition for order flow among exchanges and non-exchange markets. Further, excessive fees for connectivity, including Purge Port fees, would serve to impair an exchange's ability to compete for order flow rather than burdening competition. The Exchange also does not believe the proposed rule change would impact intramarket competition as it would apply to all Members and non-Members equally.

    (C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No comments were solicited or received on the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 22 and paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,23 the Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial. The Exchange has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.

    22 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    23 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2017-07 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2017-07. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2017-07 and should be submitted on or before March 2, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.24

    24 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02639 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79961; File No. SR-FINRA-2017-003] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt the FINRA Rule 6800 Series (Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rule) February 3, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on January 31, 2017, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA.3 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 FINRA originally filed this proposed rule change on January 17, 2017 under File No. SR-FINRA-2017-02, and FINRA subsequently withdrew that filing on January 30, 2017 and filed this proposed rule change.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA is proposing to adopt the FINRA Rule 6800 Series to implement the compliance rule regarding the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the “CAT NMS Plan” or “Plan”).4

    4 Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this rule filing are defined as set forth herein or in the CAT NMS Plan.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; BOX Options Exchange LLC; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; FINRA; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Investors' Exchange LLC; ISE Gemini, LLC; ISE Mercury, LLC; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; MIAX PEARL, LLC; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE MKT LLC; and NYSE Arca, Inc. (collectively, the “Participants”) filed with the Commission, pursuant to Section 11A of the Exchange Act5 and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS thereunder,6 the CAT NMS Plan.7 The Participants filed the Plan to comply with Rule 613 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act.8 The Plan was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 17, 2016,9 and approved by the Commission, as modified, on November 15, 2016.10

    5 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.

    6 17 CFR 242.608.

    7See Letter from the Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated September 30, 2014; and Letter from Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated February 27, 2015. On December 24, 2015, the Participants submitted an amendment to the CAT NMS Plan. See Letter from Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated December 23, 2015.

    8 17 CFR 242.613.

    9 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77724 (April 27, 2016), 81 FR 30614 (May 17, 2016).

    10 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79318 (November 15, 2016), 81 FR 84696 (November 23, 2016) (“Approval Order”).

    The Plan is designed to create, implement and maintain a consolidated audit trail (“CAT”) that would capture customer and order event information for orders in NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities, across all markets, from the time of order inception through routing, cancellation, modification, or execution in a single consolidated data source. Each Participant is required to enforce compliance by its Industry Members, as applicable, with the provisions of the Plan, by adopting a Compliance Rule applicable to their Industry Members.11 As is described more fully below, the proposed Rule 6800 Series sets forth the Compliance Rule to require Industry Members to comply with the provisions of the CAT NMS Plan. The proposed Rule 6800 Series includes twelve proposed rules covering the following areas: (1) Definitions; (2) clock synchronization; (3) Industry Member Data reporting; (4) Customer information reporting; (5) Industry Member information reporting; (6) time stamps; (7) clock synchronization rule violations; (8) connectivity and data transmission; (9) development and testing; (10) recordkeeping; (11) timely, accurate and complete data; and (12) compliance dates. Each of these proposed rules is discussed in detail below.

    11See 17 CFR 242.613(g)(1).

    (i) Definitions

    Proposed Rule 6810 (Definitions) sets forth the definitions for the terms used in the proposed Rule 6800 Series. Each of the defined terms in proposed Rule 6810 is discussed in detail in this section.

    (A) Account Effective Date (I) Customer Information Approach

    SEC Rule 613 requires that numerous data elements be reported to the CAT to ensure there is sufficient information to create the lifecycle of an order, and provide regulators with sufficient detail about an order to perform their regulatory duties.12 Certain required elements are intended to ensure that the regulators can identify the Customers associated with orders. For example, SEC Rule 613(c)(7)(i)(A) requires an Industry Member to report the “Customer-ID” for each Customer for the original receipt or origination of an order.13 “Customer-ID” is defined in SEC Rule 613(j)(5) to mean “with respect to a customer, a code that uniquely and consistently identifies such customer for purposes of providing data to the Central Repository.” 14 SEC Rule 613(c)(8) requires Industry Members to use the same Customer-ID for each Customer.15 The SEC granted the Participants exemptive relief to permit the use of an alternative approach to the requirement that an Industry Member report a Customer-ID for every Customer upon original receipt or origination.16 The alternative approach is called the Customer Information Approach.

    12 17 CFR 242.613.

    13 17 CFR 242.613(c)(7)(i)(A).

    14 17 CFR 242.613(j)(5).

    15 17 CFR 242.613(c)(8).

    16See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77265 (March 1, 2016), 81 FR 11856 (March 7, 2016) (“Exemption Order”). See also Letter from Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated January 30, 2015 at 12 (“Exemptive Request Letter”); CAT NMS Plan at Appendix C, Section A.1(a)(iii).

    Under the Customer Information Approach, the CAT NMS Plan requires each Industry Member to assign a unique Firm Designated ID to each Customer. As the Firm Designated ID, Industry Members are permitted to use an account number or any other identifier defined by the firm, provided each identifier is unique across the firm for each business date (i.e., a single firm may not have multiple separate customers with the same identifier on any given date). Prior to their commencement of reporting to the CAT, Industry Members must submit an initial set of Customer information to the Central Repository, including the Firm Designated ID, Customer Identifying Information and Customer Account Information (which may include, as applicable, the Customer's name, address, date of birth, individual tax payer identifier number (“ITIN”)/social security number (“SSN”), individual's role in the account (e.g., primary holder, joint holder, guardian, trustee, person with power of attorney) and Legal Entity Identifier (“LEI”) and/or Larger Trader ID (“LTID”)). This process is referred to as the customer definition process.

    In accordance with the Customer Information Approach, Industry Members are required to report only the Firm Designated ID for each new order submitted to the Central Repository, rather than the “Customer-ID” with individual order events. Within the Central Repository, each Customer will be uniquely identified by identifiers or a combination of identifiers such as ITIN/SSN, date of birth, and as applicable, LEI and LTID. The Plan Processor will be required to use these unique identifiers to map orders to specific Customers across all Industry Members and Participants. To ensure information identifying a Customer is up to date, Industry Members will be required to submit to the Central Repository daily and periodic updates for reactivated accounts, newly established accounts, and revised Firm Designated IDs or associated reportable Customer information.

    (II) Definition of Account Effective Date

    In connection with the Customer Information Approach, Industry Members will be required to report Customer Account Information to the Central Repository. “Customer Account Information” is defined in SEC Rule 613(j)(4) to “include, but not be limited to, account number, account type, customer type, date account opened, and large trader identifier (if applicable).” 17 Therefore, when reporting Customer Account Information, an Industry Member is required to report the date an account was opened. The Participants requested and received an exemption to allow an “Account Effective Date” to be reported in lieu of an account open date in certain limited circumstances. The definition of “Account Effective Date” as set forth in paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6810 describes those limited circumstances in which an Industry Member may report an “Account Effective Date” rather than the account open date. The proposed definition is the same as the definition of “Account Effective Date” set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, provided, however, that specific dates have replaced the descriptions of those dates set forth in Section 1.1 of the Plan.

    17 17 CFR 242.613(j)(4).

    Specifically, paragraph (a)(1) defines “Account Effective Date” to mean, with regard to those circumstances in which an Industry Member has established a trading relationship with an institution but has not established an account with that institution: (1) When the trading relationship was established prior to November 15, 2018 for Industry Members other than Small Industry Members, or prior to November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members, either (a) the date the relationship identifier was established within the Industry Member; (b) the date when trading began (i.e., the date the first order was received) using the relevant relationship identifier; or (c) if both dates are available, the earlier date will be used to the extent that the dates differ; or (2) when the trading relationship was established on or after November 15, 2018 for Industry Members other than Small Industry Members, or on or after November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members, the date the Industry Member established the relationship identifier, which would be no later than the date the first order was received.

    Paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 6810 states that an “Account Effective Date” means, where an Industry Member changes back office providers or clearing firms prior to November 15, 2018 for Industry Members other than Small Industry Members, or prior to November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members, the date an account was established at the relevant Industry Member, either directly or via transfer.

    Paragraph (a)(3) states that an “Account Effective Date” means, where an Industry Member acquires another Industry Member prior to November 15, 2018 for Industry Members other than Small Industry Members, or prior to November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members, the date an account was established at the relevant Industry Member, either directly or via transfer.

    Paragraph (a)(4) states that “Account Effective Date” means, where there are multiple dates associated with an account established prior to November 15, 2018 for Industry Members other than Small Industry Members, or prior to November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members, the earliest available date.

    Paragraph (a)(5) states that an “Account Effective Date” means, with regard to Industry Member proprietary accounts established prior to November 15, 2018 for Industry Members other than Small Industry Members, or prior to November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members: (1) The date established for the account in the Industry Member or in a system of the Industry Member or (2) the date when proprietary trading began in the account (i.e., the date on which the first orders were submitted from the account). With regard to paragraphs (a)(2)-(5), the Account Effective Date will be no later than the date trading occurs at the Industry Member or in the Industry Member's system.

    (B) Active Account

    Under the Customer Information Approach, Industry Members are required to report Customer Identifying Information and Customer Account Information for only those accounts that are active. This will alleviate the need for Industry Members to update such information for non-active accounts, but still ensure that the Central Repository will collect audit trail data for Customer accounts that have any Reportable Events. Accordingly, paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6810 defines an “Active Account” as an account that has had activity in Eligible Securities within the last six months. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (C) Allocation Report (I) Allocation Report Approach

    SEC Rule 613(c)(7)(vi)(A) requires each Industry Member to record and report to the Central Repository “the account number for any subaccounts to which the execution is allocated (in whole or in part).” 18 The Participants requested and received from the SEC exemptive relief from SEC Rule 613 for an alternative to this approach (“Allocation Report Approach”). The Allocation Report Approach permits Industry Members to record and report to the Central Repository an Allocation Report that includes, among other things, the Firm Designated ID for any account(s) to which executed shares are allocated when an execution is allocated in whole or part in lieu of requiring the reporting of the account number for any subaccount to which an execution is allocated, as is required by SEC Rule 613.19 Under SEC Rule 613, regulators would be able to link the subaccount to which an allocation was made to a specific order. In contrast, under the Allocation Report Approach, regulators would only be able to link an allocation to the account to which it was made, and not to a specific order.

    18 17 CFR 242.613(c)(7)(vi)(A).

    19See Exemptive Request Letter, supra note 16, at 26-27; Exemption Order, supra note 16.

    (II) Definition of Allocation Report

    To assist in implementing the Allocation Report Approach, paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 6810 defines an “Allocation Report.” Specifically, an “Allocation Report” means a report made to the Central Repository by an Industry Member that identifies the Firm Designated ID for any account(s), including subaccount(s), to which executed shares are allocated and provides the security that has been allocated, the identifier of the firm reporting the allocation, the price per share of shares allocated, the side of shares allocated, the number of shares allocated to each account, and the time of the allocation; provided, for the avoidance of doubt, any such Allocation Report shall not be required to be linked to particular orders or executions. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (D) Business Clock

    To create the required audit trail, Industry Members are required to record the date and time of various Reportable Events to the Central Repository. Industry Members will use “Business Clocks” to record such dates and times. Accordingly, paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “Business Clock” as a clock used to record the date and time of any Reportable Event required to be reported under this Rule 6800 Series. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, except FINRA proposes to replace the phrase “under SEC Rule 613” at the end of the definition in Section 1.1 of the Plan with the phrase “under this Rule Series.” This change is intended to recognize that the Industry Members' obligations with regard to the CAT are set forth in this Rule 6800 Series.

    (E) CAT

    Paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “CAT” to mean the consolidated audit trail contemplated by SEC Rule 613. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (F) CAT NMS Plan

    Paragraph (f) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “CAT NMS Plan” to mean the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail, as amended from time to time.

    (G) CAT-Order-ID (I) Daisy Chain Approach

    Under the CAT NMS Plan, a daisy chain approach is used to link and reconstruct the complete lifecycle of each Reportable Event in CAT. According to this approach, Industry Members assign their own identifiers to each order event. Within the Central Repository, the Plan Processor later replaces the identifier provided by the Industry Member for each Reportable Event with a single identifier, called the CAT Order-ID, for all order events pertaining to the same order. This CAT Order-ID is used to link the Reportable Events related to the same order.

    (II) Definition of CAT-Order-ID

    To implement a daisy chain approach, paragraph (g) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “CAT-Order-ID.” The term “CAT-Order-ID” is defined to mean a unique order identifier or series of unique order identifiers that allows the Central Repository to efficiently and accurately link all Reportable Events for an order, and all orders that result from the aggregation or disaggregation of such order. This is the same definition as set forth in SEC Rule 613(j)(1), and Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines “CAT-Order-ID” by reference to SEC Rule 613(j)(1).20

    20See 17 CFR 242.613(j)(1).

    (H) CAT Reporting Agent

    The CAT NMS Plan permits an Industry Member to use a third party, such as a vendor, to report the required data to the Central Repository on behalf of the Industry Member.21 Such a third party, referred to in this proposed Rule 6800 Series as a “CAT Reporting Agent,” would be one type of a Data Submitter, that is, a party that submits data to the Central Repository. Paragraph (h) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “CAT Reporting Agent” to mean a Data Submitter that is a third party that enters into an agreement with an Industry Member pursuant to which the CAT Reporting Agent agrees to fulfill such Industry Member's obligations under this Rule 6800 Series.

    21 Appendix C, Section A.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    This definition is based on FINRA's definition of a “Reporting Agent” as set forth in FINRA's Order Audit Trail System (“OATS”) rules. Specifically, Rule 7410(n) defines a “Reporting Agent” as a third party that enters into any agreement with a member pursuant to which the Reporting Agent agrees to fulfill such member's reporting obligations under Rule 7450. The Reporting Agent for OATS fulfills a similar role to the CAT Reporting Agent.

    (I) Central Repository

    Paragraph (i) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “Central Repository” to mean the repository responsible for the receipt, consolidation, and retention of all information reported to the CAT pursuant to SEC Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, except FINRA uses the phrase “CAT NMS Plan” in place of the phrase “this Agreement.”

    (J) Compliance Threshold

    Paragraph (j) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “Compliance Threshold” as having the meaning set forth in proposed Rule 6893(d). This definition has the same substantive meaning as the definition set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. As discussed in detail below with regard to proposed Rule 6893(d), each Industry Member is required to meet a separate compliance threshold which will be an Industry Member-specific rate that may be used as the basis for further review or investigation into the Industry Member's performance with regard to the CAT. This Industry Member-specific rate is the “Compliance Threshold.”

    (K) Customer

    Industry Members are required to submit to the Central Repository certain information related to their Customers, including Customer Identifying Information and Customer Account Information, as well as data related to their Customer's Reportable Events. Accordingly, paragraph (k) of proposed Rule 6810 proposes to define the term “Customer.” Specifically, the term “Customer” would be defined to mean: (1) The account holder(s) of the account at an Industry Member originating the order; and (2) any person from whom the Industry Member is authorized to accept trading instructions for such account, if different from the account holder(s). This is the same definition as set forth in SEC Rule 613(j)(3), except FINRA proposes to replace the references to a registered broker-dealer or broker-dealer with a reference to an Industry Member for consistency of terms used in the proposed Rule 6800 Series.22 FINRA also notes that Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines “Customer” by reference to SEC Rule 613(j)(3).

    22 17 CFR 242.613(j)(3).

    (L) Customer Account Information

    As discussed above, under the Customer Information Approach, Industry Members are required to report Customer Account Information to the Central Repository as part of the customer definition process. Accordingly, FINRA proposes to define the term “Customer Account Information” to clarify what customer information would need to be reported to the Central Repository.

