[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 82 (Wednesday, April 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23838-23839]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09918]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74796; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2015-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting
Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate Additional Order Type
Combinations, Delete Related Rule Text, Restructure the Remaining Rule
Text in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31, and Make Other Clarifying Changes
to Its Rules

April 23, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On February 19, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to reorganize, revise and clarify the order type
and order modifier definitions found in NYSE Arca Equities Rule
(``Rule'') 7.31; make certain conforming and clarifying changes to
Rules 7.35, 7.36, 7.37 and 7.38; and eliminate certain order type
functionality from the restructured rule. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on March 9, 2015.\3\ The
Commission received no comment letters regarding the proposed rule
change. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74415 (March 3,
2015), 80 FR 12537 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    On June 5, 2014, in a speech entitled ``Enhancing Our Market Equity
Structure,'' Mary Jo White, Chair of the Commission, requested that the
equity exchanges conduct a comprehensive review of their order types
and how they operate in practice, and as part of this review, consider
appropriate rule changes to help clarify the nature of their order
types.\4\ The Exchange has filed this proposed rule change to continue
its efforts to review and clarify its rules governing order types.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Mary Jo White, Chair, Commission, Speech at the Sandler,
O'Neill & Partners, L.P. Global Exchange and Brokerage Conference
(June 5, 2014) (available at www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370542004312#.U5HI-fmwJiw).
    \5\ See Notice, 80 FR at 12537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to reorganize and revise its existing order
type and modifier definitions in Rule 7.31. Specifically, proposed Rule
7.31(a) would contain the revised Exchange definitions for Market
Orders, Limit Orders, and Inside Limit Orders (collectively ``primary
order types'').\6\ The revised Market Order definition would specify
that it cannot be designated Immediate-or-Cancel (``IOC'') and that it
would be rejected in the absence of a contra-side bid or offer.\7\ The
revised Limit Order definition would specify that a ``marketable''
Limit Order is one to buy (sell) at or above (below) the contra-
contra-side Protected Best Bid or Offer for the security.\8\ The
revised Inside Limit Order definition would clarify how the order is
routed, the handling of any returning remainder of such order after
routing, and that such orders may not be designated IOC.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice, 80 FR at 12538.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id. The Exchange also proposes to capitalize the term
``Limit Orders'' where used in the rule. Id.
    \9\ Id. The Exchange also proposes to state in proposed Rule
7.31(a)(3) that Inside Limit Orders may be designated with a NOW
Modifier. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.31(b) would contain the definitions for the
Exchange's Time-in-Force (``TIF'') Modifiers: Day, Good Till Cancelled,
Good Till Date, IOC, and Fill-or-Kill.\10\ The definition for the NOW
Order designation would also be relocated and re-designated as a TIF
Modifier in proposed Rule 7.31(b)(5).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice, 80 FR at 12539.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.31(c) would contain the Exchange's revised
definitions for Limit-on-Open Orders, Market-on-Open Orders, Limit-on-
Close Orders, and Market-on-Close Orders (collectively ``Auction-Only
Orders'').\12\ The revised definitions would clarify that the Exchange
would reject Auction-Only Orders in securities that are not eligible
for an auction, or if an auction is suspended pursuant to Rule
7.35(g).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.31(d) would contain the Exchange's revised and
reformatted definitions for Reserve Orders, Passive Liquidity Orders,
and Mid-Point Passive Liquidity (``MPL'') Orders (collectively
``Working Orders'').\14\ The revised Reserve Order definition would
clarify that such an order could not be designated IOC.\15\ Currently,
the All-or-None (``AON'') Order is offered as a Working Order, however
the Exchange proposes to eliminate the functionality.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
    \15\ See Notice, 80 FR at 12538.
    \16\ See Notice, 80 FR at 12537-38. The Exchange also proposes
conforming changes to other rules to reflect the elimination of AON
Orders. See Notice, 80 FR at 12358; see also proposed Rules 7.36 and
7.37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.31(e) would contain the Exchange's revised
definitions for Adding Liquidity Only (``ALO'') Orders, Intermarket
Sweep Orders, Post No Preference (``PNP'') Orders, PNP Blind Orders,
Cross Orders, and Tracking Orders (collectively ``non-routable
orders'').\17\ Proposed Rule 7.31(e)(4) would clarify that PNP Blind
Orders combined with the ALO modifier may not also be designated as a
Reserve Order.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Notice, 80 FR at 12539-40.
    \18\ See Notice, 80 FR at 12538.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.31(f) would contain the Exchange's revised
definitions for Primary Only Orders, Primary Until 9:45 Orders, and
Primary After 3:55 Orders (collectively ``specified routing
instructions'').\19\ The Primary Sweep Order is currently offered as a
specified routing instruction, however the Exchange proposes to
eliminate the functionality.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Notice, 80 FR at 12540.
    \20\ See Notice, 80 FR at 12538.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.31(g) would contain the Exchange's definitions for
other existing order types and modifiers, including the Pegged Order,
Proactive if Locked Modifier, Do Not Reduce Modifier, Do Not Increase
Modifier, and Self-Trade Prevention (``STP'') Modifier.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Notice, 80 FR at 12540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.31(h) would contain the Exchange's revised Q Order
definition clarifying that such orders do not route.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend and conform Rules 7.35, 7.36,
7.37 and 7.38 to proposed Rule 7.31 as it relates cross references,
term usage and capitalization.\23\ In addition to certain technical
changes, proposed Rule 7.35 would be updated to reflect that the
Exchange no longer conducts a closing auction for certain NYSE-listed
securities, does not run a Market Order Auction in Nasdaq-listed
securities, and only runs a Trading Halt Auction in securities that are
listed on the Exchange.\24\ In addition to certain technical changes,
proposed Rule 7.36 would be amended to clarify how, for

