Section 6.8 of the CAT NMS Plan which requires the Compliance Rule to
provide that a pattern or practice of reporting events outside of the
required clock synchronization time period without reasonable
justification or exceptional circumstances may be considered a
violation of Rule 613 of Regulation NMS or the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ See proposed Bats BYX Rule 4.11; Bats BZX Rule 4.11; Bats
EDGA Rule 4.11; Bats EDGX Rule 4.11; BX Rules 6865 and Chapter IX,
Section 8, subparagraph (g); BOX Rule 16065; C2 Chapter 6, Section
F; CBOE Rule 6.91; CHX Article 23, Rule 7; IEX Rule 11.665; ISE Rule
906; ISE Gemini Rule 906; ISE Mercury Rule 906; MIAX Rule 1707; MIAX
PEARL Chapter XVII; NASDAQ Rules 6865 and Chapter IX, Section 8,
subparagraph (g); NYSE Rule 6865; NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.6865;
NYSE Arca Options Rule 11.6865; NYSE MKT Rule 6865; NYSE National
Rule 14.7; and Phlx Rule 965A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Connectivity and Data Transmission

    The proposed CAT Compliance Rules address connectivity and data
transmission requirements related to the CAT.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ See proposed Bats BYX Rule 4.12; Bats BZX Rule 4.12; Bats
EDGA Rule 4.12; Bats EDGX Rule 4.12; BX Rules 6870 and Chapter IX,
Section 8, subparagraph (h); BOX Rule 16070; C2 Chapter 6, Section
F; CBOE Rule 6.92; CHX Article 23, Rule 8; IEX Rule 11.670; ISE Rule
907; ISE Gemini Rule 907; ISE Mercury 907; MIAX Rule 1708; MIAX
PEARL Chapter XVII; NASDAQ Rules Chapter IX, Section 8, subparagraph
(h); NYSE Rule 6870; NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.6870; NYSE Arca
Options Rule 11.6870; NYSE MKT Rule 6870; NYSE National Rule 14.8;
and Phlx Rule 970A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Data Transmission
    The proposed CAT Compliance Rules describe the format(s) for
reporting Industry Member Data to the Central Repository. Specifically,
the proposed Rules require each Industry Member to transmit data as
required under the CAT NMS Plan to the Central Repository utilizing
such format(s) as may be provided by the Plan Processor and approved by
the Operating Committee. The Exchanges state that this provision
implements the formatting requirements as set forth in Section 6.4(a)
of the CAT NMS Plan.
2. Connectivity
    The proposed CAT Compliance Rules address connectivity requirements
related to the CAT. The proposed Rules require each Industry Member to
connect to the Central Repository using a secure method(s), including,
but not limited to, private line(s) and virtual private network
connection(s). The Exchanges state that this provision implements the
connectivity requirements set forth in Section 4 of Appendix D to the
CAT NMS Plan.
3. CAT Reporting Agent
    The proposed CAT Compliance Rules permit Industry Members to enter
into an agreement with CAT Reporting Agents to fulfill their data
reporting obligations related to the CAT.\138\ Any such agreement must
be evidenced in writing, which specifies the respective functions and
responsibilities of each party to the agreement that are required to
effect full compliance with the requirements of the proposed CAT
Compliance Rules. The proposed Rules require that all written documents
evidencing an agreement with a CAT Reporting Agent be maintained by
each party to the agreement. The proposed Rules further state that each
Industry Member remains primarily responsible for compliance with the
requirements of the proposed CAT Compliance Rules, notwithstanding the
existence of an agreement described otherwise in the proposed Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ The Exchanges represent that the proposed Rules are based
on FINRA Rule 7450(c), which permits OATS Reporting Members to enter
into agreements with Reporting Agents to fulfill the OATS
obligations of the OATS Reporting Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Development and Testing

    The Exchanges propose CAT Compliance Rules to address requirements
for Industry Members related to CAT development and testing.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ See proposed Bats BYX Rule 4.13; Bats BZX Rule 4.13; Bats
EDGA Rule 4.13; Bats EDGX Rule 4.13; BX Rules 6880 and Chapter IX,
Section 8, subparagraph (i); BOX Rule 16080; C2 Chapter 6, Section
F; CBOE Rule 6.93; CHX Article 23, Rule 9; IEX Rule 11.680; ISE Rule
908; ISE Gemini Rule 908; ISE Mercury Rule 908; MIAX Rule 1709; MIAX
PEARL Chapter XVII; NASDAQ Rule 6880 and Chapter IX, Section 8,
subparagraph (i); NYSE Rule 6880; NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.6880;
NYSE Arca Options Rule 11.6880; NYSE MKT Rule 6880; NYSE National
Rule 14.9; and Phlx Rule 980A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Development
    The proposed Rules set forth the testing requirements and deadlines
for Industry Members to develop and commence reporting to the Central
Repository. The Exchanges state that these requirements are set forth
in Appendix C to the CAT NMS Plan.