    Paragraph (l) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “Customer Account Information” to include, in part, account number, account type, customer type, date account opened, and large trader identifier (if applicable). Proposed Rule 6810(l), however, provides an alternative definition of “Customer Account Information” in two limited circumstances. First, in those circumstances in which an Industry Member has established a trading relationship with an institution but has not established an account with that institution, the Industry Member will: (1) Provide the Account Effective Date in lieu of the “date account opened”; (2) provide the relationship identifier in lieu of the “account number”; and (3) identify the “account type” as a “relationship.” Second, in those circumstances in which the relevant account was established prior to November 15, 2018 for Industry Members other than Small Industry Members, or prior to November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members, and no “date account opened” is available for the account, the Industry Member will provide the Account Effective Date in the following circumstances: (1) Where an Industry Member changes back office providers or clearing firms and the date account opened is changed to the date the account was opened on the new back office/clearing firm system; (2) where an Industry Member acquires another Industry Member and the date account opened is changed to the date the account was opened on the post-merger back office/clearing firm system; (3) where there are multiple dates associated with an account in an Industry Member's system, and the parameters of each date are determined by the individual Industry Member; and (4) where the relevant account is an Industry Member proprietary account. The proposed definition is the same as the definition of “Customer Account Information” set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, provided, however, that specific dates have replaced the descriptions of those dates set forth in Section 1.1 of the Plan.

    (M) Customer Identifying Information

    As discussed above, under the Customer Information Approach, Industry Members are required to report Customer Identifying Information to the Central Repository as part of the customer definition process. Accordingly, FINRA proposes to define the term “Customer Account Information” [sic] to clarify what Customer information would need to be reported to the Central Repository.

    Paragraph (m) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “Customer Identifying Information” to mean information of sufficient detail to identify a Customer. With respect to individuals, “Customer Identifying Information” includes, but is not limited to: Name, address, date of birth, ITIN/SSN, individual's role in the account (e.g., primary holder, joint holder, guardian, trustee, person with the power of attorney). With respect to legal entities, “Customer Identifying Information” includes, but is not limited to, name, address, EIN/LEI or other comparable common entity identifier, if applicable. The definition further notes that an Industry Member that has an LEI for a Customer must submit the Customer's LEI in addition to other information of sufficient detail to identify the Customer. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (N) Data Submitter

    The CAT NMS Plan uses the term “Data Submitter” to refer to any person that reports data to the Central Repository.23 Such Data Submitters may include those entities that are required to submit data to the Central Repository (e.g., national securities exchanges, national securities associations and Industry Members), third-parties that may submit data to the CAT on behalf of CAT Reporters (i.e., CAT Reporting Agents), and outside parties that are not required to submit data to the CAT but from which the CAT may receive data (e.g., securities information processors (“SIPs”)). To include this term in the proposed Rule 6800 Series, FINRA proposes to define “Data Submitter” in paragraph (n) of proposed Rule 6810. Specifically, paragraph (n) of proposed Rule 6810 defines a “Data Submitter” to mean any person that reports data to the Central Repository, including national securities exchanges, national securities associations, broker-dealers, the SIPs for the CQS, CTA, UTP and Plan for Reporting of Consolidated Options Last Sale Reports and Quotation Information (“OPRA”) Plans, and certain other vendors or third parties that may submit data to the Central Repository on behalf of Industry Members.

    23 Appendix C, Section A.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (O) Eligible Security

    The reporting requirements of the proposed Rule 6800 Series only apply to Reportable Events in Eligible Securities. Currently, an Eligible Security includes NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities. Accordingly, paragraph (o) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “Eligible Security” to include: (1) All NMS Securities; and (2) all OTC Equity Securities. The terms “NMS Securities” and “OTC Equity Securities” are defined, in turn, below. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (P) Error Rate (I) Maximum Error Rate

    Under the CAT NMS Plan, the Operating Committee sets the maximum Error Rate that the Central Repository would tolerate from an Industry Member reporting data to the Central Repository.24 The Operating Committee reviews and resets the maximum Error Rate, at least annually.25 If an Industry Member reports CAT data to the Central Repository with errors such that their error percentage exceeds the maximum Error Rate, then such Industry Member would not be in compliance with the CAT NMS Plan or SEC Rule 613.26 As such, FINRA or the SEC “may take appropriate action against an Industry Member for failing to comply with its CAT reporting obligations.27 The CAT NMS Plan sets the initial Error Rate at 5%.28 It is anticipated that the maximum Error Rate will be reviewed and lowered by the Operating Committee once Industry Members begin to report to the Central Repository.29

    24 Section 6.5(d)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    25 Appendix C, Section A.3(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    26 Appendix C, Section A.3(b) of the CAT NMS Plan; 17 CFR 242.613(g)-(h).

    27 Appendix C, Section A.3(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    28 Section 6.5(d)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    29 Appendix C, Section A.3(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    The CAT NMS Plan requires the Plan Processor to: (1) Measure and report errors every business day; (2) provide Industry Members daily statistics and error reports as they become available, including a description of such errors; (3) provide monthly reports to Industry Members that detail an Industry Member's performance and comparison statistics; (4) define educational and support programs for Industry Members to minimize Error Rates; and (5) identify, daily, all Industry Members exceeding the maximum allowable Error Rate. To timely correct data-submitted errors to the Central Repository, the CAT NMS Plan requires that the Central Repository receive and process error corrections at all times. Further, the CAT NMS Plan requires that Industry Members be able to submit error corrections to the Central Repository through a web-interface or via bulk uploads or file submissions, and that the Plan Processor, subject to the Operating Committee's approval, support the bulk replacement of records and the reprocessing of such records. The Participants, furthermore, require that the Plan Processor identify Industry Member data submission errors based on the Plan Processor's validation processes.30

    30 Approval Order, supra note 10, at 84718.

    (II) Definition of Error Rate

    To implement the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan related to the Error Rate, FINRA proposes to define the term “Error Rate” in proposed Rule 6810. Paragraph (p) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “Error Rate” to mean the percentage of Reportable Events collected by the Central Repository in which the data reported does not fully and accurately reflect the order event that occurred in the market. This is the same definition as set forth in SEC Rule 613(j)(6), and Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines “Error Rate” by reference to SEC Rule 613(j)(6).31

    31 17 CFR 242.613(j)(6).

    (Q) Firm Designated ID

    As discussed above, under the Customer Information Approach, the CAT NMS Plan requires each Industry Member to assign a unique Firm Designated ID to each Customer. Industry Members will be permitted to use as the Firm Designated ID an account number or any other identifier defined by the firm, provided each identifier is unique across the firm for each business date (i.e., a single firm may not have multiple separate customers with the same identifier on any given date). Industry Members will be required to report only the Firm Designated ID for each new order submitted to the Central Repository, rather than the “Customer-ID” with individual order events. Accordingly, FINRA proposes to define the term “Firm Designated ID” in proposed Rule 6810. Specifically, paragraph (q) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “Firm Designated ID” to mean a unique identifier for each trading account designated by Industry Members for purposes of providing data to the Central Repository, where each such identifier is unique among all identifiers from any given Industry Member for each business date. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. Industry Members will be permitted to use an account number or any other identifier defined by the firm, provided each identifier is unique across the firm for each business date (i.e., a single firm may not have multiple separate customers with the same identifier on any given date).

    (R) Industry Member

    Paragraph (r) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “Industry Member” to mean “a member of a national securities exchange or a member of a national securities association that is required to record and report information pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan and this Rule 6800 Series.” This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan; however, FINRA proposes to add the phrase “that is required to record and report information pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan and this Rule 6800 Series” to clarify that FINRA members that do not handle orders in Eligible Securities are not subject to any of the rules in the proposed Rule 6800 Series.

    (S) Industry Member Data

    Paragraph (s) of proposed Rule 6810 states that the term “Industry Member Data” has the meaning set forth in Rule 6830(a)(2). This definition has the same substantive meaning as the definition set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. The definition of “Industry Member Data” is discussed more fully in the discussion below regarding proposed Rule 6830(a)(2).

    (T) Initial Plan Processor

    Paragraph (t) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “Initial Plan Processor” to mean the first Plan Processor selected by the Operating Committee in accordance with SEC Rule 613, Section 6.1 of the CAT NMS Plan and the National Market System Plan Governing the Process for Selecting a Plan Processor and Developing a Plan for the Consolidated Audit Trail. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, although the proposed definition uses the full name of the “Selection Plan.”

    (U) Listed Option or Option

    The CAT NMS Plan and this proposed Rule 6800 Series applies to Eligible Securities, which includes NMS Securities, which, in turn, includes Listed Options. Certain requirements of the proposed Rule 6800 Series apply specifically to Listed Options. Accordingly, paragraph (u) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “Listed Option” or “Option.” Specifically, paragraph (u) of proposed Rule 6810 states that the term “Listed Option” or “Option” has the meaning set forth in Rule 600(b)(35) of Regulation NMS. Rule 600(b)(35) of Regulation NMS, in turn, defines a listed option as “any option traded on a registered national securities exchange or automated facility of a national securities association.” 32 FINRA notes that the proposed definition of “Listed Option” is the same definition as the definition set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    32 17 CFR 242.600(b)(35).

    (V) Manual Order Event (I) Manual Order Event Approach

    The CAT NMS Plan sets forth clock synchronization and timestamp requirements for Industry Members which reflect exemptions for Manual Order Events granted by the Commission.33 Specifically, the Plan requires Industry Members to record and report the time of each Reportable Event using timestamps reflecting current industry standards (which must be at least to the millisecond) or, if an Industry Member's order handling or execution system uses timestamps in increments finer than milliseconds, such finer increments, when reporting to the Central Repository. For Manual Order Events, however, the Plan provides that such events must be recorded in increments up to and including one second, provided that Industry Members record and report the time the event is captured electronically in an order handling and execution system (“Electronic Capture Time”) in milliseconds. In addition, Industry Members are required to synchronize their respective Business Clocks (other than such Business Clocks used solely for Manual Order Events) at a minimum to within 50 milliseconds of the time maintained by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), and maintain such a synchronization. Each Industry Member is required to synchronize its Business Clocks used solely for Manual Order Events, however, at a minimum to within one second of the time maintained by the NIST.

    33 Exemption Order, supra note 16.

    (II) Definition of Manual Order Event

    In order to clarify what a Manual Order Event is for clock synchronization and time stamp purposes, FINRA proposes to define the term “Manual Order Event” in proposed Rule 6810. Specifically, paragraph (v) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “Manual Order Event” to mean a non-electronic communication of order-related information for which Industry Members must record and report the time of the event. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (W) Material Terms of the Order

    Proposed Rule 6830 requires Industry Members to record and report to the Central Repository Material Terms of the Order with certain Reportable Events (e.g., for the original receipt or origination of an order, for the routing of an order). Accordingly, FINRA proposes to define the term “Material Terms of the Order” in proposed Rule 6810. Specifically, paragraph (w) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “Material Terms of the Order” to include: The NMS Security or OTC Equity Security symbol; security type; price (if applicable); size (displayed and non-displayed); side (buy/sell); order type; if a sell order, whether the order is long, short, short exempt; open/close indicator (except on transactions in equities); time in force (if applicable); if the order is for a Listed Option, option type (put/call), option symbol or root symbol, underlying symbol, strike price, expiration date, and open/close (except on market maker quotations); and any special handling instructions. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (X) NMS Security

    NMS Securities are one of the types of Eligible Securities for the CAT. Therefore, FINRA proposes to define the term “NMS Security” in proposed Rule 6810. Specifically, paragraph (x) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “NMS Security” to mean any security or class of securities for which transaction reports are collected, processed, and made available pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan, or an effective national market system plan for reporting transactions in Listed Options. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (Y) NMS Stock

    Under the CAT NMS Plan, the Operating Committee may establish different Trading Days for NMS Stocks (as defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS 34 ), Listed Options, OTC Equity Securities, and any other securities that are included as Eligible Securities from time to time. Accordingly, FINRA proposes to define the term “NMS Stock” in paragraph (y) of proposed Rule 6810 to mean any NMS Security other than an option. This is the same definition as set forth in Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS.35

    34 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47).

    35 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47).

    (Z) Operating Committee

    Paragraph (z) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “Operating Committee” to mean the governing body of the CAT NMS, LLC designated as such and described in Article IV of the CAT NMS Plan. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, except FINRA proposes to use the phrase “CAT NMS LLC” in place of the phrase “the Company” for clarity.

    (AA) Options Market Maker (I) Options Market Maker Quote Exemption

    SEC Rule 613(c)(7) provides that the CAT NMS Plan must require each Industry Member to record and electronically report to the Central Repository details for each order and each reportable event, including the routing and modification or cancellation of an order.36 SEC Rule 613(j)(8) defines “order” to include “any bid or offer.” 37 Therefore, under SEC Rule 613, the details for each Options Market Maker quotation must be reported to the Central Repository by both the Options Market Maker and the options exchange to which it routes its quote.

    36 17 CFR 242.613(c)(7).

    37 17 CFR 242.613(j)(8).

    The Participants, however, requested and received exemptive relief from SEC Rule 613 so that the CAT NMS Plan may permit Options Market Maker quotes to be reported to the Central Repository by the relevant options exchange in lieu of requiring that such reporting be done by both the options exchange and the Options Market Maker, as is required by SEC Rule 613.38 In accordance with the exemptive relief, Options Market Makers will be required to report to the options exchange the time at which a quote in a Listed Option is sent to the options exchange. Such time information also will be reported to the Central Repository by the options exchange in lieu of reporting by the Options Market Maker.

    38See Exemptive Request Letter, supra note 16, at 2; Exemption Order, supra note 16.

    (II) Definition of Options Market Maker

    To implement the requirements related to Option Market Maker quotes, FINRA proposes to define the term “Options Market Maker” in proposed Rule 6810. Specifically, paragraph (aa) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “Options Market Makers” to mean a broker-dealer registered with an exchange for the purpose of making markets in options contracts traded on the exchange. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (BB) Order

    The proposed Rule 6800 Series requires each Industry Member to record and electronically report to the Central Repository certain details for each order. Accordingly, FINRA proposes to define the term “Order” in proposed Rule 6810. Specifically, paragraph (bb) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “Order”, with respect to Eligible Securities, to include: (1) Any order received by an Industry Member from any person; (2) any order originated by an Industry Member; or (3) any bid or offer. This is the same definition as set forth in SEC Rule 613(j)(8), except FINRA proposes to replace the phrase “member of a national securities exchange or national securities association” with the term “Industry Member.” 39 FINRA notes that Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines “Order” by reference to SEC Rule 613(j)(8).

    39See 17 CFR 242.613(j)(8).

    (CC) OTC Equity Security

    OTC Equity Securities are one of the types of Eligible Securities for the CAT. Therefore, FINRA proposes to define the term “OTC Equity Security” in proposed Rule 6810. Specifically, paragraph (cc) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “OTC Equity Security” to mean any equity security, other than an NMS Security, subject to prompt last sale reporting rules of a registered national securities association and reported to one of such association's equity trade reporting facilities. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (DD) Participant

    Paragraph (dd) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “Participant” to mean each Person identified as such in Exhibit A of the CAT NMS Plan, as amended, in such Person's capacity as a Participant in CAT NMS, LLC. This is the same definition in substance as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (EE) Person

    Paragraph (ee) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “Person” to mean any individual, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, joint venture, trust, business trust, cooperative or association and any heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors and assigns of such Person where the context so permits. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (FF) Plan Processor

    Paragraph (ff) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “Plan Processor” to mean the Initial Plan Processor or any other Person selected by the Operating Committee pursuant to SEC Rule 613 and Sections 4.3(b)(i) and 6.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, and with regard to the Initial Plan Processor, the National Market System Plan Governing the Process for Selecting a Plan Processor and Developing a Plan for the Consolidated Audit Trail, to perform the CAT processing functions required by SEC Rule 613 and set forth in the CAT NMS Plan.

    (GG) Received Industry Member Data

    Paragraph (gg) of proposed Rule 6810 states that the term “Received Industry Member Data” has the meaning set forth in Rule 6830(a)(2). This definition has the same substantive meaning as the definition set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. The definition of “Received Industry Member Data” is discussed more fully in the discussion below regarding proposed Rule 6830(a)(2).