purposes of determining the best ranked displayed order(s) on the
Exchange for dissemination on the public data feeds, the Exchange
handles non-marketable odd-lot orders that are priced better than the
best-priced round lot interest at the Exchange.\25\ Specifically,
proposed Rule 7.36(c) would be amended to explain the current Exchange
functionality where non-marketable odd-lot sized orders that can be
aggregated to equal at least a round lot are displayed as the best
ranked displayed orders to sell (buy) at the least aggressive price at
which such odd-lot sized orders can be aggregated to equal at least a
round lot.\26\ Proposed Rule 7.37 would be amended to make conforming
and other non-substantive, technical changes.\27\ Proposed Rule
7.38(a)(1) would be amended to specify the order types that cannot be
entered as odd-lots, namely Reserve Orders, MPL-IOC Orders, Tracking
Orders, and Q Orders.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Notice, 80 FR at 12540-41.
    \24\ See Notice, 80 FR at 12540.
    \25\ See Notice, 80 FR at 12540-41.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ See Notice, 80 FR at 12540.
    \28\ See Notice, 80 FR at 12541.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\29\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\30\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the proposed rule change reflects the
Exchange's continued efforts to review and clarify its rules governing
order types.\31\ In addition, the Commission notes that the Exchange
believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act because it provides greater specificity, clarity and transparency
with regard to the Exchange's order handling processes and
functionalities, including how otherwise non-marketable odd-lot sized
orders are aggregated for purposes of determining the best bid or offer
for display on the public data feeds.\32\ According to the Exchange,
these amendments, both clarifying and technical, should remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market, and
are consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest.\33\ The Exchange believes that this proposal should help
reduce the potential for investor confusion and facilitate a better
understanding of the Exchange's order handling operations and
navigation of its rulebook.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Notice, 80 FR at 12537.
    \32\ See Notice, 80 FR at 12541.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the proposal reduces the number of order
types that will be accepted by the Exchange. The Commission also notes
that the proposal provides additional detail regarding certain order
type and modifier functionality that remain available on the Exchange.
The Commission further notes that the Exchange has restructured and
reorganized proposed Rule 7.31 such that order types with similar
functionality are grouped together by subsection. The Commission
believes that these proposed changes should provide greater
specificity, clarity and transparency with respect to the order type
and modifier functionality available on the Exchange, as well as the
Exchange's methodology for handling certain order types. Accordingly,
the Commission believes that the proposal should help to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\35\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2015-08) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \36\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\36\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09918 Filed 4-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1 Date: 23 January 2004 To: Chris Miller and Renee Johnson , EPA From: Maureen F. Kaplan, ERG Subject: Technical Directive No. 1, Item 6 Information Sources for Aquaculture Earnings Forecasts: USDA Trade Adjustment Program 1. BACKGROUND In the 16 December 20003 JSA/ EPA meeting, Carole Engle and Jack Whetstone requested EPA to acknowledge any new information, indices, adjusters, or price index information that might be used to account for increases in foreign competition from the USDA's Trade Adjustment Program. ERG was directed to pursue this information in e mails dated 23 December 2003 ( which labeled the request as TD Item 6) and 16 January 2004 ( where it was listed under Item 1). This is a new request, hence it is considered Item 6 under the TD.

2. TELEPHONE/ E MAIL COMMUNICATION Date of Contact: 19 January 2004 Originator: Maureen Kaplan, ERG Contact: Prof. Carole Engle, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff Contact Information: cengle@ uaex. edu I sent an e mail request to Professor Engle asking for further details about the price information discussed at the JSA/ EPA meeting. Professor Engle replied on 20 January and said:

  I believe that the information that Jack Whetstone is referring to is annual price data used recently by the Risk Management Agency in determining the eligibility of various segments of the aquaculture industry for assistance under the Agricultural Trade Assistance Adjustment Act. I do not have the actual numbers that were used as criteria for approving or rejecting each petition, but a good contact for it would be:

Ken Stokes, Risk Management Agency k stokes@ tamu. edu

Date of Contact: 21 January 2004 Originator: Maureen Kaplan, ERG Contact: Prof. Kenneth Stokes, Texas A& M University, Texas Agricultural Extension Service 1Department of Agriculture. Foreign Agricultural Service. 7 CFR Part 1580. Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers. Federal Register 68: 50048 50053. 20 August 2003.

2 Contact Information: k stokes@ tamu. edu I sent an introductory e mail to Professor Stokes that explained ( 1) ERG was a contractor to EPA to provide technical support on the aquaculture effluent guideline, and ( 2) Carole Engle suggested him as a contact for information about the Trade Adjustment Assistance ( TAA) program.

Professor Stokes outlined the program and stated that there was no reference list of prices. He directed me to a page on his website at < http:// smrre. tamu. edu/ smrretaa. html> with links to the United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service's Trade Adjustment Assistance ( TAA) for Farmers home page. Once FAS approves a petition, his role is to render technical assistance to a petitioner.

3. TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE ( TAA) PROGRAM In August 2002, Congress enacted the Trade Act of 2002 ( Public Law 107 210). The Act establishes a new program   Trade Adjustment Assistance ( TAA) for farmers. The program is administered by the United States Department of Agriculture's ( USDA's) Foreign Agricultural Service ( FAS). FAS published a final rule implementing the TAA on 20 August 2003.1 Under the program, a group of at least three agricultural commodity producers submits a petition to FAS. FAS reviews the petition and, if acceptable, publishes a notice in the Federal Register that the petition has been received. Another part of USDA, the Economic Research Service, conducts a market study to verify the decline in prices, the potential impact of imports, etc., and reports the findings back to FAS. FAS then determines whether the petitioners are eligible for trade adjustment assistance. Assistance takes two forms: technical expertise and cash benefits. The Extension Service ( e. g., Professor Stokes) tailors a technical assistance package to the commodity and region ( e. g., technical publications, group seminars and presentations, and one on one meetings).

To be eligible, a petition must meet the following test and conditions:

# "... the national average price for a commodity is less than 80 percent of the preceding 5 year average and that an increase in imports has contributed importantly to the decline in commodity prices..." ( 7 CFR 1580.101, Federal Register 68: 50050).

# The five year average is calculated as the average of the national average price for the preceding five years ( Federal Register 68: 50048).

# " If the petition is filed on behalf of all producers of the agricultural commodity in the United States, the Administrator shall use national average prices compiled by the National Agricultural Statistics Service ( NASS) whenever possible." ( 7 CFR 1580.201( c)( 6)( i), Federal Register 68: 50051). Otherwise the petitioners supply the data and identify the source of the data. 3 # Aquaculture is included ( 7 CFR 1580.102, Federal Register 68: 50050)

4. PETITIONS SO FAR FAS maintains a registry for petitions and outcomes at http:// www. fas. usda. gov/ itp/ taa/ registry. htm. Table 1 summarizes the aquaculture entries as of 22 January 2004.

Table 1 Aquaculture TAA Petitions as of 22 January 2004 Petition Number Commodity Impacted Area Approved Data Source for Prices ( if stated)

P3 0002 0402 Pacific Salmon Alaska Yes P3 0003 0400 Pacific Salmon Oregon No Petitioner submitted average price data for salmon landed in Alaska prepared by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. ERS regarded the data as irrelevant and used salmon prices compiled by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife P3 0004 0403 Pacific Salmon Washington Yes P4 001 0404 Shrimp S. Carolina Yes P4 0002 0405 Catfish Regional Yes P4 0003 0406 Shrimp Georgia Yes P4 0004 0407 Shrimp Texas Yes P4 0007 0400 Shrimp Florida No P4 0008 0400 Shrimp Mississippi No National Marine Fisheries Service.