    The CAT Compliance Rules set forth the deadlines related to
connectivity and acceptance testing. Industry Members (other than Small
Industry Members) are required to begin connectivity and acceptance
testing with the Central Repository no later than August 15, 2018, and
Small Industry Members are required to begin connectivity and
acceptance testing with the Central Repository no later than August 15,
2019.
    The CAT Compliance Rules also set forth the deadlines related to
reporting Customer and Industry Member information.\140\ The proposed
Rules require Industry Members (other than Small Industry Members) to
begin reporting Customer and Industry Member information to the Central
Repository for processing no later than October 15, 2018. The proposed
Rules require Small Industry Members to begin reporting Customer and
Industry Member information to the Central Repository for processing no
later than October 15, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ See proposed Bats BYX Rule 4.13(a)(2); Bats BZX Rule
4.13(a)(2); Bats EDGA Rule 4.13(a)(2); Bats EDGX Rule 4.13(a)(2); BX
Rules 6880(a)(2) and Chapter IX, Section 8, subparagraph (i)(i)(2);
BOX Rule 16080(a)(2); C2 Chapter 6, Section F; CBOE Rule
6.93(a)(ii); CHX Article 23, Rule 9(a)(2); IEX Rule 11.680(a)(2);
ISE Rule 908(a)(2); ISE Gemini Rule 908(a)(2); ISE Mercury
908(a)(2); MIAX Rule 1709(a)(2); MIAX PEARL Chapter XVII; NASDAQ
Rule 6880(a)(2) and Chapter IX, Section 8, subparagraph (i)(i)(2);
NYSE Rule 6880(a)(2); NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.6880(a)(2); NYSE
Arca Options Rule 11.6880(a)(2); NYSE MKT Rule 6880(a)(2); NYSE
National Rule 14.9(a)(2); and Phlx Rule 980A(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed CAT Compliance Rules set forth the deadlines related
to the submission of order data. Under the proposed Rules, Industry
Members (other than Small Industry Members) are permitted, but not
required, to submit order data for testing purposes

beginning no later than May 15, 2018. In addition, Industry Members
(other than Small Industry Members) are required to participate in the
coordinated and structured testing of order submission, which will
begin no later than August 15, 2018. Under the proposed Rules, Small
Industry Members are permitted, but not required, to submit order data
for testing purposes beginning no later than May 15, 2019. In addition,
Small Industry Members are required to participate in the coordinated
and structured testing of order submission, which will begin no later
than August 15, 2019.
    The proposed CAT Compliance Rules state that Industry Members are
permitted, but not required to, submit Quote Sent Times on Options
Market Maker quotes to Exchanges, beginning no later than October 15,
2018 for testing purposes.