    (HH) Recorded Industry Member Data

    Paragraph (hh) of proposed Rule 6810 states that the term “Recorded Industry Member Data” has the meaning set forth in Rule 6830(a)(1). This definition has the same substantive meaning as the definition set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. The definition of “Recorded Industry Member Data” is discussed more fully in the discussion below regarding proposed Rule 6830(a)(1).

    (II) Reportable Event

    The proposed Rule 6800 Series requires each Industry Member to record and electronically report to the Central Repository certain details for each Reportable Event. To clarify these requirements, FINRA proposes to define the term “Reportable Event” in proposed Rule 6810. Specifically, paragraph (ii) of proposed Rule 6810 states that the term “Reportable Event” includes, but is not limited to, the original receipt or origination, modification, cancellation, routing, execution (in whole or in part) and allocation of an order, and receipt of a routed order. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (JJ) SRO

    Paragraph (jj) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “SRO” to mean any self-regulatory organization within the meaning of Section 3(a)(26) of the Exchange Act.40 This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.

    40See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(26).

    (KK) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier (I) Existing Identifier Approach

    The Participants requested and received exemptive relief from SEC Rule 613 so that the CAT NMS Plan may permit the Existing Identifier Approach, which would allow an Industry Member to report an existing SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier in lieu of requiring the reporting of a universal CAT-Reporter-ID (that is, a code that uniquely and consistently identifies an Industry Member for purposes of providing data to the Central Repository).41 The CAT NMS Plan reflects the “Existing Identifier Approach” for purposes of identifying each Industry Member associated with an order or Reportable Event. Under the Existing Identifier Approach, Industry Members are required to record and report to the Central Repository an SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier for orders and certain Reportable Events to be used by the Central Repository to assign a unique CAT-Reporter-ID to identify Industry Members.

    41See Exemptive Request Letter, supra note 16, at 19; Exemption Order, supra note 16.

    For the Central Repository to link the SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier to the CAT-Reporter-ID, each SRO will submit to the Central Repository, on a daily basis, all SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifiers used by its Industry Members, as well as information to identify each such Industry Member, including CRD number and LEI, if the SRO has collected such LEI of the Industry Member. Additionally, each Industry Member is required to submit to the Central Repository the CRD number of the Industry Member as well as the LEI of the Industry Member (if the Industry Member has an LEI). The Plan Processor will use this information to assign a CAT-Reporter-ID to each Industry Member for internal use within the Central Repository.

    (II) Definition of SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier

    To implement the Existing Identifier Approach, FINRA proposes to define the term “SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier” in proposed Rule 6810. Specifically, paragraph (kk) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier” to mean an identifier assigned to an Industry Member by an SRO or an identifier used by a Participant. This is the same definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. For example, an Industry Member would be permitted to use any existing SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier (e.g., FINRA MPID, NASDAQ MPID, NYSE Mnemonic, CBOE User Acronym and CHX Acronym) when reporting order information to the Central Repository.

    (LL) Small Industry Member

    The requirements of the proposed Rule 6800 Series differ to some extent for Small Industry Members versus Industry Members other than Small Industry Members. For example, the compliance dates for reporting data to the CAT are different for Small Industry Members versus other Industry Members. Accordingly, to clarify the requirements that apply to which Industry Members, FINRA proposes to define the term “Small Industry Member” in proposed Rule 6810. Specifically, paragraph (ll) of proposed Rule 6810 defines the term “Small Industry Member” to mean an Industry Member that qualifies as a small broker-dealer as defined in SEA Rule 0-10(c).42 This is the same in substance as the definition of “Small Industry Member” as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. Specifically, Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines a “Small Industry Member” as “an Industry Member that qualifies as a small broker-dealer as defined in SEC Rule 613.” The definition of a small broker-dealer under SEC Rule 613, in turn, is a small broker-dealer as defined in SEA Rule 0-10(c).

    42 17 CFR 240.0-10(c).

    (MM) Trading Day

    Proposed Rule 6830(b) establishes the deadlines for reporting certain data to the Central Repository using the term “Trading Day.” Accordingly, FINRA proposes to define the term “Trading Day” in proposed Rule 6810. Specifically, paragraph (mm) of proposed Rule 6810 states that the term “Trading Day” shall have the meaning as is determined by the Operating Committee. For the avoidance of doubt, the Operating Committee may establish different Trading Days for NMS Stocks (as defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS), Listed Options, OTC Equity Securities, and any other securities that are included as Eligible Securities from time to time.

    (ii) Clock Synchronization

    SEC Rule 613(d)(1) under Regulation NMS requires Industry Members to synchronize their Business Clocks to the time maintained by NIST, consistent with industry standards.43 To comply with this provision, Section 6.8 of the Plan sets forth the clock synchronization requirements for Industry Members.44 To implement these provisions with regard to its Industry Members, FINRA proposes Rule 6820 (Clock Synchronization) to require its Industry Members to comply with the clock synchronization requirements of the Plan. FINRA notes that the clock synchronization requirements proposed here in Rule 6820 are substantially the same as clock synchronization requirements that FINRA recently adopted in Rule 4590.45 Accordingly, except as where noted throughout this discussion, FINRA does not believe proposed Rule 6820 will impose new substantive requirements on its Industry Members. While proposed Rule 6820 largely reflects FINRA's existing Rule 4590, FINRA believes it is important to include Rule 6820 in its entirety in this filing to promote consistency among the CAT Compliance Rules filed by the Participants.

    43 17 CFR 242.613(d)(1).

    44 In addition, Section 6.7(a)(ii) of the Plan sets forth the timeline for CAT Reporters to comply with the clock synchronization requirements.

    45See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77565 (April 8, 2016), 81 FR 22136 (April 14, 2016) (Order Approving SR-FINRA-2016-005).

    Paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6820 sets forth the manner in which Industry Members must synchronize their Business Clocks. Paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Rule 6820 requires each Industry Member to synchronize its Business Clocks, other than such Business Clocks used solely for Manual Order Events or used solely for the time of allocation on Allocation Reports, at a minimum to within a fifty (50) millisecond tolerance of the time maintained by the NIST atomic clock, and maintain such synchronization. This is the same requirement as set forth in Section 6.8(a)(ii)(A) of the CAT NMS Plan. FINRA notes that this paragraph does not place additional requirements on its Industry Members beyond what is required by Rule 4590.

    Paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 6820 requires each Industry Member to synchronize (1) its Business Clocks used solely for Manual Order Events and (2) its Business Clocks used solely for the time of allocation on Allocation Reports at a minimum to within a one second tolerance of the time maintained by the NIST atomic clock, and maintain such synchronization. This is the same requirement as set forth in Section 6.8(a)(iii) and (iv) of the CAT NMS Plan. FINRA notes that this paragraph does not place additional requirements on its Industry Members beyond what is required by Rule 4590. Paragraph (a)(3) of proposed Rule 6820 clarifies that the tolerance described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of the proposed Rule 6820 includes all of the following: (1) The time difference between the NIST atomic clock and the Industry Member's Business Clock; (2) the transmission delay from the source; and (3) the amount of drift of the Industry Member's Business Clock. This description of the clock synchronization tolerance is the same as set forth in paragraph (b) of Rule 4590 (Synchronization of Member Business Clocks).

    Paragraph (a)(4) of proposed Rule 6820 requires Industry Members to synchronize their Business Clocks every business day before market open to ensure that timestamps for Reportable Events are accurate. In addition, to maintain clock synchronization, Business Clocks must be checked against the NIST atomic clock and re-synchronized, as necessary, throughout the day. This description of the required frequency of clock synchronization is the same as set forth in paragraph (c) of Rule 4590.

    Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6820 sets forth documentation requirements with regard to clock synchronization. Specifically, paragraph (b) requires Industry Members to document and maintain their synchronization procedures for their Business Clocks. The proposed rule requires Industry Members to keep a log of the times when they synchronize their Business Clocks and the results of the synchronization process. This log is required to include notice of any time a Business Clock drifts more than the applicable tolerance specified in paragraph (a) of the proposed rule. Such logs must include results for a period of not less than five years ending on the then current date, or for the entire period for which the Industry Member has been required to comply with this Rule if less than five years. These documentation requirements are the same as those set forth in the “Sequencing Orders and Clock Synchronization” section of Appendix C of the CAT NMS Plan. Moreover, these documentation requirements regarding clock synchronization are comparable to those set forth in Supplementary Material .01 of Rule 4590.

    Paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 6820 sets forth certification requirements with regard to clock synchronization. Specifically, paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 6820 requires each Industry Member to certify to FINRA that its Business Clocks satisfy the synchronization requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6820 periodically in accordance with the certification schedule established by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan. This requirement is the same requirement as set forth in Section 6.8(a)(ii)(B), (iii) and (iv) of the CAT NMS Plan. FINRA intends to announce to its Industry Members the certification schedule established by the Operating Committee via Regulatory Notice. This is a new requirement that is not currently contained in Rule 4590.

    Paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 6820 establishes reporting requirements with regard to clock synchronization. Paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 6820 requires Industry Members to report to the Plan Processor and FINRA violations of paragraph (a) of this Rule pursuant to the thresholds set by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan. This requirement is the same requirement as set forth in Section 6.8(a)(ii)(C), (iii) and (iv) of the CAT NMS Plan. FINRA intends to announce to its Industry Members the relevant thresholds established by the Operating Committee via Regulatory Notice. This is a new requirement that is not currently contained in Rule 4590.

    (iii) Industry Member Data Reporting

    SEC Rule 613(c) requires the CAT NMS Plan to set forth certain provisions requiring Industry Members to record and report data to the CAT.46 To comply with this provision, Section 6.4 of the CAT NMS Plan sets forth the data reporting requirements for Industry Members. To implement these provisions with regard to its Industry Members, FINRA proposes Rule 6830 (Industry Member Data Reporting) to require its Industry Members to comply with the Industry Member Data reporting requirements of the Plan. Proposed Rule 6830 has five sections covering: (1) Recording and reporting Industry Member Data, (2) timing of the recording and reporting, (3) the applicable securities covered by the recording and reporting requirements, (4) the security symbology to be used in the recording and reporting, and (5) error correction requirements, each of which is described below.

    46See 17 CFR 242.613(c).

    (A) Recording and Reporting Industry Member Data

    Paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6830 describes the recording and reporting of Industry Member Data to the Central Repository. Paragraph (a) consists of paragraphs (a)(1)-(a)(3), which cover Recorded Industry Member Data, Received Industry Member Data and Options Market Maker data, respectively. Paragraphs (a)(1)-(a)(3) of proposed Rule 6830 set forth the recording and reporting requirements required in Section 6.4(d)(i)-(iii) of the CAT NMS Plan, respectively.

    Paragraph (a)(1) requires, subject to paragraph (a)(3) regarding Options Market Makers, each Industry Member to record and electronically report to the Central Repository the following details for each order and each Reportable Event, as applicable (“Recorded Industry Member Data”) in the manner prescribed by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan:

    • For original receipt or origination of an order: (1) Firm Designated ID(s) for each Customer; (2) CAT-Order-ID; (3) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the Industry Member receiving or originating the order; (4) date of order receipt or origination; (5) time of order receipt or origination (using timestamps pursuant to proposed Rule 6860); and (6) Material Terms of the Order;

    • for the routing of an order: (1) CAT-Order-ID; (2) date on which the order is routed; (3) time at which the order is routed (using timestamps pursuant to proposed Rule 6860); (4) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the Industry Member routing the order; (5) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the Industry Member or Participant to which the order is being routed; (6) if routed internally at the Industry Member, the identity and nature of the department or desk to which the order is routed; and (7) Material Terms of the Order;

    • for the receipt of an order that has been routed, the following information: (1) CAT-Order-ID; (2) date on which the order is received; (3) time at which the order is received (using timestamps pursuant to proposed Rule 6860); (4) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the Industry Member receiving the order; (5) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the Industry Member or Participant routing the order; and (6) Material Terms of the Order;

    • if the order is modified or cancelled: (1) CAT-Order-ID; (2) date the modification or cancellation is received or originated; (3) time at which the modification or cancellation is received or originated (using timestamps pursuant to proposed Rule 6860); (4) price and remaining size of the order, if modified; (5) other changes in the Material Terms of the Order, if modified; and (6) whether the modification or cancellation instruction was given by the Customer or was initiated by the Industry Member;

    • if the order is executed, in whole or in part: (1) CAT-Order-ID; (2) date of execution; (3) time of execution (using timestamps pursuant to proposed Rule 6860); (4) execution capacity (principal, agency or riskless principal); (5) execution price and size; (6) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the Industry Member executing the order; (7) whether the execution was reported pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan or the Plan for Reporting of Consolidated Options Last Sale Reports and Quotation Information; and

    • other information or additional events as may be prescribed pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan.

    Paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 6830 requires, subject to paragraph (a)(3) regarding Options Market Makers, each Industry Member to record and report to the Central Repository the following, as applicable (“Received Industry Member Data” and collectively with the information referred to in Rule 6830(a)(1) “Industry Member Data”) in the manner prescribed by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan:

    • If the order is executed, in whole or in part: (1) An Allocation Report; (2) SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the clearing broker or prime broker, if applicable; and (3) CAT-Order-ID of any contra-side order(s);

    • if the trade is cancelled, a cancelled trade indicator; and

    • for original receipt or origination of an order, the Firm Designated ID for the relevant Customer, and in accordance with proposed Rule 6840, Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information for the relevant Customer.

    Paragraph (a)(3) of proposed Rule 6830 states that each Industry Member that is an Options Market Maker is not required to report to the Central Repository the Industry Member Data regarding the routing, modification or cancellation of its quotes in Listed Options. Each Industry Member that is an Options Market Maker, however, is required to report to the Exchange the time at which its quote in a Listed Option is sent to the Exchange (and, if applicable, any subsequent quote modification time and/or cancellation time when such modification or cancellation is originated by the Options Market Maker). This paragraph implements the Options Market Maker Quote Exemption, as discussed above.

    (B) Timing of Recording and Reporting

    Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6830 describes the requirements related to the timing of recording and reporting of Industry Member Data. Paragraphs (b)(1)-(b)(3) of proposed Rule 6830 set forth the requirements related to the timing of the recording and reporting requirements required in Section 6.4(b)(i)-(ii) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    Paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 6830 requires each Industry Member to record Recorded Industry Member Data contemporaneously with the applicable Reportable Event. Paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 6830 requires each Industry Member to report: (1) Recorded Industry Member Data to the Central Repository by 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time on the Trading Day following the day the Industry Member records such Recorded Industry Member Data; and (2) Received Industry Member Data to the Central Repository by 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time on the Trading Day following the day the Industry Member receives such Received Industry Member Data. Paragraph (b)(3) states that Industry Members may, but are not required to, voluntarily report Industry Member Data prior to the applicable 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time deadline.

    (C) Applicable Securities

    Paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 6830 describes the securities to which the recording and reporting requirements of proposed Rule 6830 apply. Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of proposed Rule 6830 set forth the description of applicable securities as set forth in Section 6.4(c)(i) and (ii) of the CAT NMS Plan, respectively. Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 6830 requires each Industry Member to record and report to the Central Repository the Industry Member Data as set forth in paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6830 for each NMS Security registered or listed for trading on such exchange or admitted to unlisted trading privileges on such exchange. Paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Rule 6830 requires each Industry Member to record and report to the Central Repository the Industry Member Data as set forth in paragraph (a) of this proposed Rule 6830 for each Eligible Security for which transaction reports are required to be submitted to FINRA.