P4 0010 0408 Shrimp Alabama Yes P4 0011 0400 Freshwater Crayfish Louisiana No Louisiana Agricultural Statistics Report 4 5 5. APPLICABILITY OF TAA PRICE DATA TO EPA FORECASTING METHODS With the exception of some of the denied petitions, price data submitted with petitions are not publicly available. However, we can make several observations about the applicability of TAA price data to EPA forecasting methods.

# NASS data are the preferred source of data. The EPA forecasts use NASS price data for trout, a major commodity considered under the rule.

# ERA and FAS use National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS) data when NASS data are not available. EPA examined both NASS and MMFS trout price data when developing its forecasts.

# Alaska non profit facilities are no longer within the scope of the rule and EPA does not envision the rule causing net pen facilities to incur additional costs. The salmon data, then, are moot.

# Catfish and crayfish are typically raised in ponds, a production system not within the scope of the rule.

# TAA petitions examine six years of data ( the current year and the previous five years). EPA projections are made on the basis of time series data that reflect 24, 12, and 9 years of data for Fish PPI, Shrimp PPI, and NASS Trout prices, respectively.

The TAA data, even if available, would not cause us to modify the forecasting methods.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65087-65090]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22718]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90137; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2020-31]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Harmonize
Rules 10.9261 and 10.9830 With Recent Changes by the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc.

October 8, 2020.
    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 September 29, 2020, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE
National'' or the ``Exchange'') 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
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 harmonize Rules 10.9261 and 10.9830 with
recent changes by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') that temporarily grants the Chief or Deputy Chief Hearing
Officer the authority to order that hearings be conducted by video
conference if warranted by public health risks posed by in-person
hearings during the ongoing novel coronavirus (``COVID-19'') pandemic.
As proposed, these temporary amendments would be in effect through
December 31, 2020. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to harmonize Rules 10.9261 (Evidence and
Procedure in Hearing) and 10.9830 (Hearing) with recent changes by
FINRA to its Rules 9261 and 9830 that temporarily grants to the Chief
or Deputy Chief Hearing Officer the authority to order that hearings be
conducted by video conference if warranted by public health risks posed
by in-person hearings during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. As
proposed, these temporary amendments would be in effect through
December 31, 2020.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange may submit a separate rule filing to extend the
expiration date of the proposed temporary amendments if the Exchange
requires temporary relief from the rule requirements identified in
this proposal beyond December 31, 2020. The amended NYSE National
rules will revert back to their current state at the conclusion of
the temporary relief period and any extension thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    In 2018, NYSE National adopted disciplinary rules that are, with
certain exceptions, substantially the same as the disciplinary rules of
its affiliate NYSE American LLC, which are in turn substantially
similar to the FINRA Rule 8000 Series and Rule 9000 Series, and which
set forth rules for conducting investigations and enforcement
actions.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 83289 (May 17,
2018), 83 FR 23968, 23976 (May 23, 2018) (SR-NYSENAT-2018-02)
(``2018 Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting disciplinary rules modeled on FINRA's rules, NYSE
National adopted the hearing and evidentiary processes set forth in
Rule 10.9261 and in Rule 10.9830 for hearings in matters involving
temporary and permanent cease and desist orders under the Rule 9800
Series. As adopted, the text of Rule 10.9261 and Rule 10.9830 are
substantially the same as the FINRA rules with certain
modifications.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In view of the ongoing spread of COVID-19 and its effect on FINRA's
adjudicatory functions nationwide, FINRA recently filed a temporary
rule change to grant FINRA's Office of Hearing Officers (``OHO'') and
the National Adjudicatory Council (``NAC'') the authority to conduct
certain hearings by video conference, if warranted by the current
COVID-19-related public health risks posed by in-person hearings. Among
the rules FINRA amended were Rules 9261 and 9830.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 83289 (September 2,
2020), 85 FR 55712 (September 9, 2020) (SR-FINRA-2020-027) (``FINRA
Filing''). FINRA also proposed to temporarily amend FINRA Rules 1015
and 9524. FINRA Rule 1015 governs the process by which an applicant
for new or continuing membership can appeal a decision rendered by
FINRA's Department of Member Supervision under FINRA Rule 1014 or
1017 and request a hearing which would be conducted by a
subcommittee of the NAC. See id. at 55714. The Exchange has not
adopted FINRA Rule 1015. FINRA Rule 9524 governs the process by
which a statutorily disqualified member firm or associated person
can appeal the Department's recommendation to deny a firm or
sponsoring firm's application to the NAC. See id. Under the
Exchange's version of Rule 10.9524, if the Exchange's Chief
Regulatory Officer rejects the application, the ETP Holder or
applicant may request a review by the Exchange Board of Directors.
This differs from FINRA's process, which provides for a hearing
before the NAC and further consideration by the FINRA Board of
Directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA represented in its filing that its protocol for conducting
hearings by video conference would ensure that such hearings maintain
fair process for the parties by, among other things, FINRA's use of a
high quality, secure and user-friendly video conferencing service and
provide thorough instructions, training and technical support to all
hearing participants.\8\ According to FINRA, the proposed changes were
a reasonable interim solution to allow FINRA's critical adjudicatory
processes to continue to function while protecting the health and
safety of hearing participants as FINRA works towards resuming in-
person hearings in a manner that is compliant with the current guidance
of public health authorities.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See FINRA Filing, 85 FR at 55713.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to a regulatory services agreement (``RSA''), FINRA's OHO
will administer all aspects of adjudications, including assigning
hearing officers to serve as NYSE National hearing officers. A hearing
officer from OHO will, among other things, preside over the
disciplinary hearing, select and chair the hearing panel, and prepare
and issue written decisions. The Chief or Deputy Hearing Officer for
all Exchange disciplinary hearings are currently drawn from OHO and are
all FINRA employees. The Exchange believes that OHO will utilize the
same video conference protocol and processes for Exchange matters under
the RSA as it proposes for FINRA matters.
    Given that FINRA and its OHO administers disciplinary hearings on
the Exchange's behalf, and given that the public health concerns
addressed by FINRA's amendments apply equally to the Exchange's
disciplinary hearings, the Exchange proposes to temporarily amend its
disciplinary rules to allow FINRA to conduct virtual hearings on its
behalf.
Proposed Rule Change
    Rule 10.9261(b) states that if a disciplinary hearing is held, a
party shall be entitled to be heard in-person, by counsel, or by the
party's representative. Absent an agreement by all parties to proceed
in another manner, Exchange disciplinary hearings are in-person. As
noted, the Chief and Deputy Hearing Officers for all Exchange and
cross-market matters are supplied by OHO and are FINRA employees.
Accordingly, absent an agreement by all parties to proceed in another
manner, under Rule 10.9261(b) the Chief or Deputy Hearing Officer
conducts disciplinary hearings in-person.
    Similarly, Rule 10.9830 outlines the requirements for hearings for
temporary and permanent cease and desist orders. Rule 10.9830(a),
however, does not specify that a party shall be entitled to be heard
in-person, by counsel, or by the party's representative.
    Consistent with FINRA's temporary amendment to FINRA Rules 9261 and
9830, the Exchange proposes to temporarily grant the Chief or Deputy
Chief Hearing Officer temporary authority to order, upon consideration
of the current COVID-19-related public health risks presented by an in-
person hearing, that a hearing under those rules be conducted by video
conference. The proposed rule change will permit OHO to make an
assessment, based on critical COVID-19 data and criteria and the
guidance of health and security consultants, whether an in-person
hearing would compromise the health and safety of the hearing
participants such that the hearing should proceed by video conference.
As noted, FINRA has adopted a detailed and thorough protocol to ensure
that hearings conducted by video conference will maintain fair process
for the parties.\10\ The Exchange believes that this is a reasonable
procedure to follow in hearings under Rules 10.9261 and 10.9830 chaired
by a FINRA employee.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See FINRA Filing, 85 FR at 55713.
    \11\ The Exchange notes, as did FINRA, that SEC's Rules of
Practice pertaining to temporary cease-and-desist orders provide
that parties and witnesses may participate by telephone or, in the
Commission's discretion, through the use of alternative technologies
that allow remote access, such as a video link. See SEC Rule of
Practice 511(d)(3); Comment (d); see FINRA Filing, 85 FR at 55714,
n. 21.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effectuate these changes, the Exchange proposes to add the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
following sentence to Rule 10.9261(b):