2. Testing
    The proposed CAT Compliance Rules implement the requirement under
the CAT NMS Plan that Industry Members participate in required industry
testing with the Central Repository. Specifically, the proposed Rules
require that each Industry Member participate in testing related to the
Central Repository, including any industry-wide disaster recovery
testing, pursuant to the schedule established pursuant to the CAT NMS
Plan. The Exchanges state that they intend to announce to its Industry
Members the schedule established pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ See supra note 118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Recordkeeping

    The proposed CAT Compliance Rules set forth the recordkeeping
obligations related to the CAT for Industry Members.\142\ The proposed
Rules require each Industry Member to maintain and preserve records of
the information required to be recorded under the proposed Rules for
the period of time and accessibility specified in Exchange Act Rule
17a-4(b).\143\ The records required to be maintained and preserved
under the proposed Rules may be immediately produced or reproduced on
``micrographic media'' as defined in Rule 17a-4(f)(1)(i) \144\ or by
means of ``electronic storage media'' as defined in Exchange Act Rule
17a-4(f)(1)(ii) \145\ that meet the conditions set forth in Exchange
Act Rule 17a-4(f) \146\ and be maintained and preserved for the
required time in that form. The proposed CAT Compliance Rules are based
on FINRA Rule 7440(a)(5), which sets forth the recordkeeping
requirements related to OATS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ See proposed Bats BYX Rule 4.14; Bats BZX Rule 4.14; Bats
EDGA Rule 4.14; Bats EDGX Rule 4.14; BX Rules 6890 and Chapter IX,
Section 8, subparagraph (j); BOX Rule 16090; C2 Chapter 6, Section
F; CBOE Rule 6.94; CHX Article 23, Rule 10; IEX Rule 11.690; ISE
Rule 909; ISE Gemini Rule 909; ISE Mercury Rule 909; MIAX Rule 1710;
MIAX PEARL Chapter XVII; NASDAQ Rule 6890 and Chapter IX, Section 8,
subparagraph (j); NYSE Rule 6890; NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.6890;
NYSE Arca Options Rule 11.6890; NYSE MKT Rule 6890; NYSE National
Rule 14.10; and Phlx Rule 990A.
    \143\ 17 CFR 240.17a-4(b).
    \144\ 17 CFR 240.17a-4(f)(1)(i).
    \145\ 17 CFR 240.17a-4(f)(1)(ii).
    \146\ 17 CFR 240.17a-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Timely, Accurate and Complete Data

1. General
    The Exchanges note that Rule 613 of Regulation NMS and the CAT NMS
Plan emphasize the importance of the timeliness, accuracy, completeness
and integrity of the data submitted to the CAT.\147\ Accordingly, the
proposed CAT Compliance Rules require that Industry Members record and
report data to the Central Repository as required by the proposed Rules
in a manner that ensures the timeliness, accuracy, integrity and
completeness of such data.\148\ The Exchanges state that the proposed
CAT Compliance Rules implement the Plan's requirement with respect to
the importance of timely, accurate and complete data with regard to
Industry Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ See 17 CFR 242.613(e)(4)(i)(D)(ii); and CAT NMS Plan,
supra note 21, at Section 6.5(d).
    \148\ See proposed Bats BYX Rule 4.15; Bats BZX Rule 4.15; Bats
EDGA Rule 4.15; Bats EDGX Rule 4.15; BX Rule 6893 and Chapter IX,
Section 8, subparagraph (k); BOX Rule 16093; C2 Chapter 6, Section
F; CBOE Rule 6.95; CHX Article 23, Rule 11; IEX Rule 11.693; ISE
Rule 910; ISE Gemini Rule 910; ISE Mercury Rule 910; MIAX Rule 1711;
MIAX PEARL Chapter XVII; Nasdaq Rule 6893 and Chapter IX, Section 8,
subparagraph (k) NYSE Rule 6893; NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.6893;
NYSE Arca Options Rule 11.6893; NYSE MKT Rule 6893; NYSE National
Rule 14.11; and Phlx Rule993A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. LEIs
    In addition, without limiting the general requirement as set forth
in the proposed Rules, the proposed CAT Compliance Rules require
Industry Members to accurately provide the LEIs in their records as
required by the proposed Rules and state that Industry Members may not
knowingly submit inaccurate LEIs to the Central Repository. The
Exchanges note, however, that this requirement does not impose any
additional due diligence obligations on Industry Members with regard to
LEIs for CAT purposes. Accordingly, the Exchanges state that this
provision does not impose any due diligence obligations beyond those
that may exist today with respect to information associated with LEIs.