    (D) Security Symbology

    Paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 6830 describes the security symbology that Industry Members are required to use when reporting Industry Member Data to the Central Repository. Paragraph (d)(1) of proposed Rule 6830 requires, for each exchange-listed Eligible Security, each Industry Member to report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository using the symbology format of the exchange listing the security. This requirement implements the requirement set forth in Section 2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to use the listing exchange symbology when reporting data to the Central Repository for exchange-listed Eligible Securities.

    For each Eligible Security that is not exchange-listed, however, there is no listing exchange to provide the symbology format. Moreover, to date, the requisite symbology format has not been determined. Therefore, paragraph (d)(2) of proposed Rule 6830 requires, for each Eligible Security that is not exchange-listed, each Industry Member to report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository using such symbology format as approved by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan. FINRA intends to announce to its Industry Members the relevant symbology formats established by the Operating Committee via Regulatory Notice.

    (E) Error Correction

    To ensure that the CAT contains accurate data, the CAT NMS Plan requires Industry Members to correct erroneous data submitted to the Central Repository. Therefore, FINRA proposes to adopt paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 6830, which addresses the correction of erroneous data reported to the Central Repository. Paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 6830 requires, for each Industry Member for which errors in Industry Member Data submitted to the Central Repository have been identified by the Plan Processor or otherwise, that such Industry Member submit corrected Industry Member Data to the Central Repository by 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time on T+3. This requirement implements the error correction requirement set forth in Section 6 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (iv) Customer Information Reporting

    Section 6.4(d)(iv) of the CAT NMS Plan requires Industry Members to submit to the Central Repository certain information related to their Customers in accordance with the Customer Information Approach discussed above. FINRA proposes Rule 6840 (Customer Information Reporting) to implement this provision of the CAT NMS Plan with regard to its Industry Members. Specifically, paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6840 requires each Industry Member to submit to the Central Repository the Firm Designated ID, Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information for each of its Customers with an Active Account prior to such Industry Member's commencement of reporting to the Central Repository and in accordance with the deadlines set forth in Rule 6880. Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6840 requires each Industry Member to submit to the Central Repository any updates, additions or other changes to the Firm Designated ID, Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information for each of its Customers with an Active Account on a daily basis. Paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 6840 requires each Industry Member, on a periodic basis as designated by the Plan Processor and approved by the Operating Committee, to submit to the Central Repository a complete set of Firm Designated IDs, Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information for each of its Customers with an Active Account. This periodic refresh is intended to ensure that the Central Repository has the most current information identifying a Customer. FINRA intends to announce to its Industry Members when such a periodic refresh is required by the Plan Processor and the Operating Committee via Regulatory Notice.

    Finally, paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 6840 addresses the correction of erroneous Customer data reported to the Central Repository to ensure an accurate audit trail. Paragraph (d) requires, for each Industry Member for which errors in Firm Designated ID, Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information for each of its Customers with an Active Account submitted to the Central Repository have been identified by the Plan Processor or otherwise, such Member to submit corrected data to the Central Repository by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on T+3. This requirement implements the error correction requirement set forth in Appendix C of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (v) Industry Member Information Reporting

    Section 6.4(d)(vi) of the CAT NMS Plan requires Industry Members to submit to the Central Repository information sufficient to identify such Industry Member, including CRD number and LEI, if such LEI has been obtained, in accordance with the Existing Identifier Approach discussed above. FINRA proposes Rule 6850 (Industry Member Information Reporting) to implement this provision of the CAT NMS Plan with regard to its Industry Members. Specifically, proposed Rule 6850 requires each Industry Member to submit to the Central Repository information sufficient to identify such Industry Member, including CRD number and LEI, if such LEI has been obtained, prior to such Industry Member's commencement of reporting to the Central Repository and in accordance with the deadlines set forth in Rule 6880, and keep such information up to date as necessary.

    (vi) Time Stamps

    SEC Rule 613(d)(3) sets forth requirements for time stamps used by CAT Reporters in recording and reporting data to the CAT.47 To comply with this provision, Section 6.8(b) of the Plan sets forth time stamp requirements for Industry Members. To implement this provision with regard to its Industry Members, FINRA proposes new Rule 6860 (Time Stamps) to require its Industry Members to comply with the time stamp requirements of the Plan.

    47 17 CFR 242.613(d)(3).

    Paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6860 sets forth the time stamp increments to be used by Industry Members in their CAT reporting. Paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Rule 6860 requires each Industry Member to record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in milliseconds, subject to paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) of proposed Rule 6860. To the extent that any Industry Member's order handling or execution systems utilize time stamps in increments finer than milliseconds, paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 6860 requires such Industry Member to record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in such finer increment, subject to paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6860 regarding Manual Order Events and Allocation Reports.

    Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6860 sets forth the permissible time stamp increments for Manual Order Events and Allocation Reports. Specifically, paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 6860 permits each Industry Member to record and report Manual Order Events to the Central Repository in increments up to and including one second, provided that each Industry Member is required to record and report the Electronic Capture Time in milliseconds. In addition, paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 6860 permits each Industry Member to record and report the time of Allocation Reports in increments up to and including one second.

    (vii) Time Stamp and Clock Synchronization Rule Violations

    Proposed Rule 6865 (Clock Synchronization Rule Violations) describes potential violations of the time stamp and clock synchronization time period requirements set forth in the proposed Rule 6800 Series. Proposed Rule 6865 states that an Industry Member that engages in a pattern or practice of reporting Reportable Events with time stamps generated by Business Clocks that are not synchronized according the requirements set forth in this Rule Series without reasonable justification or exceptional circumstances may be considered in violation of this Rule. This provision implements the requirements of Section 6.8 of the CAT NMS Plan which requires the Compliance Rule to provide that a pattern or practice of reporting events outside of the required clock synchronization time period without reasonable justification or exceptional circumstances may be considered a violation of SEC Rule 613 or the CAT NMS Plan.

    (viii) Connectivity and Data Transmission

    Proposed Rule 6870 (Connectivity and Data Transmission) addresses connectivity and data transmission requirements related to the CAT. Paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6870 describes the format(s) for reporting Industry Member Data to the Central Repository, thereby implementing the formatting requirements as set forth in Section 6.4(a) of the CAT NMS Plan. Specifically, paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6870 requires each Industry Member to transmit data as required under the CAT NMS Plan to the Central Repository utilizing such format(s) as may be provided by the Plan Processor and approved by the Operating Committee.

    Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6870 addresses connectivity requirements related to the CAT. Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6870 requires each Industry Member to connect to the Central Repository using a secure method(s), including, but not limited to, private line(s) and virtual private network connection(s). This provision implements the connectivity requirements set forth in Section 4 of Appendix D to the CAT NMS Plan.

    Paragraph (c) permits Industry Members to use CAT Reporting Agents to fulfill their data reporting obligations related to the CAT. Paragraph (c) is based on Rule 7450(c), which permits OATS Reporting Members to enter into agreements with Reporting Agents to fulfill the OATS obligations of the OATS Reporting Member. Specifically, paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 6870 states that any Industry Member may enter into an agreement with a CAT Reporting Agent pursuant to which the CAT Reporting Agent agrees to fulfill the obligations of such Industry Member under the proposed Rule 6800 Series. Any such agreement must be evidenced in writing, which specifies the respective functions and responsibilities of each party to the agreement that are required to effect full compliance with the requirements of the proposed Rule 6800 Series. FINRA notes that, currently, no standardized form agreement for CAT Reporting Agent arrangements has been adopted. Paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Rule 6870 requires that all written documents evidencing an agreement with a CAT Reporting Agent be maintained by each party to the agreement. Paragraph (c)(3) states that each Industry Member remains primarily responsible for compliance with the requirements of the proposed Rule 6800 Series, notwithstanding the existence of an agreement described in paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 6870.

    (ix) Development and Testing

    FINRA proposes Rule 6880 (Development and Testing) to address requirements for Industry Members related to CAT development and testing. Paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6880 sets forth the testing requirements and deadlines for Industry Members to develop and commence reporting to the Central Repository. These requirements are set forth in Appendix C to the CAT NMS Plan.

    Paragraph (a)(1) sets forth the deadlines related to connectivity and acceptance testing. Industry Members (other than Small Industry Members) are required to begin connectivity and acceptance testing with the Central Repository no later than August 15, 2018, and Small Industry Members are required to begin connectivity and acceptance testing with the Central Repository no later than August 15, 2019.

    Paragraph (a)(2) sets forth the deadlines related to reporting Customer and Industry Member information. Paragraph (a)(2)(i) requires Industry Members (other than Small Industry Members) to begin reporting Customer and Industry Member information, as required by Rules 6840(a) and 6850, respectively, to the Central Repository for processing no later than October 15, 2018. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) requires Small Industry Members to begin reporting Customer and Industry Member information, as required by Rules 6840(a) and 6850, respectively, to the Central Repository for processing no later than October 15, 2019.

    Paragraph (a)(3) sets forth the deadlines related to the submission of order data. Under paragraph (a)(3)(i), Industry Members (other than Small Industry Members) are permitted, but not required, to submit order data for testing purposes beginning no later than May 15, 2018. In addition, Industry Members (other than Small Industry Members) are required to participate in the coordinated and structured testing of order submission, which will begin no later than August 15, 2018. Under paragraph (a)(3)(ii), Small Industry Members are permitted, but not required, to submit order data for testing purposes beginning no later than May 15, 2019. In addition, Small Industry Members are required to participate in the coordinated and structured testing of order submission, which will begin no later than August 15, 2019.

    Paragraph (a)(4) states that Industry Members are permitted, but not required to, submit Quote Sent Times on Options Market Maker quotes, beginning no later than October 15, 2018.

    Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6880 implements the requirement under the CAT NMS Plan that Industry Members participate in required industry testing with the Central Repository.48 Specifically, proposed Rule 6880 requires that each Industry Member participate in testing related to the Central Repository, including any industry-wide disaster recovery testing, pursuant to the schedule established pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan. FINRA intends to announce to its Industry Members the schedule established pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan via Regulatory Notice.

    48 Adopting Release at 84725.

    (x) Recordkeeping

    Proposed Rule 6890 (Recordkeeping) sets forth the recordkeeping obligations related to the CAT for Industry Members. Proposed Rule 6890 requires each Industry Member to maintain and preserve records of the information required to be recorded under the proposed Rule 6800 Series for the period of time and accessibility specified in SEA Rule 17a-4(b).49 The records required to be maintained and preserved under the proposed Rule 6800 Series may be immediately produced or reproduced on “micrographic media” as defined in SEA Rule 17a-4(f)(1)(i) 50 or by means of “electronic storage media” as defined in SEA Rule 17a-4(f)(1)(ii) 51 that meet the conditions set forth in SEA Rule 17a-4(f) 52 and be maintained and preserved for the required time in that form. Proposed Rule 6890 is based on Rule 7440(a)(5), which sets forth the recordkeeping requirements related to OATS.

    49 17 CFR 240.17a-4(b).

    50 17 CFR 240.17a-4(f)(1)(i).

    51 17 CFR 240.17a-4(f)(1)(ii).

    52 17 CFR 240.17a-4(f).

    (xi) Timely, Accurate and Complete Data

    SEC Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan emphasize the importance of the timeliness, accuracy, completeness and integrity of the data submitted to the CAT.53 Accordingly, proposed Rule 6893 (Timely, Accurate and Complete Data) implements this requirement with regard to Industry Members. Paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6893 requires that Industry Members record and report data to the Central Repository as required by the proposed Rule 6800 Series in a manner that ensures the timeliness, accuracy, integrity and completeness of such data.

    53See 17 CFR 242.613(e)(4)(i)(D)(ii); and Section 6.5(d) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    In addition, without limiting the general requirement as set forth in paragraph (a), paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6893 requires Industry Members to accurately provide the LEIs in their records as required by the proposed Rule 6800 Series and states that Industry Members may not knowingly submit inaccurate LEIs to the Central Repository. Paragraph (b) notes, however, that this requirement does not impose any additional due diligence obligations on Industry Members with regard to LEIs for CAT purposes. Accordingly, this provision does not impose any due diligence obligations beyond those that may exist today with respect to information associated with an LEI. Although Industry Members will not be required to perform additional due diligence with regard to the LEIs for CAT purposes, Industry Members will be required to accurately provide the LEIs in their records and may not knowingly submit inaccurate LEIs to the CAT. Paragraph (b) is consistent with the SEC's statements in the Approval Order for the CAT NMS Plan regarding an Industry Member's obligations regarding LEIs.54

    54 Approval Order, supra note 10, at 84745.

    Paragraph (c) states that, if an Industry Member reports data to the Central Repository with errors such that its error percentage exceeds the maximum Error Rate established by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan, then such Industry Member would not be in compliance with the Rule 6800 Series. As discussed above, the initial maximum Error Rate is 5%, although the Error Rate is expected to be reduced over time. FINRA intends to announce to its Industry Members changes to the Error Rate established pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan via Regulatory Notice.

    Furthermore, paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 6893 addresses Compliance Thresholds related to reporting data to the CAT. Proposed Rule 6893 states that each Industry Member is required to meet a separate compliance threshold which will be an Industry Member-specific rate that may be used as the basis for further review or investigation into the Industry Member's performance with regard to the CAT (the “Compliance Thresholds”). Compliance Thresholds will compare an Industry Member's error rate to the aggregate Error Rate over a period of time to be defined by the Operating Committee. Compliance Thresholds will be set by the Operating Committee, and will be calculated at intervals to be set by the Operating Committee.55 Compliance Thresholds will include compliance with the data reporting and clock synchronization requirements. Proposed Rule 6893 states that an Industry Member's performance with respect to its Compliance Threshold will not signify, as a matter of law, that such Industry Member has violated this proposed rule series.

    55 Appendix C of the CAT NMS Plan.

    (xii) Compliance Dates

    Proposed Rule 6895 (Compliance Dates) sets forth the compliance dates for the various provisions of the proposed Rule 6800 Series. Paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 6895 states that, except as set forth in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Rule or otherwise set forth in this Rule Series, the compliance date for the proposed Rule 6800 Series will be the date of Commission approval of the proposed rule change.

    Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 6895 establishes the compliance dates for the clock synchronization requirements as set forth in proposed Rule 6820. Paragraph (b)(1) states that each Industry Member shall comply with Rule 6820 with regard to Business Clocks that capture time in milliseconds commencing on or before March 15, 2017. Paragraph (b)(2) states that each Industry Member shall comply with Rule 6820 with regard to Business Clocks that do not capture time in milliseconds commencing on or before February 19, 2018. The compliance date set forth in paragraph (b)(1) reflects the exemptive relief requested by the Participants with regard to the clock synchronization requirements related to Business Clocks that do not capture time in milliseconds.56

    56 As discussed in the exemptive request letter filed by the Participants, the proposed clock synchronization compliance dates in Rule 6895(b) reflect the same compliance dates for the clock synchronization requirements recently adopted by FINRA in Rule 4590. In the discussion above FINRA notes the similarities, which are substantial, and the differences between the clock synchronization requirements proposed in this filing and the existing clock synchronization requirements in Rule 4590.

    Paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 6895 establishes the compliance dates for the data recording and reporting requirements for Industry Members. Paragraph (c)(1) requires each Industry Member (other than Small Industry Members) to record and report the Industry Member Data to the Central Repository by November 15, 2018. Paragraph (c)(2) requires that each Industry Member that is a Small Industry Member to record and report the Industry Member Data to the Central Repository by November 15, 2019. Such compliance dates are consistent with the compliance dates set forth in SEC Rule 613(a)(3)(v) and (vi),57 and Section 6.7(a)(v) and (vi) of the CAT NMS Plan.

    57 17 CFR 242.613(a)(3)(v), (vi).

    If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, the effective date of the proposed rule change will be the date of approval.

    2. Statutory Basis

    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,58 which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and Section 15A(b)(9) of the Act,59 which requires that FINRA rules not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate.

    58 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).

    59 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(9).