    Upon consideration of the current public health risks presented
by an in-person hearing, the Chief Hearing Officer or Deputy Chief
Hearing Officer may, on a temporary basis, determine that the
hearing shall be conducted, in whole or in part, by video
conference.

    The proposed text is identical to the language adopted by
FINRA.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See FINRA Filing, 85 FR at 55712.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange proposes to add the following text to Rule
10.9830(a):

    Upon consideration of the current public health risks presented
by an in-person hearing, the Chief Hearing Officer or Deputy Chief
Hearing Officer may, on a temporary basis, determine that the
hearing shall be conducted, in whole or in part, by video
conference.

    Once again, the proposed language is identical to the language
adopted by FINRA.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\15\ in particular, because it is 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 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 designed to provide a fair procedure for
the disciplining of members and persons associated with members,
consistent with Sections 6(b)(7) and 6(d) of the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7) and 78f(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change supports the
objectives of the Act by providing greater harmonization between
Exchange rules and FINRA rules of similar purpose, resulting in less
burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance. As previously
noted, the text of Rule 10.9261 and Rule 10.9830 are substantially the
same as FINRA's rule. As such, the proposed rule change will foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities and will remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed temporary rule change will
permit the Exchange to effectively conduct hearings during the COVID-19
pandemic in situations where in-person hearings present likely public
health risks. The ability to conduct hearings by video conference will
thereby permit the adjudicatory functions of the Exchange's
disciplinary rules to continue unabated, thereby avoiding protracted
delays. The Exchange believes that this is especially important in
matters where temporary and permanent cease and desist orders are
sought because the proposed rule change would enable those hearings to
proceed without delay, thereby enabling the Exchange to take immediate
action to stop significant, ongoing customer harm, to the benefit of
the investing public.
    Conducting hearings via video conference will give the parties and
adjudicators simultaneous visual and oral communication without the
risks inherent in physical proximity during a pandemic. Temporarily
permitting hearings for disciplinary matters to proceed by video
conference maintains fair process by providing respondents a timely
opportunity to address and potentially resolve any allegations of
misconduct.
    As noted, FINRA will use a high quality, secure video conferencing
technology with features that will allow the parties to reasonably
approximate those tasks that are typically performed at an in-person
hearing, such as sharing documents, marking documents, and utilizing
breakout rooms. FINRA will also provide training for participants on
how to use the video conferencing platform and detailed guidance on the
procedures that will govern such hearings. Moreover, the Chief or
Deputy Chief Hearing Officer may take into consideration, among other
things, a hearing participant's access to connectivity and technology
in scheduling a video conference hearing and can also, at their
discretion, allow a party or witness to participate by telephone, if
necessary, to address such access issues.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See text accompanying notes 9-10, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the same reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is designed to provide a fair procedure for the disciplining of
members and persons associated with members, consistent with Sections
6(b)(7) and 6(d) of the Act.\18\ The Exchange believes that the
temporary proposed rule change strikes an appropriate balance between
providing fair process and enabling the Exchange to fulfill its
statutory obligations to protect investors and maintain fair and
orderly markets while accounting for the significant health and safety
risks of in-person hearings stemming from the outbreak of COVID-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7) and 78f(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues but is rather intended
solely to provide temporary relief given the impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic. In its filing, FINRA provides an abbreviated economic impact
assessment maintaining that the changes are necessary to temporarily
rebalance the attendant benefits and costs of the obligations under
FINRA Rules 1015, 9261, 9524 and 9830 in response to the impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic that is equally applicable to the changes the
Exchange proposes.\19\ The Exchange accordingly incorporates FINRA's
abbreviated economic impact assessment by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ FINRA Filing, 85 FR at 55716.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \20\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\21\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)

of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \22\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSENAT-2020-31 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-NYSENAT-2020-31. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, on business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., located at 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change.
    Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or
edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSENAT-2020-
31 and should be submitted on or before November 4, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-22718 Filed 10-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 106 (Friday, June 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30056-30058]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11735]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-D-0338]

Definitions of Suspect Product and Illegitimate Product for
Verification Obligations Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act;
Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a revised draft guidance for industry entitled
``Definitions of Suspect Product and Illegitimate Product for
Verification Obligations Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act.''
The draft guidance is intended to help industry better understand the
definitions of ``suspect'' and ``illegitimate'' product as defined in
the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA). The draft guidance lays out
FDA's current understanding of the following key terms used to define
``suspect'' and ``illegitimate'' product: ``Counterfeit,''
``diverted,'' ``stolen,'' ``fraudulent transaction,'' and ``unfit for
distribution.'' This revised draft guidance clarifies certain points of
the draft guidance for industry ``Definitions of Suspect Product and
Illegitimate Product for Verification Obligations Under the Drug Supply
Chain Security Act'' issued in March 2018 (March 2018

draft guidance), including FDA's current understanding of the term
``stolen.''