Although Industry Members will not be required to perform additional
due diligence with regard to the LEIs for CAT purposes, Industry
Members will be required to accurately provide the LEIs in their
records and may not knowingly submit inaccurate LEIs to the CAT. The
Exchanges believe that these proposed Rules are consistent with the
Approval Order for the CAT NMS Plan regarding an Industry Member's
obligations regarding LEIs.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ See Approval Order, supra note 24, at 84745.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Compliance With Error Rate
    The proposed CAT Compliance Rules state that, if an Industry Member
reports data to the Central Repository with errors such that its error
percentage exceeds the maximum Error Rate established by the Operating
Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan, then such Industry Member would
not be in compliance with the Rules. As discussed above, the initial
maximum Error Rate is 5%, although the Error Rate is expected to be
reduced over time. The Exchanges state that they intend to announce to
their Industry Members changes to the Error Rate established pursuant
to the CAT NMS Plan.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ See supra note 118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Compliance Thresholds
    The proposed CAT Compliance Rules also address compliance
thresholds related to reporting data to the CAT. These proposed Rules
state that each Industry Member is required to meet a separate
compliance threshold which will be an Industry Member-specific rate
that may be used as the basis for further review or investigation into
the Industry Member's performance with regard to the CAT (the
``Compliance Thresholds''). The Exchanges note that Compliance
Thresholds will compare an Industry Member's error rate to the
aggregate Error Rate over a period of time to be defined by the
Operating Committee. Compliance Thresholds will be set by the Operating
Committee, and will be calculated at intervals to be set by the
Operating Committee.\151\ Compliance Thresholds will include compliance
with the data reporting and clock synchronization requirements. The
proposed CAT Compliance Rules state that an Industry Member's
performance with respect to its Compliance Threshold will not signify,
as a matter of law, that such Industry

Member has violated the proposed Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ See CAT NMS Plan, supra note 21, at Appendix C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Compliance Dates

1. General
    The proposed CAT Compliance Rules set forth the compliance dates
for the various provisions of the proposed Rules.\152\ The proposed
Rules state that, except otherwise set forth in the proposed Rules, the
compliance date for the proposed CAT Compliance Rules will be the date
of Commission approval of the proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ See proposed Bats BYX Rule 4.16; Bats BZX Rule 4.16; Bats
EDGA Rule 4.16; Bats EDGX Rule 4.16; BOX Rule 16095; BX Rule 6895
and Chapter IX, Section 8, subparagraph (l); C2 Chapter 6, Section
F; CBOE Rule 6.96; CHX Article 23, Rule 12; IEX Rule 11.695; ISE
Rule 911; ISE Gemini Rule 911; ISE Mercury Rule 911; MIAX Rule 1712;
MIAX PEARL Chapter XVII; NASDAQ Rule 6895 and Chapter IX, Section 8,
subparagraph (l); NYSE Rule 6895; NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.6895;
NYSE Arca Options Rule 11.6895; NYSE MKT Rule 6895; NYSE National
Rule 14.12; and Phlx Rule 995A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Clock Synchronization
    The proposed CAT Compliance Rules establish the compliance dates
for the clock synchronization requirements. The proposed CAT Compliance
Rules state that each Industry Member shall comply with the Rules with
regard to Business Clocks that capture time in milliseconds commencing
on or before March 15, 2017. The proposed Rules also state that each
Industry Member shall comply with the Rules with regard to Business
Clocks that do not capture time in milliseconds commencing on or before
February 19, 2018. The compliance date set forth in the proposed CAT
Compliance Rules reflects the exemptive relief granted by the
Commission with regard to the clock synchronization requirements
related to Business Clocks that do not capture time in
milliseconds.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ See infra notes 161 and 163, and accompanying text
(discussing the Participants' Clock Synchronization Exemption
Request and Order Granting Limited Exemptive Relief, Pursuant to
Rule 608(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, from the Clock
Synchronization Compliance Deadline Specified in Section 6.7(a)(ii)
of the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit
Trail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. CAT Data Reporting
    The proposed CAT Compliance Rules establish the compliance dates
for the data recording and reporting requirements for Industry Members.