    FINRA believes that this proposed rule change is consistent with the Act because it implements, interprets or clarifies the provisions of the Plan, and is designed to assist FINRA and its Industry Members in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan “is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.” 60 To the extent that this proposal implements, interprets or clarifies the Plan and applies specific requirements to Industry Members, FINRA believes that this proposal furthers the objectives of the Plan, as identified by the SEC, and is therefore consistent with the Act.

    60 Approval Order, supra note 9, at 84697.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA notes that the proposed rule change implements provisions of the CAT NMS Plan, and is designed to assist FINRA in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. FINRA also notes that the proposed rule series implementing provisions of the CAT NMS Plan will apply equally to all firms that trade NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities. In addition, the national securities exchanges are proposing similar rules to require compliance by their members with the CAT NMS Plan. Therefore, this is not a competitive rule filing, and, therefore, it does not impose a burden on competition.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or

    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    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:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-FINRA-2017-003 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2017-003. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2017-003 and should be submitted on or before March 2, 2017.

    61 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.61

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-02642 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79955; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-06] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading Shares of the Bitcoin Investment Trust under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201 February 3, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that, on January 25, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).

    2 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares of the following under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201: Bitcoin Investment Trust (“Trust”). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    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.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201, the Exchange may propose to list and/or trade pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”) “Commodity-Based Trust Shares.” 4 The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the Trust pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201.5

    4 Commodity-Based Trust Shares are securities issued by a trust that represent investors' discrete identifiable and undivided beneficial ownership interest in the commodities deposited into the Trust.

    5 On January 20, 2017, the Trust filed a registration statement (“Registration Statement”) on Form S-1 under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a) (File No. 333-215627). The descriptions of the Trust, the Shares and bitcoin contained herein are based, in part, on the Registration Statement.

    On March 4, 2016, the Trust submitted to the Commission an amended Form D as a business trust. Shares of the Trust have been quoted on OTC Market's OTCQX Best Marketplace under the symbol “GBTC” since March 26, 2015. On November 11, 2016, the Trust also published a quarterly report for GBTC for the period ended September 30, 2016, which can be found on OTC Market's Web site: http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/GBTC/filings. The Shares will be of the same class and will have the same rights as shares of GBTC. Effective October 28, 2014, the Trust suspended its redemption program for shares of GBTC, in which shareholders were permitted to request the redemption of their shares through Genesis Global Trading, Inc. (formerly known as SecondMarket, Inc.), an affiliate of the Sponsor and the Trust (“Genesis”). According to the Sponsor, freely tradeable shares of GBTC will remain unregistered freely tradeable Shares on the date of the listing of the Shares unless, if authorized by the Trust, holders of GBTC sell the shares in the initial public offering. Restricted shares of GBTC will remain subject to private placement restrictions and the holders of such restricted shares may either (i) continue to hold those shares subject to those restrictions or (ii) if authorized by the Trust, sell the restricted shares in the initial public offering.

    The sponsor of the Trust is Grayscale Investments, LLC (“Sponsor”), a Delaware limited liability company. The Sponsor is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, Inc. (“Digital Currency Group”). The trustee for the Trust is Delaware Trust Company (“Trustee”). The Bank of New York Mellon will be the Trust's transfer agent (in such capacity, “Transfer Agent”) and the administrator of the Trust (in such capacity, “Administrator”). Xapo Inc. is the custodian for the Trust (“Custodian”).6 ALPS Portfolio Solutions Distributor, Inc. will be the marketing agent for the Trust (“Marketing Agent”).

    6 According to the Registration Statement, Digital Currency Group owns a minority interest in the Custodian that represents less than 1.0% of the Custodian's equity.

    The Trust is a Delaware statutory trust, organized on September 13, 2013, that operates pursuant to a trust agreement between the Sponsor and the Trustee. The Trust has no fixed termination date.

    According to the Registration Statement, each Share will represent a proportional interest, based on the total number of Shares outstanding, in the bitcoins held by the Trust, less the Trust's liabilities, which include accrued but unpaid fees and expenses. The Trust's assets will consist solely of bitcoins held on the Trust's behalf by the Custodian. The Trust has not had a cash balance at any time since inception. When selling bitcoins to pay expenses, the Sponsor will endeavor to sell the exact number of bitcoins needed to pay expenses in order to minimize the Trust's holdings of assets other than bitcoin. As a consequence, the Trust expects that it will not record any cash flow from its operations and that its cash balance will be zero at the end of each reporting period.

    The activities of the Trust will be limited to (i) issuing “Baskets” (as defined below) in exchange for bitcoins deposited by the “Authorized Participants” (as defined below) or “Liquidity Providers” (as defined below), as applicable, with the Custodian as consideration, (ii) transferring actual bitcoins as necessary to cover the Sponsor's management fee and selling bitcoins as necessary to pay certain other fees that are not contractually assumed by the Sponsor, (iii) transferring actual bitcoins in exchange for Baskets surrendered for redemption by the Authorized Participants, (iv) causing the Sponsor to sell bitcoins on the termination of the Trust and (v) engaging in all administrative and custodial procedures necessary to accomplish such activities in accordance with the provisions of applicable agreements. The Trust is not actively managed. It will not engage in any activities designed to obtain a profit from, or to ameliorate losses caused by, changes in the market price of bitcoins.

    According to the Registration Statement, the Trust is neither an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, (“1940 Act”) 7 nor a commodity pool for purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act,8 and neither the Sponsor nor the Trustee is subject to regulation as a commodity pool operator or a commodity trading adviser in connection with the Shares.

    7 15 U.S.C. 80a-1.

    8 17 U.S.C. 1.

    Investment Objective

    According to the Registration Statement, and as further described below, the investment objective of the Trust will be for the Shares to reflect the performance of the value of a bitcoin as represented by the TradeBlock XBX Index (“Index”),9 less the Trust's liabilities and expenses.

    9 The Index is a U.S. dollar-denominated composite reference rate for the price of bitcoin based on the volume-weighted price at trading venues selected by TradeBlock, Inc. (“Index Provider”). According to the Registration Statement, Digital Currency Group, Inc. owns approximately 2.4% of the Index Provider's voting equity and warrants representing approximately 1.4% of the Index Provider's voting equity. See “Bitcoin Index Price” below.

    The Shares are designed to provide investors with a cost-effective and convenient way to invest in bitcoin. A substantial direct investment in bitcoins may require expensive and sometimes complicated arrangements in connection with the acquisition, security and safekeeping of the bitcoins and may involve the payment of substantial fees to acquire such bitcoins from third-party facilitators through cash payments of U.S. dollars. Although the Shares will not be the exact equivalent of a direct investment in bitcoins, they will provide investors with an alternative that constitutes a relatively cost-effective way to participate in bitcoin markets through the securities market.

    Overview of the Bitcoin Industry and Market

    The following is a brief introduction to the bitcoin industry and the bitcoin market based on information provided in the Registration Statement.

    The Bitcoin Network

    A bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency that is issued by, and transmitted through, an open-source digital protocol platform using cryptographic security that is known as the “Bitcoin Network.” The Bitcoin Network is an online, peer-to-peer user network that hosts a public transaction ledger, known as the “Blockchain,” and the source code that comprises the basis for the cryptography and digital protocols governing the Bitcoin Network. No single entity owns or operates the Bitcoin Network, the infrastructure of which is collectively maintained by a decentralized user base. Bitcoins can be used to pay for goods and services or can be converted to fiat currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, at rates determined on electronic marketplaces where exchange participants may first use fiat currency to trade, buy and sell bitcoins based on bid-ask trading (“Bitcoin Exchanges”) or in individual end-user-to-end-user transactions in the over-the-counter (“OTC”) markets.

    The Blockchain is comprised of a digital file, downloaded and stored in a decentralized manner on the computer of each Bitcoin Network user. The file includes all “blocks” that have been solved by miners and is updated to include new blocks as they are solved. As each newly solved block refers back to and “connects” with the immediately prior solved block, the addition of a new block adds to the Blockchain in a manner similar to a new link being added to a chain. Because each new block records outstanding bitcoin transactions, and outstanding transactions are settled and validated through such recording, the Blockchain represents a complete, transparent and unbroken history of all transactions on the Bitcoin Network.

    Bitcoins are “stored” or reflected on the Blockchain. The Blockchain records the transaction history of all bitcoins in existence and, through the transparent reporting of transactions, allows the Bitcoin Network to verify the association of each bitcoin with the digital wallet that owns them. The Bitcoin Network and bitcoin software programs can interpret the Blockchain to determine the exact bitcoin balance of any digital wallet listed in the Blockchain as having taken part in a transaction on the Bitcoin Network.

    In order to own, transfer or use bitcoins, a person generally must have internet access to connect to the Bitcoin Network. Bitcoin transactions between parties occur very rapidly (typically less than one minute) and may be made directly between end-users without the need for a third-party intermediary, although there are entities that provide third-party intermediary services. To prevent the possibility of double-spending a single bitcoin, each transaction is recorded, time stamped and publicly displayed in a block in the publicly available Blockchain. Thus, the Bitcoin Network provides confirmation against double-spending by memorializing every transaction in the Blockchain, which is publicly accessible and downloaded in part or in whole by all users' Bitcoin Network software programs as described above.

    The Bitcoin Network is decentralized and does not rely on either governmental authorities or financial institutions to create, transmit or determine the value of bitcoins. Rather, bitcoins are created and allocated by the Bitcoin Network protocol through a “mining” process subject to a strict, well-known issuance schedule. The value of bitcoins is determined by the supply of and demand for bitcoins in the bitcoin exchange market (and in private end-user-to-end-user transactions), as well as the number of merchants that accept them. As bitcoin transactions can be broadcast to the Bitcoin Network by any user's bitcoin software and bitcoins can be transferred without the involvement of intermediaries or third parties, there are little or no transaction costs in direct peer-to-peer transactions on the Bitcoin Network. Third-party service providers such as Bitcoin Exchanges and bitcoin third-party payment processing services may charge significant fees for processing transactions and for converting, or facilitating the conversion of, bitcoins to or from fiat currency.

    “Off-Blockchain transactions” involve the transfer of control over or ownership of a specific digital wallet holding bitcoins or of the reallocation of ownership of certain bitcoins in a pooled-ownership digital wallet, such as a digital wallet owned by a Bitcoin Exchange. Off-Blockchain transactions are not truly bitcoin transactions in that they do not involve the transfer of transaction data on the Bitcoin Network and do not reflect a movement of bitcoins between addresses recorded in the Blockchain. Information and data regarding Off-Blockchain transactions are generally not publicly available in contrast to “true” bitcoin transactions, which are publicly recorded on the Blockchain. Off-Blockchain transactions are subject to risks as any such transfer of bitcoin ownership is not protected by the protocol behind the Bitcoin Network or recorded in and validated through the Blockchain mechanism.

    Overview of Bitcoin Transactions

    Prior to engaging in bitcoin transactions, a user must first obtain a digital bitcoin “wallet” (analogous to a bitcoin account) in which to store bitcoins. A wallet can be obtained, among other ways, through an open-source software program that generates bitcoin addresses and enables users to engage in the transfer of bitcoins with other users. A user may install a bitcoin software program on a computer or mobile device that will generate a bitcoin wallet or, alternatively, a user may retain a third party to create a digital wallet to be used for the same purpose. There is no limit on the number of digital wallets a user can have, and each such wallet includes one or more unique addresses and a verification system for each address consisting of a “public key” and a “private key,” which are mathematically related.

    In a typical bitcoin transaction, the bitcoin recipient must provide the spending party with the recipient's digital wallet address, an identifying series of 27 to 34 alphanumeric characters that represents the wallet's routing number on the Bitcoin Network and allows the Blockchain to record the sending of bitcoins to the recipient's wallet. The receiving party can provide this address to the spending party in alphanumeric format or an encoded format such as a Quick Response Code (commonly known as a QR Code), which may be scanned by a smartphone or other device to quickly transmit the information. This activity is analogous to a recipient providing an address in wire instructions to the payor so that cash may be wired to the recipient's account.

    After the provision of the receiving wallet's digital address, the spending party must enter the address into its bitcoin software program along with the number of bitcoins to be sent. The number of bitcoins to be sent will typically be agreed upon between the two parties based on a set number of bitcoins or an agreed upon conversion of the value of fiat currency to bitcoins. Most bitcoin software programs also allow, and often suggest, the payment of a transaction fee (also known as a miner's fee). Transaction fees are not required to be included by many bitcoin software programs, but, when they are included, they are paid by the spending party on top of the specified amount of bitcoins being sent in the transaction. Transaction fees, if any, are typically a fractional number of bitcoins (for example, 0.005 or 0.0005 bitcoins) and are automatically transferred by the Bitcoin Network to the bitcoin miner that solves and adds the block recording the spending transaction on the Blockchain.

    After the entry of the receiving wallet's address, the number of bitcoins to be sent and the transaction fees, if any, to be paid, the spending party will transmit the spending transaction. The transmission of the spending transaction results in the creation of a data packet by the spending party's bitcoin software program. The data packet includes data showing (i) the receiving wallet's address, (ii) the number of bitcoins being sent, (iii) the transaction fees, if any, and (iv) the spending party's digital signature, verifying the authenticity of the transaction. The data packet also includes references called “inputs” and “outputs,” which are used by the Blockchain to identify the source of the bitcoins being spent and record the flow of bitcoins from one transaction to the next transaction in which the bitcoins are spent. The digital signature exposes the spending party's digital wallet address and public key to the Bitcoin Network, though, for the receiving party, only its digital wallet address is revealed. The spending party's bitcoin software will transmit the data packet onto the decentralized Bitcoin Network, resulting in the propagation of the information among the software programs of bitcoin users across the Bitcoin Network for eventual inclusion in the Blockchain. Typically, the data will spread to a vast majority of bitcoin miners within the course of less than one minute.

    Bitcoin miners record transactions when they solve for and add blocks of information to the Blockchain. When a miner solves for a block, it creates that block, which includes data relating to (i) the solution to the block, (ii) a reference to the prior block in the Blockchain to which the new block is being added and (iii) all transactions that have occurred but have not yet been added to the Blockchain. The miner becomes aware of outstanding, unrecorded transactions through the data packet transmission and propagation discussed above. Typically, bitcoin transactions will be recorded in the next chronological block if the spending party has an internet connection and at least one minute has passed between the transaction's data packet transmission and the solution of the next block. If a transaction is not recorded in the next chronological block, it is usually recorded in the next block thereafter.

    Bitcoin transactions that are micropayments (typically, less than 0.01 bitcoins) and that do not include transaction fees to miners are currently deprioritized for recording, meaning that, depending on bitcoin miner policies, these transactions may take longer to record than typical transactions if the transactions do not include a transaction fee. Additionally, transactions initiated by spending wallets with poor connections to the Bitcoin Network (i.e., few or poor quality connections to nodes or “supernodes” that relay transaction data) may be delayed in the propagation of their transaction data and, therefore, transaction recording on the Blockchain. Finally, to the extent that a miner chooses to limit the transactions it includes in a solved block (whether by the payment of transaction fees or otherwise), a transaction not meeting that miner's criteria will not be included.

    To the extent that a transaction has not yet been recorded, there is a greater chance that the spending wallet can double-spend the bitcoins sent in the original transaction. If the next block solved is by an honest miner not involved in the attempt to double-spend bitcoin and if the transaction data for both the original and double-spend transactions have been propagated onto the Bitcoin Network, the transaction that is received with the earlier time stamp will be recorded by the solving miner, regardless of whether the double-spending transaction includes a larger transaction fee. If the double-spend transaction propagates to the solving miner and the original transaction has not, then the double-spending has a greater chance of success. As a result of the high difficulty in successfully initiating a double-spend without the assistance of a coordinated attack, the probability of success for a double-spend transaction attempt is limited.

    Upon the addition of a block included in the Blockchain, the bitcoin software program of both the spending party and the receiving party will show confirmation of the transaction on the Blockchain and reflect an adjustment to the bitcoin balance in each party's digital wallet, completing the bitcoin transaction. Typically, bitcoin software programs will automatically check for and display additional confirmations of six or more blocks in the Blockchain.