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by August 3, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as
follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2018-D-0338 for ``Definitions of Suspect Product and Illegitimate
Product for Verification Obligations Under the Drug Supply Chain
Security Act; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability.'' Received
comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted
as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the
Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale
Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-
addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Venti, Office of Compliance,
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a revised draft guidance for
industry entitled ``Definitions of Suspect Product and Illegitimate
Product for Verification Obligations Under the Drug Supply Chain
Security Act.'' This guidance interprets the terms used in the
definition of ``suspect product'' set forth in section 581(21) of
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360eee(21)),
and the definition of ``illegitimate product'' set forth in section
581(8) of the FD&C Act to assist trading partners in meeting
verification obligations (including notification) under section
582(b)(4), (c)(4), (d)(4), and (e)(4) (21 U.S.C. 360eee-1 (b)(4),
(c)(4), (d)(4), and (e)(4)), respectively.
    This draft guidance is intended to help industry better understand
the definitions of ``suspect'' and ``illegitimate'' product as defined
in section 581 of the FD&C Act. The draft guidance lays out FDA's
current understanding of the following key terms used to define
``suspect'' and ``illegitimate'' product in section 581 of FD&C Act:
``Counterfeit,'' ``diverted,'' ``stolen,'' ``fraudulent transaction,''
and ``unfit for distribution.'' In response to comments received from
stakeholders, this draft guidance revises the March 2018 draft
guidance. Most significantly, this revised draft guidance: (1) Provides
for FDA's current understanding of the term ``stolen''; (2) identifies
certain scenarios that are unlikely to result in diverted product; (3)
revises the definition of ``unfit for distribution'' by tying it more
closely to the language in the DSCSA and referencing ``serious adverse
health consequences or death to humans''; and (4) revises the
definition of ``fraudulent transaction'' to apply to situations where
information has been ``knowingly'' falsified.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on ``Definitions
of Suspect Product and Illegitimate Product for Verification
Obligations Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act.'' It does not
establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the
public.

You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of
the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    FDA tentatively concludes that this draft guidance contains no
collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of
Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not
required.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/guidances-drugs, https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information-biologics/biologics-guidances, or
https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: May 26, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-11735 Filed 6-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 54991-54992]
[DOCID:fr26oc09-67]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-1-000]

Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company; Notice of Petition for Rate
Approval

October 19, 2009.
    Take notice that on October 13, 2009, Peoples Gas Light and Coke
Company (Peoples Gas) filed a petition for rate approval pursuant to
Sections 284.123 and 284.224 of the Commission's regulations. Peoples
Gas is requesting that the Commission approve as fair and equitable
rates for the services that Peoples Gas provides pursuant to its
blanket certificate authority, and revised rates for its firm and
interruptible transportation and storage service, firm one-cycle
exchange service and its interruptible parking and loaning service, all
as more fully set forth in the application.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion

to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with
Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
(18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person
wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion
to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must
be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an
intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, October 26, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-25617 Filed 10-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 459-462]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27649]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 774

[Docket No.<PHONE_NUMBER>]
RIN 0694-AH89

Addition of Software Specially Designed To Automate the Analysis
of Geospatial Imagery to the Export Control Classification Number 0Y521
Series

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this interim final rule, the Bureau of Industry and
Security (BIS) amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to
make certain items subject to the EAR and to impose a license
requirement for the export and reexport of those items to all
destinations, except Canada. Specifically, this rule classifies
software specially designed to automate the analysis of geospatial
imagery, as

specified, under the Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 0Y521
series, specifically under ECCN 0D521. BIS adds this item to the 0Y521
series of ECCNs upon a determination by the Department of Commerce,
with the concurrence of the Departments of Defense and State, and other
agencies as appropriate, that the items warrant control for export
because the items may provide a significant military or intelligence
advantage to the United States or because foreign policy reasons
justify control, pursuant to the ECCN 0Y521 series procedures.

DATES: This rule is effective January 6, 2020. Comments must be
received by March 6, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. The
regulations.gov ID number for this rule is BIS-2019-0031. All comments
(including any personally identifying information) will be made
available for public inspection and copying.
     Address: By mail or delivery to Regulatory Policy
Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Room 2099B, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20230. Refer to RIN 0694-AH89.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Amundson, Director, Information
Technology Division, Office of National Security and Technology
Transfer Controls, at email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at
(202) 482-5299.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The 0Y521 Series

    The 0Y521 series of ECCNs was established in April 2012 (77 FR
22191, April 13, 2012). Items in the 0Y521 series, which includes ECCNs
0A521, 0B521, 0C521, 0D521, and 0E521, are described in Supplement No.
5 to part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Items in
the 0Y521 series of ECCNs are added upon a determination by the
Department of Commerce, with the concurrence of the Departments of
Defense and State, and other agencies as appropriate, that the items
warrant control for export because the items may provide a significant
military or intelligence advantage to the United States or because
foreign policy reasons justify control. Pursuant to Sec.  742.6(a)(7)
of the EAR, the 0Y521 series is a temporary holding classification that
only lasts for one year from the date a final rule is published in the
Federal Register listing the item in Supplement No. 5 to part 774,
unless the 0Y521 classification is extended in accordance with
described procedures, and provided that the U.S. Government submit a
proposal to the relevant multilateral regime(s) to obtain multilateral
controls over the item. Before the 0Y521 classification expires, an
0Y521 item may be reclassified and moved under a different ECCN on the
Commerce Control List (CCL), if appropriate. If the item has not been
moved to a more permanent ECCN and the 0Y521 classification expires,
the item is designated EAR99. ``EAR99'' means that an item is subject
to the EAR but not specified on the CCL.
    Items classified under the 0Y521 series are controlled for regional
stability (RS) Column 1 reasons, with a case-by-case license
application review policy. The only license exception available for
these items at this time is for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-
country) made by or consigned to a department or agency of the U.S.
Government (License Exception GOV), specifically within the scope of
Sec.  740.11(b)(2)(ii) of the EAR. This limitation is further described
in Sec.  740.2(a)(14) of the EAR.

Addition of Software Specially Designed To Automate the Analysis of
Geospatial Imagery Under the 0Y521 Series in This Rule

    In this interim final rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS) amends the EAR to classify certain items subject to the EAR under
the 0Y521 series and to impose a license requirement for the export and
reexport of those items to all destinations, except Canada, for RS
Column 1 reasons. Specifically, the items that will be subject to these
new controls are described under ECCN 0D521 in the 0Y521 series table
found in Supplement No. 5 to part 774 of the EAR, as follows:

ECCN 0D521 No. 1

    Geospatial imagery ``software'' ``specially designed'' for training
a Deep Convolutional Neural Network to automate the analysis of
geospatial imagery and point clouds, and having all of the following:
    1. Provides a graphical user interface that enables the user to
identify objects (e.g., vehicles, houses, etc.) from within geospatial
imagery and point clouds in order to extract positive and negative
samples of an object of interest;
    2. Reduces pixel variation by performing scale, color, and
rotational normalization on the positive samples;
    3. Trains a Deep Convolutional Neural Network to detect the object
of interest from the positive and negative samples; and
    4. Identifies objects in geospatial imagery using the trained Deep
Convolutional Neural Network by matching the rotational pattern from
the positive samples with the rotational pattern of objects in the
geospatial imagery.
    Technical Note: A point cloud is a collection of data points
defined by a given coordinate system. A point cloud is also known as a
digital surface model.
    Consistent with other 0Y521 series items, license requirements for
the items described under the first entry for ECCN 0D521 of the 0Y521
series, appear in Sec.  742.6(a)(7) of the EAR. The U.S. Government
currently plans to propose to an appropriate multilateral regime, in
this case the Wassenaar Arrangement, that multilateral controls be
placed on these items.