    To ensure the integrity of bitcoin transactions from the recipient's side (i.e., to prevent double-spending by a payor), every bitcoin transaction is broadcast to the Bitcoin Network and recorded in the Blockchain through the mining process, which time-stamps the transaction and memorializes the change in the ownership of the bitcoin(s) transferred. Adding a block to the Blockchain requires bitcoin miners to exert significant computational effort to verify it is a valid transaction. According to the Registration Statement, requiring this computational effort, or “proof of work,” prevents a malicious actor from either adding fraudulent blocks to generate bitcoins (i.e., counterfeit bitcoins) or overwriting existing valid blocks to reverse its prior transactions.

    A transaction in bitcoins between two parties is recorded in the Blockchain in a block only if that block is accepted as valid by a majority of the nodes on the Bitcoin Network. Validation of a block is achieved by confirming the cryptographic “hash value” included in the block's solution and by the block's addition to the longest confirmed Blockchain on the Bitcoin Network. For a transaction, inclusion in a block on the Blockchain constitutes a “confirmation” of the bitcoin transaction. As each block contains a reference to the immediately preceding block, additional blocks appended to and incorporated into the Blockchain constitute additional confirmations of the transactions in such prior blocks, and a transaction included in a block for the first time is confirmed once against double-spending. The layered confirmation process makes changing historical blocks (and reversing transactions) exponentially more difficult the further back one goes in the Blockchain. Bitcoin Exchanges and users can set their own threshold as to how many confirmations are required until funds from the transferor are considered valid. However, statistically speaking, a transaction is virtually final after six confirmations as it would be extremely difficult to challenge the validity of the transaction at that point.

    According to the Registration Statement, at this point in the evolution of the Bitcoin Network, bitcoin transactions are considered irreversible. Once a transaction appears in the Blockchain, no one has the authority to reverse it. If someone were to attempt to undo a past transaction in a block recorded on the Blockchain, such individual would have to exert tremendous processing power in a series of complicated transactions that may not be achieved at this point in the Bitcoin Network's development.

    Bitcoin Security and Storage

    According to the Registration Statement, all transactions on the Bitcoin Network are secured using public-key cryptography, a technique which underpins many online transactions. Public-key cryptography works by generating two mathematically related keys (one a public key and the other a private key). One of these, the private key, is retained in the individual's digital wallet and the other key is made public and serves as the address to which bitcoin(s) can be transferred and from which money can be transferred by the owner of the bitcoin wallet. In the case of bitcoin transactions, the public key is an address (a string of letters and numbers) that is used to encode payments, which can then only be retrieved with its associated private key, which is used to authorize the transaction. In other words, the payor uses his private key to approve any transfers to a recipient's account. Users on the Bitcoin Network can confirm that the user signed the transaction with the appropriate private key, but cannot reverse engineer the private key from the signature.

    According to the Registration Statement, the Custodian is responsible for keeping the private key or keys that provide access to the Trust's digital wallets and vaults secure. Pursuant to a request from the Sponsor or the Trust, the Custodian will establish and maintain an account with one or more wallets (“Wallet Account”) and one or more cold-storage vault accounts (“Vault Account” and, together with the Wallet Account and any subaccounts associated therewith, the “Bitcoin Account”) in the name of the Sponsor and the Trust. The Custodian deposits and withdraws bitcoins to and from the Bitcoin Account at the instruction of the Sponsor. The Custodian is responsible for administering the Bitcoin Account.

    The Bitcoin Account is maintained by the Custodian and cold storage mechanisms are used for the Vault Account by the Custodian. Each digital wallet of the Trust may be accessed using its corresponding private key. The Custodian's custodial operations maintain custody of the private keys that have been deposited in cold storage at its various vaulting premises across the United States, Europe (including Switzerland) and South America. According to the Registration Statement, the locations of the vaulting premises change regularly and are kept confidential by the Custodian for security purposes.

    The term “cold storage” refers to a safeguarding method by which the private keys corresponding to bitcoins stored on a digital wallet are removed from any computers actively connected to the internet. Cold storage of private keys may involve keeping such wallet on a non-networked computer or electronic device or storing the public key and private keys relating to the digital wallet on a storage device (for example, a USB thumb drive) or printed medium (for example, papyrus or paper) and deleting the digital wallet from all computers. According to the Registration Statement, most of the private keys in the Wallet Account and all of the private keys in the Vault Account are kept in cold storage. A digital wallet may receive deposits of bitcoins but may not send bitcoins without use of the bitcoins' corresponding private keys. In order to send bitcoin from a digital wallet in which the private keys are kept in cold storage, either the private keys must be retrieved from cold storage and entered into a bitcoin software program to sign the transaction, or the unsigned transaction must be sent to the “cold” server in which the private keys are held for signature by the private keys. At that point, the user of the digital wallet can transfer its bitcoins.

    According to the Registration Statement, the Custodian is the custodian of the Trust's private keys and will utilize certain security procedures such as algorithms, codes, passwords, encryption or telephone call-backs in the administration and operation of the Trust and the safekeeping of its bitcoins and private keys. The Custodian has created a Vault Account for the Trust assets in which private keys are placed in cold storage. According to the Registration Statement, the Custodian segregates the private keys stored with it from any other assets it holds or holds for others.

    The Custodian is authorized to accept, on behalf of the Trust, deposits of bitcoins from “Authorized Participant Self-Administered Accounts” (as defined below) or “Liquidity Provider Accounts” (as defined below), as applicable, held with the Custodian and transfer such bitcoins into the Bitcoin Account. Deposits of bitcoins will be immediately available to the Trust to the extent such bitcoins have not already been transferred to the Vault Account. Bitcoins transferred to the Bitcoin Account will be directly deposited into digital wallets for which the keys are already in cold storage.

    According to the Registration Statement, if bitcoins need to be withdrawn from the Trust in connection with a redemption, the Custodian will ensure that the private keys to those bitcoins sign the withdrawal transaction.

    Bitcoin Mining and Creation of New Bitcoins

    According to the Registration Statement, the process by which bitcoins are created and bitcoin transactions are verified is called mining.10 To begin mining, a miner can download and run a mining client, which, like regular Bitcoin Network software programs, turns the user's computer into a “node” on the Bitcoin Network that validates blocks. Bitcoin transactions are recorded in new blocks that are added to the Blockchain and new bitcoins being issued to the miners. Miners, through the use of the bitcoin software program, engage in a set of prescribed complex mathematical calculations in order to add a block to the Blockchain and thereby confirm bitcoin transactions included in that block's data.

    10 None of the Trust, Sponsor or Genesis currently participates in mining or has plans to engage in mining in the future.

    In order to add blocks to the Blockchain, a miner must map an input data set (i.e., the Blockchain, plus a block of the most recent Bitcoin Network transactions and an arbitrary number called a “nonce”) to a desired output data set of a predetermined length, i.e., a hash value, using the SHA-256 cryptographic hash algorithm. Each unique block can only be solved and added to the Blockchain by one miner; therefore, all individual miners and mining pools on the Bitcoin Network are engaged in a competitive process of constantly increasing their computing power to improve their likelihood of solving for new blocks. According to the Registration Statement, as more miners join the Bitcoin Network and its processing power increases, the Bitcoin Network adjusts the complexity of the block-solving equation to maintain a predetermined pace of adding a new block to the Blockchain approximately every ten minutes.

    A miner's proposed block is added to the Blockchain once a majority of the nodes on the Bitcoin Network confirms the miner's work. Miners that are successful in adding a block to the Blockchain are automatically awarded bitcoins for their effort plus any transaction fees paid by transferors whose transactions are recorded in the block. This reward system is the method by which new bitcoins enter into circulation to the public.

    The supply of new bitcoins is mathematically controlled in a manner so that the number of bitcoins grows at a limited rate pursuant to a pre-set schedule. The number of bitcoins awarded for solving a new block is automatically halved after every 210,000 blocks are added to the Blockchain. Recently, in July 2016, the fixed reward for solving a new block decreased from 25 bitcoins to 12.5 bitcoins per block and this is expected to decrease by half to become 6.25 bitcoins after the next 210,000 blocks have entered the Bitcoin Network, which is expected to be July 2020. This deliberately controlled rate of bitcoin creation means that the number of bitcoins in existence will increase at a controlled rate until the number of bitcoins in existence reaches the pre-determined 21 million bitcoins. According to the Registration Statement, as of December 30, 2016, approximately 16.08 million bitcoins have been mined, and estimates of when the 21 million bitcoin limitation will be reached range up to the year 2140.

    Bitcoin Exchanges

    According to the Registration Statement, due to the peer-to-peer framework of the Bitcoin Network and the protocols thereunder, transferors and recipients of bitcoins are able to determine the value of the bitcoins transferred by mutual agreement or barter with respect to their transactions. As a result, the most common means of determining the value of a bitcoin is by surveying one or more Bitcoin Exchanges where bitcoins are bought, sold and traded. On each Bitcoin Exchange, bitcoins are traded with publicly disclosed valuations for each transaction, measured by one or more fiat currencies such as the U.S. dollar or the Chinese yuan. According to the Registration Statement, while a significant volume of bitcoin-to-fiat-currency exchange is denominated in currency other than U.S. dollars, movements in pricing on these exchanges are generally in line with U.S. dollar-denominated exchanges. According to the Registration Statement, for example, volume on the self-reported, unregulated exchanges located in China makes up approximately 95% of the global trade volume in bitcoins. According to the Registration Statement, similar to other currency pairs, such as euro to bitcoin, movements in pricing on the Chinese exchanges are generally in line with U.S. dollar-denominated exchanges. For example, according to the Registration Statement, based on data from the Index Provider, from May 10, 2015 to December 30, 2016, the 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time (“E.T.”), spot price on the three primary Chinese yuan-denominated exchanges (BTC China, Huobi and OKCoin) differed from the “Bitcoin Index Price” (as defined below) by only 1.5% on average.

    According to the Registration Statement, bitcoin price indexes have also been developed by a number of service providers in the bitcoin space. For example, Coindesk, a digital currency content provider and wholly-owned subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, launched a proprietary bitcoin price index in September 2013, and bitcoinaverage.com provides an average of all bitcoin prices on several Bitcoin Exchanges. The Sponsor uses the Index calculated by the Index Provider to determine the “Bitcoin Index Price,” as described below under “Bitcoin Index Price.”

    Currently, there are numerous Bitcoin Exchanges operating worldwide in a number of currency pairs including, among others, bitcoin to U.S. dollar, bitcoin to euro, bitcoin to Chinese yuan and bitcoin to Indian rupee. According to the Registration Statement, most of the data with respect to prevailing valuations of bitcoin come from such Bitcoin Exchanges. These exchanges include established exchanges such as Bitstamp, GDAX and Bitfinex, which provide a number of options for buying and selling bitcoins. Among the Bitcoin Exchanges eligible for inclusion in the Index, domicile, regulation and legal compliance varies.

    The table below sets forth (1) the aggregate number of bitcoin trades made on the nine largest U.S. dollar-denominated Bitcoin Exchanges by trade volume from May 10, 2015 to December 30, 2016 and (2) the market share of trade volume of each such Bitcoin Exchange.

    Nine Largest U.S. Dollar-Denominated Bitcoin Exchanges by Trade Volume 11 Volume
  • (BTC) 12,13
  • Market share
  • (%)
  • Bitcoin Exchanges included in the Index as of December 30, 2016 Bitfinex 12,333,460 30.89% OKCoin International 6,200,571 15.53 BitStamp 5,768,897 14.45 GDAX (formerly known as Coinbase Exchange) 4,325,755 10.83 ItBit 3,026,029 7.58 Total U.S. dollar-denominated trade volume included in the Index as of December 30, 2016 31,654,711 79.28 Bitcoin Exchanges not included in the Index as of December 30, 2016 BTC-E 4,157,855 10.41 LakeBTC 2,709,627 6.79 LocalBitcoins 806,194 2.02 Gemini 597,983 1.50 Total U.S. dollar-denominated trade volume not included in the Index as of December 30, 2016 8,271,689 20.72 Total U.S. Dollar-BTC trade volume 39,926,401 100.00

    Information regarding each Bitcoin Exchange may be found, where available, on the Web sites for such Bitcoin Exchanges, among other places.

    11 Based on amounts reported by the exchanges, the Sponsor estimates that the U.S. dollar-denominated Bitcoin Exchanges listed in this table account for approximately 3% of the aggregate global trade volume in bitcoins for all currency pairs traded on Bitcoin Exchanges. From May 10, 2015 to December 30, 2016, the three primary Chinese Bitcoin Exchanges, BTCC, Huobi and OKCoin Exchange China, reported a trade volume of over 1.26 billion bitcoins.

    12 Reflects the aggregate number of trades of U.S. dollars for bitcoin on each named Bitcoin Exchange from May 10, 2015 to December 30, 2016.

    13 As of May 10, 2015, Kraken EUR (U.S. dollar equivalent) was a component of the Index but was removed from the Index on May 11, 2015. The transactions on Kraken EUR were not a material component to the Index.

    Off-Exchange Bitcoin Trading

    According to the Registration Statement, in addition to open online Bitcoin Exchanges, there are “dark pools,” which are bitcoin trading platforms that do not publicly report bitcoin trade data. Market participants have the ability to execute large block trades on a dark pool without revealing those trades and the related price data to the public bitcoin exchange market, although any withdrawal from or deposit to a dark pool platform may be recorded on the Blockchain.14

    14 According to the Registration Statement, Genesis operates an OTC trading desk that buys and sells large blocks of bitcoins without publicly reporting trade data. Informal dark pools are currently believed to exist, particularly among wholesale buyers of bitcoin and bitcoin mining groups that obtain large supplies of bitcoin through mining. Such informal dark pools function as a result of the peer-to-peer nature of the Bitcoin Network, which allows direct transactions between any seller and buyer.

    Bitcoin may also be traded OTC. OTC trades are not required to be reported through any facilities. However, according to the Sponsor, based on publicly available information, OTC trading may not represent a material volume of overall bitcoin trading. The OTC markets operate in a similar manner to dark pools. However, typically, OTC trades are institutional size block transactions (though on a much lower scale relative to the size of block transactions for other commodities or industries) or transactions made on behalf of high-net worth individuals.

    According to the Sponsor, some OTC intermediaries that facilitate OTC trading, such as Genesis and itBit, provide summary statistics on an ad hoc basis. For instance, in April 2016, itBit reported that it had traded approximately 25,500 bitcoins, valued at approximately $10.3 million U.S. dollars, which would account for roughly 1.81% of the bitcoin trading volume across the nine highest volume U.S. dollar-denominated exchanges. For the fourth quarter of 2015, Genesis reported trading approximately 125,000 bitcoins, valued at approximately $50 million U.S. dollars. According to the Sponsor, the reported Genesis volume would comprise roughly 1.17% of the trading volume across the nine highest volume U.S. dollar-denominated exchanges during that time period.

    Bitcoin Price Volatility 15

    15 Attached as Exhibit 3 hereto are tables relating to: (i) rolling 3-month volatility of bitcoin and other commodities; (ii) average 3-month correlation of bitcoin to other commodities; (iii) rolling 6-month volatility of bitcoin and other commodities; (iv) average 6-month correlation of bitcoin to other commodities; (v) rolling 12-month volatility of bitcoin and other commodities; and (vi) average 12-month correlation of bitcoin to other commodities.

    According to the Sponsor, volatility in bitcoin was pronounced in its earliest days through late 2013. According to the Sponsor, during that time period, almost all bitcoin trading activity centered on two exchanges, which centralized the global order book and led to large price movements. Since then, the bitcoin trading environment has matured with the development of dozens of exchanges around the world, resulting in more transparency with respect to bitcoin pricing, in increased trading volume and in greater liquidity. Additionally, the globalization of bitcoin exchanges, ranging from those domiciled in the United States to other areas of the globe, such as China, has led to development of many bitcoin currency pairs, garnering more market participants. Today, the largest trading pairs are bitcoin to Chinese yuan, bitcoin to U.S. dollars and bitcoin to euro.

    Bitcoin price volatility has declined since the inception of bitcoin. According to the Sponsor and as detailed in Exhibit 3, recent figures, such as the three and six month volatility charts, show that the volatility of bitcoin is now at levels lower than those seen for crude oil and natural gas and comparable to those seen for metals like silver, platinum and copper. Moreover, the trailing one-year volatility of bitcoin is approximately in line with that of crude oil and natural gas and continues to trend downward.

    According to the Sponsor, while bitcoin price volatility has declined and its volatility approximately corresponds to that of certain commodities over a one-year timeframe, the volatility of bitcoin is not correlated with the volatility of other commodities over shorter- (i.e., three to six months) and longer-term (i.e., longer than one year) investment horizons, reinforcing the important role bitcoin can play as a diversifying asset in an investor's portfolio.

    Demand for Bitcoin

    According to the Sponsor, demand for bitcoins is based on several factors. Demand may be based on speculation regarding the future appreciation of the value of bitcoins. Continuing development of various applications utilizing the Bitcoin Network for uses such as remittance, payment for goods and services, recording transfer of ownership of certain assets and settlement of both financial and non-financial assets have led many investors to speculate that the price of bitcoins will appreciate as use of these applications increases. As additional applications are developed, demand may increase. Additionally, some investors have developed analogs between bitcoin and other scarce assets such as gold. Bitcoin shares many of the same characteristics as gold, e.g., scarcity, but has superior utility, portability and divisibility. If investors shift a portion of their asset allocations from gold to bitcoin, the demand for bitcoins could increase. Furthermore, bitcoins are used in day-to-day transactions for the purchase of goods and services. As additional merchants continue to accept bitcoins for the purchase of goods and services, demand for bitcoins may increase. Relatedly, as merchants accept bitcoins for sales of goods and services, supply of bitcoins could increase on the exchange markets as these merchants look to liquidate their bitcoin for fiat currencies.

    Bitcoin Index Price

    The “Bitcoin Index Price” is the U.S. dollar value of a bitcoin as represented by the Index, calculated at 4:00 p.m., E.T., on each business day. If the Index becomes unavailable, or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Index does not reflect an accurate bitcoin value, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Index Provider in order to obtain the Bitcoin Index Price. If after such contact the Index remains unavailable or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that the Index does not reflect an accurate bitcoin value, then the Administrator will utilize the following cascading set of rules to calculate the Bitcoin Index Price. For the avoidance of doubt, the Sponsor will employ the below rules sequentially and in the order presented below, should one or more specific rule(s) fail:

    (i) Bitcoin Index Price = The price set by the Index as of 4:00 p.m., E.T., on the valuation date. According to the Registration Statement, the Index is a U.S. dollar-denominated composite reference rate for the price of bitcoin based on the volume-weighted price at trading venues selected by the Index Provider. Trading venues used to calculate the Index may include Bitcoin Exchanges, OTC markets or derivative platforms. According to the Registration Statement, to ensure that the Index Provider's trading venue selection process is impartial, the Index Provider considers depth of liquidity, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, data availability, U.S. domicile and acceptance of U.S. dollar deposits. The Index Provider conducts a quarterly review of these criteria.

    According to the Registration Statement, as of the date of the Registration Statement, the eligible Bitcoin Exchanges selected by the Index Provider include Bitfinex, Bitstamp, GDAX (formerly known as Coinbase Exchange), itBit and OKCoin International. Bitfinex is a trading platform based in Hong Kong for digital currencies, including bitcoin, that offers many advanced features such as margin and exchange trading and margin funding. Bitstamp is a European Union-based bitcoin marketplace that enables people from all around the world to safely buy and sell bitcoins. GDAX, based in San Francisco, California, is a digital currency exchange. itBit is a New York City-based, regulated global exchange that offers retail and institutional investors a powerful platform to buy and sell bitcoin. OKCoin International is a worldwide digital currency trading platform that is based in Singapore.

    According to the Registration Statement, in the calculation of the Bitcoin Index Price, the Index Provider cleanses the trade data and compiles it in such a manner as to algorithmically reduce the impact of anomalistic or manipulative trading. This is accomplished by adjusting the weight of each input based on price deviation relative to the observable set of data for the relevant trading venue, as well as recent and long-term trading volume at each venue relative to the observable set for the relevant trading venues. The Index Provider reduces the weighting of data inputs as they get further from the mean price across the trading venues and ultimately excludes any trades with a price that deviates beyond a certain predetermined threshold level from the mean. In addition, the Index groups “trade bursts” (i.e., a group of small-size trades in a short period of time, typically under one second) and movements during off-peak trading hours on any given venue into single data inputs, which reduces the potentially erratic price movements caused by small, individual orders. The Index Provider formally reevaluates the weighting algorithm quarterly, but maintains discretion to change the way in which the Index is calculated based on its periodic review or in extreme circumstances. The precise formula underlying the Index is proprietary.

    According to the Registration Statement, the Index Provider does not currently include data from OTC markets or derivative platforms. OTC data is not currently included because of the potential for trades to include a significant premium or discount paid for larger liquidity, which creates an uneven comparison relative to more active markets. There is also a higher potential for OTC transactions to not be arms-length and thus not be representative of a true market price. Bitcoin derivative markets are also not currently included as the markets remain relatively thin. According to the Registration Statement, the Index Provider will consider International Organization of Securities Commissions (“IOSCO”) principles for financial benchmarks and the management of trading venues of bitcoin derivatives when considering inclusion of OTC or derivative platform data in the future. According to the Registration Statement, the Index Provider and Genesis, a Liquidity Provider and affiliate of the Trust, have entered into a platform license agreement under which the Index Provider licenses its OTC market platform software to Genesis. Genesis uses the software to operate its bitcoin trading desk, which Genesis relies upon as a Liquidity Provider. Under the agreement, Genesis has agreed to provide its bitcoin trade data to the Index Provider. Consequently, it is possible that the Index Provider may decide in the future to include Genesis's OTC trading desk as a trading venue that is included in the Index. However, currently, the Index Provider does not include data from the Genesis OTC trading desk (or any other OTC markets).

    According to the Registration Statement, to calculate the Bitcoin Index Price, the weighting algorithm is applied to the price and volume of all inputs for the immediately preceding 24-hour period as of 4:00 p.m., E.T., on the valuation date. According to the Registration Statement, to measure volume data and trading halts, the Index Provider monitors trading activity and regards as eligible those Bitcoin Exchanges that it determines represent a substantial portion of U.S. dollar-denominated trading over a sustained period on a platform without a significant history of trading disruptions. The Index Provider maintains a monitoring system that tests for these criteria on an ongoing basis.

    The description of the Index is based on information publicly available at the Index Provider's Web site at https://tradeblock.com/markets/index/. The Index spot price will be available on the Index Provider's Web site and/or from one or more major market data vendors.

    If the Index becomes unavailable, or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Index does not reflect an accurate bitcoin value, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Index Provider to obtain the Bitcoin Index Price directly from the Index Provider. If after such contact the Index remains unavailable or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that the Index does not reflect an accurate bitcoin value, then the Sponsor will employ the next rule to determine the Bitcoin Index Price.

    (ii) Bitcoin Index Price = The volume-weighted average bitcoin price for the immediately preceding 24-hour period as of 4:00 p.m., E.T., on the valuation date as calculated based upon the volume-weighted average bitcoin prices of the Major Bitcoin Exchanges as published by an alternative third party's public data feed that the Sponsor believes is accurately and reliably providing market data (i.e., is receiving up-to-date and timely market data from constituent exchanges) (“Second Source”). “Major Bitcoin Exchanges” are those Bitcoin Exchanges that are online, trade on a 24-hour basis and make transaction price and volume data publicly available. Subject to the next sentence, if the Second Source becomes unavailable (for example, data sources from the Second Source for bitcoin prices become unavailable, unwieldy or otherwise impractical for use), or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Second Source does not reflect an accurate bitcoin value, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Second Source in an attempt to obtain the relevant data. If after such contact the Second Source remains unavailable or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that the Second Source does not reflect an accurate bitcoin price, then the Sponsor will employ the next rule to determine the Bitcoin Index Price.

    (iii) Bitcoin Index Price = The volume-weighted average bitcoin price as calculated by dividing (a) the U.S. dollar value of the bitcoin transactions on the Major Bitcoin Exchanges by (b) the total number of bitcoins traded on the Major Bitcoin Exchanges, in each case for the 24-hour period from 4:00 p.m., E.T. (or as soon as practicable thereafter), on the business day prior to the valuation date to 4:00 p.m., E.T. (or as soon as practicable thereafter), on the valuation date as published by a third party's public data feed that the Sponsor believes is accurately and reliably providing market data (i.e., is receiving up-to-date and timely market data from eligible exchanges), subject to the requirement that such data is calculated based upon a volume-weighted average bitcoin price obtained from the Major Bitcoin Exchanges (“Third Source”). Subject to the next sentence, if the Third Source becomes unavailable (for example, data sources from the Third Source become unavailable, unwieldy or otherwise impractical for use), or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Third Source does not reflect an accurate bitcoin price, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Third Source in an attempt to obtain the relevant data. If after such contact the Third Source remains unavailable or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that the Third Source does not reflect an accurate bitcoin value then the Sponsor will employ the next rule to determine the Bitcoin Index Price.

    (iv) Bitcoin Index Price = The volume-weighted average bitcoin price as calculated by dividing (a) the U.S. dollar value of the bitcoin transactions on the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchanges by (b) the total number of bitcoins traded on the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchanges, in each case for the 24-hour period from 4:00 p.m., E.T. (or as soon as practicable thereafter), on the business day prior to the valuation date to 4:00 p.m., E.T. (or as soon as practicable thereafter), on the valuation date. A “Bitcoin Benchmark Exchange” is a Bitcoin Exchange that represents at least 25% of the aggregate U.S. dollar-denominated trading volume of the bitcoin market during the last 30 consecutive calendar days and that to the knowledge of the Sponsor is in substantial compliance with the laws, rules and regulations, including any anti-money laundering (“AML”) and know-your-customer (“KYC”) procedures, of such Bitcoin Exchange's applicable jurisdiction; provided that if there are fewer than three such Bitcoin Exchanges, then the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchanges will include such Bitcoin Exchange or Bitcoin Exchanges that meet the above-described requirements as well as one or more additional Bitcoin Exchanges, selected by the Sponsor, that have had monthly trading volume of at least 50,000 bitcoins during the last 30 consecutive calendar days and that to the knowledge of the Sponsor is in substantial compliance with the laws, rules and regulations, including any AML and KYC procedures, of such Bitcoin Exchange's applicable jurisdiction.

    The Sponsor will review the composition of the exchanges that comprise the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchanges at the beginning of each month, or more frequently if necessary, in order to ensure the accuracy of its composition. Subject to the next sentence, if one or more of the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchanges become unavailable (for example, data sources from the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchanges of bitcoin prices become unavailable, unwieldy or otherwise impractical for use), or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchange does not reflect an accurate bitcoin value, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchange that is experiencing the service outages in an attempt to obtain the relevant data. If after such contact one or more of the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchanges remain unavailable or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchange does not reflect an accurate bitcoin price, then the Sponsor will employ the next rule to determine the Bitcoin Index Price.

    (v) Bitcoin Index Price = The Sponsor will use its best judgment to determine a good faith estimate of the Bitcoin Index Price.

    Data used for the above calculation of the Bitcoin Index Price is gathered by the Administrator or its delegate who calculates the Bitcoin Index Price each business day as of 4:00 p.m., E.T., or as soon thereafter as practicable. The Administrator will disseminate the Bitcoin Index Price each business day.

    The Index Provider may change the trading venues that are used to calculate the Index, or otherwise change the way in which the Index is calculated at any time. The Index Provider does not have any obligation to consider the interests of the Sponsor, the Administrator, the Trust, the shareholders or anyone else in connection with such changes. The Index Provider is not required to publicize or explain the changes, or to alert the Sponsor or the Administrator to such changes. The Index Provider will consider IOSCO principles for financial benchmarks and the management of trading venues of bitcoin derivatives when considering inclusion of OTC or derivative platform data in the future.

    Bitcoin Holdings

    According to the Registration Statement, the Trust's assets will consist solely of bitcoin. The Administrator will determine the value of the Trust for operational purposes (herein referred to as “Bitcoin Holdings”), which is the aggregate U.S. dollar value, based on the Bitcoin Index Price, of the Trust's bitcoins less its liabilities, on each day the Shares trade on the Exchange as of 4:00 p.m. E.T., or as soon thereafter as practicable.16 The Administrator will also determine the Bitcoin Holdings per Share, which equals the Trust's Bitcoin Holdings divided by the number of outstanding Shares. The Sponsor will publish the Bitcoin Holdings and the Bitcoin Holdings per Share each business day at 4:00 p.m., E.T., or as soon thereafter as practicable at the Trust's Web site at https://grayscale.co/bitcoin-investment-trust/#market-performance.

    16 Bitcoin Holdings is different than the GAAP net asset value referenced in the Registration Statement.

    To calculate the Bitcoin Holdings, the Administrator will determine the Bitcoin Index Price and multiply the Bitcoin Index Price by the Trust's aggregate number of bitcoins owned by the Trust as of 4:00 p.m., E.T., on the immediately preceding day. The Administrator will add the U.S. dollar value of any bitcoins receivable under pending creation “Baskets” (as defined below), if any, determined by multiplying the number of such creation Baskets by the Bitcoin Basket Amount and then multiplying such product by the Bitcoin Index Price. The Administrator will subtract (i) the U.S. dollar value of the bitcoins constituting any accrued but unpaid fees, (ii) the U.S. dollar value of the bitcoins to be distributed under pending redemption Baskets, determined by multiplying the number of such redemption Baskets by the Bitcoin Basket Amount and then multiplying such product by the Bitcoin Index Price and (iii) extraordinary legal fees and certain expenses of the Trust.

    The Sponsor will publish the Bitcoin Index Price, the Bitcoin Holdings and the Bitcoin Holdings per Share on the Trust's Web site as soon as practicable after its determination. If the Bitcoin Holdings and Bitcoin Holdings per Share have been calculated using a price per bitcoin other than the Bitcoin Index Price, the publication on the Trust's Web site will note the valuation methodology used and the price per bitcoin resulting from such calculation.

    While the Trust's investment objective is for the Shares to reflect the performance of the value of a bitcoin as represented by the Index, less the Trust's liabilities and expenses, the Shares may trade in the secondary market at prices that are lower or higher than the Bitcoin Holdings per Share. The amount of the discount or premium in the trading price relative to the Bitcoin Holdings per Share may be influenced by non-concurrent trading hours and liquidity between the secondary market and larger Bitcoin Exchanges in the bitcoin exchange market. While the Shares will be listed and trade on the Exchange from 9:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., E.T., liquidity in the global bitcoin markets may fluctuate depending upon the volume and availability of larger Bitcoin Exchanges. As a result, during periods in which bitcoin exchange market liquidity is limited or a major Bitcoin Exchange is off-line, trading spreads, and the resulting premium or discount, on the Shares may widen.

    Impact on Arbitrage

    Because of the potential for arbitrage inherent in the structure of the Trust, the Sponsor believes that the Shares will not trade at a material discount or premium to the underlying bitcoin held by the Trust. The arbitrage process, which in general provides investors the opportunity to profit from differences in prices of assets, increases the efficiency of the markets, serves to prevent potentially manipulative efforts, and can be expected to operate efficiently in the case of the Shares and bitcoin. If the price of the Shares deviates enough from the price of bitcoin to create a material discount or premium, an arbitrage opportunity is created. If the Shares are inexpensive compared to the bitcoin that underlies them, an arbitrageur may buy the Shares at a discount, immediately redeem them in exchange for bitcoin, and sell the bitcoin in the cash market at a profit. If the Shares are expensive compared to the bitcoin that underlies them, an arbitrageur may sell the Shares short, buy enough bitcoin to acquire the number of Shares sold short, acquire the Shares through the creation process, and deliver the Shares to close out the short position.17 In both instances, the arbitrageur serves to efficiently correct price discrepancies between the Shares and the underlying bitcoin.