License Applications for the New ECCN 0D521 No. 1

    License applications for these items may be submitted through SNAP-
R in accordance with Sec.  748.6 (General instructions for license
applications) of the EAR. Exporters are directed to include detailed
descriptions and technical specifications with the license application,
and to identify the item's ECCN.
    This rule is being issued in interim final form because while the
government believes that it is in the national security interests of
the United States to immediately implement these controls, it also
wants to provide the interested public with an opportunity to comment
on the control of new items. Comments may be submitted in accordance
with the DATES and ADDRESSSES sections of this rule. BIS will review
and, if appropriate, address such comments through rulemaking
consistent with the process described in the final rule that created
the ECCN 0Y521 series.

Export Control Reform Act of 2018

    On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S.
McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which
included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (Title XVII,
Subtitle B of Pub. L. 115-232) that provides the legal basis for BIS's
principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS
issues this rule. As set forth in Section 1768 of ECRA, all
delegations, rules, regulations, orders, determinations, licenses, or
other forms of administrative action that were made, issued, conducted,
or allowed to become effective under the Export

Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.) (as in effect prior
to August 13, 2018, and as continued in effect pursuant to the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.),
or the Export Administration Regulations, and were in effect as of
August 13, 2018, shall continue in effect according to their terms
until modified, superseded, set aside, or revoked under the authority
of ECRA.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). 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''. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive
Order 12866.
    2. Pursuant to Section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of
2018 (Title XVII, Subtitle B of Pub. L. 115- 232), which was included
in the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2019, this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act
(5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking,
opportunity for public participation and delay in effective date. The
analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.) are not applicable because no general notice of proposed
rulemaking was required for this action. Accordingly, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.
    3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to, nor is subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with, a collection of information, subject to the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA),
unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves
collections previously approved by OMB under the following control
numbers: 0694-0088 and 0694-0137. This action is not expected to
materially increase the number of submissions under these collections.
Any comments regarding these collections of information, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, may be sent to OMB Desk Officer,
New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; and to Jasmeet K.
Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications
as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 774

    Exports, Rexporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15
CFR parts 730 through 774) is amended as follows:

PART 774--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 774 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. 4801-4582; 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C.
287c, 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 15
U.S.C. 1824a; 50 U.S.C. 4305; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C.
7210; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O.
13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; and as extended by
the Notice of August 14, 2019, 84 FR 41881 (August 15, 2019).

0
2. Amend Supplement No. 5 to part 774 by removing the reserved entry
under ``0D521. Software'' and adding in its place entry ``No. 1'' to
read as follows:

         Supplement No. 5 to Part 774--Items Classified Under ECCNS 0A521, 0B521, 0C521, 0D521 and 0E521
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Item descriptor.                       Date of initial or       Date when the item will  Item-specific license
Note: The description must match by     subsequent BIS           be designated EAR99,     exception eligibility.
 model number or a broader descriptor   classification.          unless reclassified in
 that does not necessarily need to be  (ID = initial date; SD    another ECCN or the
 company specific.                      = subsequent date).      0Y521 classification
                                                                 is reissued.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                0D521. Software.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No.1 Geospatial imagery ``software''   January 6, 2020 (ID)...  January 6, 2021........  License Exception GOV
 ``specially designed'' for training                                                      under
 a Deep Convolutional Neural Network                                                     Sec.   740.11(b)(2)(ii)
 to automate the analysis of                                                              only.
 geospatial imagery and point clouds,
 and having all of the following:
    1. Provides a graphical user
     interface that enables the user
     to identify objects (e.g.,
     vehicles, houses, etc.) from
     within geospatial imagery and
     point clouds in order to extract
     positive and negative samples of
     an object of interest;
    2. Reduces pixel variation by
     performing scale, color, and
     rotational normalization on the
     positive samples;
    3. Trains a Deep Convolutional
     Neural Network to detect the
     object of interest from the
     positive and negative samples;
     and

    4. Identifies objects in
     geospatial imagery using the
     trained Deep Convolutional
     Neural Network by matching the
     rotational pattern from the
     positive samples with the
     rotational pattern of objects in
     the geospatial imagery.
Technical Note: A point cloud is a
 collection of data points defined by
 a given coordinate system. A point
 cloud is also known as a digital
 surface model.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: December 17, 2019.
Richard E. Ashooh,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2019-27649 Filed 1-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 104 (Thursday, June 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25366-25369]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11366]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80790; File No. SR-MIAX-2017-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate
Requirements That Will Be Duplicative of CAT

May 26, 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 May 15, 2017, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX
Options'' or ``Exchange'') 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 the Exchange. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend MIAX Options Rule 607,
Securities Accounts and Orders of Market Makers (``Rule 607'' or the
``Position Reporting Rule'') by adding new Interpretation and Policy
.01 to Rule 607, and MIAX Options Rule 804, Automated Submission of
Trade Data (``Rule 804'' or the ``EBS Rule'' and together with the
Position Reporting Rule, the ``CAT Duplicative Rules'') by adding new
Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 804, as the CAT Duplicative Rules
provide for the collection of information that is duplicative of the
data collection requirements of the consolidated audit trail (``CAT'')
adopted pursuant to the National Market System Plan Governing the
Consolidated Audit Trail (the ``CAT NMS Plan'' or ``Plan'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this
rule filing are defined as set forth herein, or in the CAT
Compliance Rule Series or in the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's
principal office, 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 the
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. (``FINRA''), Investors' Exchange LLC, Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC, NASDAQ BX,
Inc., Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC,\4\ NASDAQ
PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC,
NYSE MKT LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc. and NYSE National, Inc.\5\ (collectively,
the ``Participants'') filed with the Commission, pursuant to Section
11A of the Exchange Act \6\ and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS
thereunder,\7\ the CAT NMS Plan.\8\ 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,\9\
and approved by the Commission, as modified, on November 15, 2016.\10\
The Plan is designed to create, implement and maintain a 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. Pursuant to Appendix C
of the CAT NMS Plan, each Participant is

required to conduct analyses of which of its existing trade and order
data rules and systems require the collection of information that is
duplicative of information collected for the CAT.\11\ In addition,
among other things, Section C.9 of Appendix C to the Plan, as modified
by the Commission, requires each Participant to ``file with the SEC the
relevant rule change filing to eliminate or modify its duplicative
rules within six (6) months of the SEC's approval of the CAT NMS
Plan.'' \12\ The Plan notes that ``the elimination of such rules and
the retirement of such systems [will] be effective at such time as CAT
Data meets minimum standards of accuracy and reliability.'' \13\ The
Exchange has determined that the Position Reporting Rule and the EBS
Rule is affected by the implementation of the CAT and, therefore, is
filing this proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ISE Gemini, LLC, ISE Mercury, LLC and International
Securities Exchange, LLC have been renamed Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, Nasdaq
MRX, LLC, and Nasdaq ISE, LLC, respectively. See Securities Exchange
Act Rel. No. 80248 (Mar. 15, 2017), 82 FR 14547 (Mar. 21, 2017);
Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 80326 (Mar. 29, 2017), 82 FR 16460
(Apr. 4, 2017); and Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 80325 (Mar. 29,
2017), 82 FR 16445 (Apr. 4, 2017).
    \5\ National Stock Exchange, Inc. has been renamed NYSE
National, Inc. See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 79902 (Jan. 30,
2017), 82 FR 9258 (Feb. 3, 2017).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \7\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \8\ See 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.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77724 (Apr. 27,
2016), 81 FR 30614 (May 17, 2016).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 79318 (Nov. 15, 2016),
81 FR 84696 (Nov. 23, 2016) (``Approval Order'').
    \11\ Appendix C of CAT NMS Plan, Approval Order at 85010.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The CAT Duplicative Rules
    MIAX Options Rule 607, the Position Reporting Rule, is the
Exchange's rule requiring Market Makers to (a) keep current and file
with the Exchange a list identifying specified accounts in which it may
engage in trading activities or over which it exercises investment
discretion (``MM account information'') and (b) report to the Exchange
every order entered by the Market Maker for the purchase or sale of a
security underlying options traded on the Exchange or convertible into
or exercisable for such underlying security (``MM order information''),
as well as opening and closing positions in all such securities held in
each of the aforementioned specified accounts (``MM position
information''), in each case in a manner prescribed by the Exchange.
    MIAX Options Rule 804, the EBS Rule, is the Exchange's rule
requiring Members to submit requested trade data elements (``Member
trade data'') to the Exchange in such automated format as may be
prescribed by the Exchange from time to time, in regard to a
transaction(s) that is the subject of a particular request for
information. Rule 804 contemplates using the Electronic Blue Sheet
(``EBS'') system for the automated submission of Member trade data as
requested by the Exchange, including, among other information, clearing
house number or alpha symbol, identifying symbol assigned to the
security, options month and/or series, transaction execution date,
number of option contracts for transaction and whether opening or
closing purchase or sale, transaction price, account number and/or
market center where executed.
    Once broker-dealer reporting to the CAT has begun, the CAT will
contain certain of the data the Participants would otherwise have
requested via the Position Reporting Rule or via the EBS system for
purposes of NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities. Consequently, the
Exchange will not need to use the Position Reporting Rule to obtain MM
account information or MM order information (although Exchange still
anticipates the need to obtain MM position information pursuant to Rule
607 because the CAT does not currently address position reporting) or
use the EBS system to obtain Member trade data or request information
pursuant to the CAT Duplicative Rules for NMS Securities or OTC Equity
Securities for time periods after CAT reporting has begun if the
appropriate accuracy and reliability thresholds are achieved, including
an acceptable accuracy rate for customer and account information.
However, the Position Reporting Rule cannot be completely eliminated
immediately upon the CAT achieving the appropriate thresholds because
Exchange staff will still need to request information pursuant to the
Position Reporting Rule regarding MM position information (because the
CAT does not currently address position reporting), and Exchange staff
may still need to request information pursuant to the Position
Reporting Rule for MM account information and MM order information
before a Market Maker was reporting to the CAT. Further, the EBS Rule
cannot be completely eliminated immediately upon the CAT achieving the
appropriate thresholds because Exchange staff may still need to request
information pursuant to the EBS Rule for trading activity occurring
before a Member was reporting to the CAT.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Firms are required to maintain the trade information for
pre-CAT transactions in equities and options pursuant to applicable
rules, such as books and records retention requirements, for the
relevant time period, which is generally three or six years
depending upon the record. See 17 CFR 240.17a-3(a), 240.17a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change proposes to: (1) Add new Interpretation
and Policy .01 to the Position Reporting Rule to clarify how the
Exchange will request Market Maker account, order and position data
under Rule 607 after MIAX Options Market Makers are reporting to the
CAT, and (2) add new Interpretation and Policy .01 to the EBS Rule to
clarify how the Exchange will request trade data under Rule 804 after
MIAX Options Members are reporting to the CAT.
    With respect to the Position Reporting Rule, proposed
Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 607 will specifically permit the
Exchange to request information under such rule only if the information
is not available in the CAT because, for example, the transactions in
question occurred before the Market Maker was reporting information to
the CAT or relates to position information because the CAT does not
currently address position reporting. In essence, under the new
Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 607, the Exchange will make
requests under Rule 607 if and only if the information is not otherwise
available through the CAT.
    With respect to the EBS Rule, proposed Interpretation and Policy
.01 to Rule 804 will specifically permit the Exchange to request
information under such rule only if the information is not available in
the CAT because, for example, the transactions in question occurred
before the Member was reporting information to the CAT. In essence,
under the new Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 804, the Exchange
will make requests under Rule 804 if and only if the information is not
otherwise available through the CAT.
    The CAT NMS Plan states, however, that the elimination of rules
that are duplicative of the requirements of the CAT and the retirement
of the related systems should be effective at such time as CAT Data
meets minimum standards of accuracy and reliability.\15\ Accordingly,
as discussed in more detail below, the Exchange believes that MM
account information and MM order information (but not MM position
information) may be replaced by CAT Data at a date after all Industry
Members are reporting to the CAT when the proposed error rate
thresholds have been met, and MIAX Options has determined that its
usage of the CAT Data has not revealed material issues that have not
been corrected, confirmed that the CAT includes all data necessary to
allow MIAX Options to continue to meet its surveillance obligations,
and confirmed that the Plan Processor is sufficiently meeting all of
its obligations under the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes, as discussed in more detail below,
that the EBS data may be replaced by CAT Data at a date after all
Industry Members are reporting to the CAT when the proposed error rate
thresholds have been met, and MIAX Options has determined that its
usage of the CAT Data has not revealed material issues that have not
been