    17 The Exchange states that the Trust, which will only hold bitcoin, differs from index-based exchange-traded funds, which may involve a trust holding hundreds or even thousands of underlying component securities, necessarily involving in the arbitrage process movements in a large number of security positions. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46306 (August 2, 2002) (approving the UTP trading of Vanguard Total Market VIPERs based on the Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index).

    Creation and Redemption of Shares

    According to the Registration Statement, the Trust will issue and redeem “Baskets,” each equal to a block of 100 Shares, only to Authorized Participants. The size of a Basket is subject to change. The creation and redemption of a Basket require the delivery to the Trust, or the distribution by the Trust, of the number of whole and fractional bitcoins represented by each Basket being created or redeemed, the number of which is determined by dividing the number of bitcoins owned by the Trust at such time by the number of Shares outstanding at such time (calculated to one one-hundred-millionth of one bitcoin), as adjusted for the number of whole and fractional bitcoins constituting accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Trust and multiplying the quotient obtained by 100 (“Basket Bitcoin Amount”). The Basket Bitcoin Amount will gradually decrease over time as the Trust's bitcoins are used to pay the Trust's expenses. According to the Registration Statement, as of the date of the Registration Statement, each Share currently represents approximately 0.094 of a bitcoin.

    Authorized Participants are the only persons that may place orders to create and redeem Baskets. Each Authorized Participant must (i) be a registered broker-dealer, (ii) enter into a participant agreement with the Sponsor, the Trust and the Liquidity Providers (“Participant Agreement”) and (iii) in the case of the creation or redemption of Baskets that do not use the “Conversion Procedures” (as defined below), own a bitcoin wallet address that is recognized by the Custodian as belonging to the Authorized Participant (“Authorized Participant Self-Administered Account”). Authorized Participants may act for their own accounts or as agents for broker-dealers, custodians and other securities market participants that wish to create or redeem Baskets. Shareholders who are not Authorized Participants will only be able to redeem their Shares through an Authorized Participant.

    The creation and redemption of a Basket requires the delivery to the Trust, or the distribution by the Trust, of the Basket Bitcoin Amount (that is, the number of bitcoins represented by each Basket), for each Basket to be created or redeemed. The Basket Bitcoin Amount multiplied by the number of Baskets being created or redeemed is the “Total Basket Bitcoin Amount.”

    Although the Trust will only create Baskets upon the receipt of bitcoins, and will only redeem Baskets by distributing bitcoins, an Authorized Participant may deposit cash with the Administrator, which will facilitate the purchase or sale of bitcoins through a Liquidity Provider on behalf of an Authorized Participant (the “Conversion Procedures”). “Liquidity Providers” must (i) enter into a Participant Agreement with the Sponsor, the Trust and the Authorized Participants and (ii) own a bitcoin wallet address that is recognized by the Custodian as belonging to the Liquidity Provider (“Liquidity Provider Account”).

    To create Baskets in-kind, Authorized Participants will send the Administrator a creation order on the trade date. The Administrator and the Marketing Agent will accept or reject the creation order on that same date, and the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount will be determined as soon as practicable after 4:00 p.m., E.T., on that date. On the business day following the trade date, the Authorized Participant will transfer the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount to the Custodian. Once the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount is received by the Custodian, the Administrator will instruct the Transfer Agent to deliver the creation Baskets to the Authorized Participant.

    To create Baskets using the Conversion Procedures, Authorized Participants will send the Administrator a creation order on the business day preceding the trade date. The Administrator and the Marketing Agent will accept or reject the creation order on that same date. Upon receiving instruction from the Administrator that a creation order has been accepted, the Authorized Participant will send 110% of the U.S. dollar value of the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount, determined using the Bitcoin Index Price as of 4:00 p.m., E.T., on the business day that the Authorized Participant places the creation order (“Cash Collateral Amount”). The Total Basket Bitcoin Amount will be determined as soon as practicable after 4:00 p.m., E.T. the following day. Upon receiving instruction from the Sponsor that a creation order has been placed, a Liquidity Provider will buy bitcoins at the lowest price that it is able to procure using its commercially reasonable efforts and deliver to the Custodian the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount on the business day following the trade date. Once the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount is received by the Custodian, the Administrator will instruct the Transfer Agent to deliver the creation Baskets to the Authorized Participant. The Administrator will then send the Liquidity Providers the amount of cash equal to the Bitcoin Index Price as of 4:00 p.m., E.T., on the business day immediately following the date on which the creation order was placed multiplied by the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount and return any remaining amount of the Cash Collateral Amount to the Authorized Participant. If the Cash Collateral Amount does not sufficiently cover the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount, the Authorized Participant will be responsible for paying the balance before they receive the creation Baskets.

    To redeem Baskets in-kind, Authorized Participants will send the Administrator a redemption order on the trade date. The Administrator and the Marketing Agent will accept or reject the redemption order on that same date. On the third business day following the trade date, the Authorized Participant will deliver to the Transfer Agent redemption Baskets from its account. Once the redemption Baskets are received by the Transfer Agent, the Custodian will send the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount to the Authorized Participant.

    To redeem Baskets using the Conversion Procedures, Authorized Participants will send the Administrator a redemption order. The Administrator and the Marketing Agent will accept or reject the redemption order on that same date. Upon receiving instruction from the Sponsor that a redemption order has been placed, a Liquidity Provider will sell bitcoins at the highest price that it is able to procure using its commercially reasonable efforts and deliver to the Administrator the cash proceeds equal to the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount. Once the Transfer Agent receives the redemption Baskets from the Authorized Participant, the Administrator will send the cash proceeds equal to the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount to the Authorized Participant. At the instruction of the Administrator, the Custodian will then send the Liquidity Provider the number of bitcoins that comprise the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount.

    The Sponsor represents that Liquidity Providers will only transact with exchanges and OTC trading partners that have met AML and KYC regulatory requirements. Authorized Participants that create and redeem Baskets using the Conversion Procedures will be responsible for reimbursing the relevant Liquidity Provider for any expenses incurred in connection with the Conversion Procedures. The Authorized Participants will also pay a variable fee to the Administrator for its facilitation of the Conversion Procedures. There are no other fees related to the Conversion Procedures that will be charged by the Sponsor or the Custodian.

    Other than the fees mentioned above, Authorized Participants do not pay a transaction fee to the Trust in connection with the creation or redemption of Baskets, but there may be transaction fees associated with the validation of the transfer of bitcoins by the Bitcoin Network or fees payable to the Administrator. Authorized Participants who deposit bitcoins with the Trust in exchange for Baskets will receive no fees, commissions or other form of compensation or inducement of any kind from either the Sponsor or the Trust, and no such person has any obligation or responsibility to the Sponsor or the Trust to effect any sale or resale of Shares.

    Creation Procedures

    On any business day, an Authorized Participant may order one or more creation Baskets from the Trust by placing a creation order with the Administrator. According to the Registration Statement, creation orders may be placed either “in-kind” or “in-cash.” Creation orders must be placed no later than 5:00 p.m., E.T., on each business day.

    Determination of Required Deposits

    The Basket Bitcoin Amount required for a creation Basket will be determined by dividing the number of bitcoins owned by the Trust at such time by the number of Shares outstanding at such time (calculated to one one-hundred-millionth of one bitcoin), as adjusted for the number of whole and fractional bitcoins constituting accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Trust, and multiplying the quotient obtained by 100. All questions as to the composition of a Basket Bitcoin Amount will be conclusively determined by the Sponsor and will be final and binding on all persons interested in the Trust.

    Deposits other than those received from an Authorized Participant Self-Administered Account or a Liquidity Provider Account will be rejected. The expense and risk of delivery, ownership and safekeeping of bitcoins, until such bitcoins have been received by the Trust, shall be borne solely by the Authorized Participant. The Custodian may accept delivery of bitcoins by such other means as the Sponsor, from time to time, may determine to be acceptable for the Trust.

    Redemption Procedures

    On any business day, an Authorized Participant may place a redemption order specifying the number of redemption Baskets to be redeemed. According to the Registration Statement, redemption orders may be placed either “in-kind” or “in-cash.” Redemption orders must be placed no later than 5:00 p.m., E.T., on each business day. The Authorized Participants may only redeem Baskets and cannot redeem any Shares in an amount less than a Basket.

    Determination of Redemption Distribution

    The Basket Bitcoin Amount required for a redemption Basket will be determined by dividing the number of bitcoins owned by the Trust at such time by the number of Shares outstanding at such time (calculated to one one-hundred-millionth of one bitcoin), as adjusted for the number of whole and fractional bitcoins constituting accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Trust, and multiplying the quotient obtained by 100. Redemption distributions will be subject to the deduction of any applicable tax or other governmental charges that may be due. The Sponsor has final determination of all questions as to the composition of the number of bitcoins required for a redemption Basket.

    Suspension or Rejection of Orders

    The creation or redemption of Shares may be suspended generally, or refused with respect to particular requested creations or redemptions, during any period when the transfer books of the Transfer Agent are closed or if circumstances outside the control of the Sponsor or its delegates make it for all practical purposes not feasible to process creation orders or redemption orders. The Administrator may reject an order if such order is not presented in proper form as described in the Participant Agreement or if the fulfillment of the order, in the opinion of counsel, might be unlawful.

    Availability of Information

    The Trust's Web site (https://grayscale.co/bitcoin-investment-trust/) will include quantitative information on a per-Share basis updated on a daily basis, including, for the Trust (i) the current Bitcoin Holdings per Share daily and the prior business day's Bitcoin Holdings and the reported closing price, (ii) the mid-point of the bid-ask price 18 in relation to the Bitcoin Holdings as of the time the Bitcoin Holdings is calculated (“Bid-Ask Price”) and a calculation of the premium or discount of such price against such Bitcoin Holdings and (iii) data in chart format displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the daily Bid-Ask Price against the Bitcoin Holdings, within appropriate ranges, for each of the four previous calendar quarters (or for the life of the Trust, if shorter). In addition, on each business day the Trust's Web site will provide pricing information for the Shares.

    18 The bid-ask price of the Trust is determined using the highest bid and lowest offer on the Consolidated Tape as of the time of calculation of the closing day Bitcoin Holdings.

    The Trust's Web site will provide an intra-day indicative value (“IIV”) per Share updated every 15 seconds, as calculated by the Exchange or a third party financial data provider during the Exchange's Core Trading Session (9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., E.T.).19 The IIV will be calculated by using the prior day's closing Bitcoin Holdings per Share as a base and updating that value during the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session to reflect changes in the value of the Trust's bitcoin holdings during the trading day.

    19 The IIV on a per Share basis disseminated during the Core Trading Session should not be viewed as a real-time update of the Bitcoin Holdings, which is calculated once a day.

    The IIV disseminated during the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session should not be viewed as an actual real time update of the Bitcoin Holdings, which will be calculated only once at the end of each trading day. The IIV will be widely disseminated on a per Share basis every 15 seconds during the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session by one or more major market data vendors. In addition, the IIV will be available through on-line information services.

    The Bitcoin Holdings for the Trust will be calculated by the Administrator once a day and will be disseminated daily to all market participants at the same time. To the extent that the Administrator has utilized the cascading set of rules described in “Bitcoin Index Price” above, the Trust's Web site will note the valuation methodology used and the price per bitcoin resulting from such calculation. Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares will be disseminated through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”).

    Quotation and last sale information for bitcoin will be widely disseminated through a variety of major market data vendors, including Bloomberg and Reuters. In addition, the complete real-time price (and volume) data for bitcoin is available by subscription from Reuters and Bloomberg. The spot price of bitcoin is available on a 24-hour basis from major market data vendors, including Bloomberg and Reuters. Information relating to trading, including price and volume information, in bitcoin will be available from major market data vendors and from the exchanges on which bitcoin are traded. The normal trading hours for bitcoin exchanges are 24-hours per day, 365-days per year.

    The Trust will provide Web site disclosure of its Bitcoin Holdings daily. The Web site disclosure of the Trust's Bitcoin Holdings will occur at the same time as the disclosure by the Sponsor of the Bitcoin Holdings to Authorized Participants so that all market participants are provided such portfolio information at the same time. Therefore, the same portfolio information will be provided on the public Web site as well as in electronic files provided to Authorized Participants. Accordingly, each investor will have access to the current Bitcoin Holdings of the Trust through the Trust's Web site.

    Additional information regarding the Index may be found at https://tradeblock.com/markets/index/.

    Trading Rules

    The Trust will be subject to the criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201, including 8.201(e), for initial and continued listing of the Shares. A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be required to be outstanding at the start of trading. With respect to application of Rule 10A-3 under the Act, the Trust will rely on the exception contained in Rule 10A-3(c)(7). The Exchange believes that the anticipated minimum number of Shares outstanding at the start of trading is sufficient to provide adequate market liquidity.

    The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Trading in the Shares on the Exchange will occur in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34(a).20 The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.6, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity securities traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00 for which the MPV for order entry is $0.0001.

    20 The Exchange has three trading sessions for Commodity-Based Trust Shares each day the Corporation is open for business unless otherwise determined by the Corporation: (i) The Opening Session begins at 1:00 a.m., Pacific Time (“P.T.”), and concludes at the commencement of the Core Trading Session; (ii) the Core Trading Session begins for each security at 6:30 a.m., P.T., or at the conclusion of the Market Order Auction, whichever comes later, and concludes at 1:15 p.m., P.T.; and (iii) the Late Trading Session begins following the conclusion of the Core Trading Session and concludes at 5:00 p.m., P.T.

    Further, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201 sets forth certain restrictions on Equity Trading Permit Holders (“ETP Holders”) acting as registered Market Makers in the Shares to facilitate surveillance. Pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201(g), an ETP Holder acting as a registered Market Maker in the Shares is required to provide the Exchange with information relating to its trading in the underlying bitcoin, related futures or options on futures, or any other related derivatives. Commentary .04 of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.3 requires an ETP Holder acting as a registered Market Maker, and its affiliates, in the Shares to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of any material nonpublic information with respect to such products, any components of the related products, any physical asset or commodity underlying the product, applicable currencies, underlying indexes, related futures or options on futures and any related derivative instruments (including the Shares).

    As a general matter, the Exchange has regulatory jurisdiction over its ETP Holders and their associated persons, which include any person or entity controlling an ETP Holder. A subsidiary or affiliate of an ETP Holder that does business only in commodities or futures contracts would not be subject to Exchange jurisdiction, but the Exchange could obtain information regarding the activities of such subsidiary or affiliate through surveillance sharing agreements with regulatory organizations of which such subsidiary or affiliate is a member.

    With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares. Trading on the Exchange in the Shares may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which conditions in the underlying bitcoin markets have caused disruptions and/or lack of trading or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. In addition, trading in Shares will be subject to trading halts caused by extraordinary market volatility pursuant to the Exchange's “circuit breaker” rule.21

    21See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12.

    The Exchange will halt trading in the Shares if the Bitcoin Holdings of the Trust is not calculated or disseminated daily. The Exchange may halt trading during the day in which an interruption occurs to the dissemination of the IIV or the Index spot price, as discussed above. If the interruption to the dissemination of the IIV or the Index spot price persists past the trading day in which it occurs, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption.22 In addition, if the Exchange becomes aware that the Bitcoin Holdings with respect to the Shares is not disseminated to all market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in the Shares until such time as the Bitcoin Holdings is available to all market participants.

    22 The Exchange notes that the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which an interruption to the dissemination of the IIV or the Index spot price occurs.

    Surveillance

    The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.23 The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securit