corrected, confirmed that the CAT includes all data necessary to allow
MIAX Options to continue to meet its surveillance obligations, and
confirmed that the Plan Processor is sufficiently meeting all of its
obligations under the CAT NMS Plan.
    MIAX Options believes CAT Data should not be used in place of MM
account information and MM order information or EBS data until all
Participants and Industry Members are reporting data to CAT. In this
way, MIAX Options will continue to have access to the necessary data to
perform its regulatory duties.
    The CAT NMS Plan requires that a rule filing to eliminate a
duplicative rule address whether ``the availability of certain data
from Small Industry Members two years after the Effective Date would
facilitate a more expeditious retirement of duplicative systems.'' \16\
The Exchange believes that MM account information and MM order
information reporting should not be eliminated until all Participants
and Industry Members that report such information are reporting
comparable data to the CAT. The Exchange further believes that the EBS
system should not be retired until all Participants and Industry
Members that report EBS data to the EBS system are reporting comparable
data to the CAT. While the early submission of data to the CAT by Small
Industry Members could expedite the replacement of MM account
information, MM order information and EBS data with CAT Data, the
Exchange believes that it is premature to consider such a change and
that additional analysis would be necessary to determine whether such
early reporting by Small Industry Members would be feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAT NMS Plan requires that this rule filing address ``whether
individual Industry Members can be exempted from reporting to
duplicative systems once their CAT reporting meets specified accuracy
and reliability standards, including, but not limited to, ways in which
establishing cross-system regulatory functionality or integrating data
from existing systems and the CAT would facilitate such Individual
Industry Member exemptions.'' \17\ The Exchange believes that a single
cut-over from current reporting systems to CAT is highly preferable to
a firm-by-firm approach and is not proposing to exempt Members from the
Position Reporting Rule or EBS Rule requirements on a firm-by-firm
basis. The Exchange believes that providing such individual exemptions
to Industry Members would be inefficient, more costly, and less
reliable than the single cut-over. Providing individual exemptions
would require the exchanges to create, for a brief temporary period, a
cross-system regulatory function and to integrate data from current
reporting systems and the CAT to avoid creating any regulatory gaps as
a result of such exemptions. Such a function would be costly to create
and would give rise to a greater likelihood of data errors or other
issues. Given the limited time in which such exemptions would be
necessary, the Exchange does not believe that such exemptions would be
an appropriate use of limited resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAT NMS Plan also requires that a rule filing to eliminate a
duplicative rule to provide ``specific accuracy and reliability
standards that will determine when duplicative systems will be retired,
including, but not limited to, whether the attainment of a certain
Error Rate should determine when a system duplicative of the CAT can be
retired.'' \18\ The Exchange believes that it is critical that the CAT
Data be sufficiently accurate and reliable for the Exchange to perform
the regulatory functions that it now performs via current reporting
systems. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the CAT Data should
meet specific quantitative error rates, as well as certain qualitative
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that, before CAT Data may be used in place of
MM account information and MM order information or EBS data, the CAT
would need to achieve a sustained error rate for a period of at least
180 days of 5% or lower measured on a pre-correction or as-submitted
basis, and 2% or lower on a post-correction basis (measured at
T+5).\19\ The Exchange proposes to measure the 5% pre-correction and 2%
post-correction thresholds by averaging the error rate across the
period, not require a 5% pre-correction and 2% post-correction maximum
each day for 180 consecutive days. The Exchange believes that measuring
each of the thresholds over the course of 180 days will ensure that the
CAT consistently meets minimum accuracy and reliability thresholds
while also ensuring that single-day measurements do not unduly affect
the overall measurements. The Exchange proposes to measure the
appropriate error rates in the aggregate, rather than firm-by-firm. The
2% and 5% error rates are in line with the proposed retirement
threshold for other systems, such as FINRA's Order Audit Trail System
(``OATS'') and the consolidated options audit trail system (``COATS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Plan requires that the Plan Processor must ensure that
regulators have access to corrected and linked order and Customer
data by 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time on T+5. See CAT NMS Plan, at C-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these minimum error rates before using CAT Data
instead of MM account information and MM order information or EBS data,
the Exchange believes that during the minimum 180-day period during
which the thresholds are calculated, the Exchange's use of the data in
the CAT must confirm that (i) usage over that time period has not
revealed material issues that have not been corrected, (ii) the CAT
includes all data necessary to allow the Exchange to continue to meet
its surveillance obligations, and (iii) the Plan Processor is
sufficiently meeting all of its obligations under the CAT NMS Plan. The
Exchange believes this time period to use the CAT Data is necessary to
reveal any errors that may manifest themselves only after surveillance
patterns and other queries have been run and to confirm that the Plan
Processor is meeting its obligations and performing its functions
adequately.
    If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, the Exchange
will announce the implementation date for the proposed rule change in a
Regulatory Circular that will be published once the Exchange concludes
the thresholds for accuracy and reliability described above have been
met and that the Plan Processor is sufficiently meeting all of its
obligations under 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 Exchange Act,\20\ which
require, among other things, that the Exchange 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 not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers. The
Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Exchange
Act because it fulfills the obligation in the CAT NMS Plan for the
Exchange to submit a proposed rule change to eliminate or modify
duplicative rules. 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.'' \21\ As
this proposal implements the Plan, the Exchange believes that this
proposal furthers the objectives of the Plan, as identified by the SEC,
and is therefore consistent with the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \21\ Approval Order at 84697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend rules
that require the submission of duplicative data to the Exchange. The
elimination of such duplicative requirements will reduce unnecessary
costs and other compliance burdens for the Exchange and its Members,
and therefore, will enhance the efficiency of the securities markets.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the approach set forth in the
proposed rule change strikes the appropriate balance between ensuring
that the Exchange is able to continue to fulfill its statutory
obligation to protect investors and the public interest by ensuring its
surveillance of market activity remains accurate and effective while
also establishing a reasonable timeframe for elimination or
modification of its rules that will be rendered duplicative after
implementation of the CAT.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Section 6(b)(8) of the Exchange Act \22\ requires that Exchange
rules not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate. 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 Exchange Act. The
Exchange notes that the proposed rule change implements the
requirements of the CAT NMS Plan approved by the Commission regarding
the elimination of rules and systems that are duplicative the CAT, and
is designed to assist the Exchange in meeting its regulatory
obligations pursuant to the Plan. Similarly, all exchanges and FINRA
are proposing the elimination of their EBS and other CAT duplicative
rules to implement the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan. Therefore,
this is not a competitive rule filing and, therefore, it does not raise
competition issues between and among the self-regulatory organizations
and/or their members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 shall: (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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2017-20 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2017-20. 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 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-MIAX-2017-20, and should be
submitted on or before June 22, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-11366 Filed 5-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P