The proposed Rules require each Industry Member (other than Small
Industry Members) to record and report the Industry Member Data to the
Central Repository by November 15, 2018. The proposed Rules require
that each Industry Member that is a Small Industry Member to record and
report the Industry Member Data to the Central Repository by November
15, 2019. The Exchanges state that such compliance dates are consistent
with the compliance dates set forth in Rule 613(a)(3)(v) and (vi),\154\
and Section 6.7(a)(v) and (vi) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ 17 CFR 242.613(a)(3)(v), (vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Summary of Comments

    As noted above, the Commission received three comment letters on
the proposed rule change and a response letter from the
Participants.\155\ Two commenters raised concerns about the clock
synchronization requirements for Allocation Reports.\156\ One commenter
noted that the CAT NMS Plan states that the Participants have not yet
determined how the ``time of allocation'' will be defined and that the
Participants stated they would address this in the Technical
Specifications.\157\ Given that the time of allocation had not yet been
defined, this commenter stated that ``it was not possible to ensure
clock synchronization requirements on Allocation Reports at this
time.'' \158\ Another commenter asked for clarification whether the
Clock Synchronization Exemption Request, as discussed below, filed by
the Participants extends to time stamps required for Allocation
Reports, and for clarification regarding when time stamps on manual
orders and electronic capture of manual orders need to be
captured.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ See supra note 17.
    \156\ Thomson Reuters Letter at 1; FIF Letter at 1.
    \157\ Thomson Reuters Letter at 1.
    \158\ Thomson Reuters Letter at 1-2. See also FIF Letter at 2.
    \159\ FIF Letter at 1, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Participants noted in their Response Letter that Section
6.7(a)(ii) of the CAT NMS Plan requires that Industry Members must
synchronize their Business Clocks and certify that they have satisfied
applicable Business Clock synchronization requirements by March 15,
2017.\160\ However, the Participants noted that, on January 17, 2017,
they filed with the Commission a request for exemptive relief from
Section 6.7(a)(ii) of the CAT NMS Plan (the ``Clock Synchronization
Exemption Request'').\161\ The Clock Synchronization Exemption Request
requested that the Commission permit the Participants to extend the
Business Clock synchronization compliance date in Section 6.7(a)(ii) of
the CAT NMS Plan from March 15, 2017 to February 19, 2018 for Industry
Members' Business Clocks that do not capture time in milliseconds.\162\
On March 2, 2017, the Commission granted the Exemption Request.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ Participants' Response Letter at 2.
    \161\ See Letter from Participants to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Commission, dated January 17, 2017 (``Clock
Synchronization Exemption Request Letter'').
    \162\ Id.
    \163\ See Order Granting Limited Exemptive Relief, Pursuant to
Rule 608(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, from the Clock
Synchronization Compliance Deadline Specified in Section 6.7(a)(ii)
of the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit
Trail, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80142 (March 2, 2017), 82
FR 13034 (March 8, 2017) (``Clock Synchronization Exemption
Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Participants also noted that the Operating Committee of the CAT
NMS Plan recently approved guidance that clarifies that, for purposes
of the initial March 15, 2017 Business Clock synchronization and
certification deadlines, ``Business Clocks'' include those clocks that
currently capture time in milliseconds and that are used to record time
related to ``Reportable Events,'' as defined under the Plan, including,
without limitation, the original receipt or origination, modification,
cancellation, routing, execution (in whole or in part) and allocation
of an order, and receipt of a routed order, in Eligible Securities
(i.e., NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities).\164\ The Participants
represented that each Participant has, or will, issue this guidance to
its members. The Participants further stated in their response letter
that to align the compliance rule with the Exemption Request, Business
Clocks used solely for the time of allocation on Allocation Reports
must comply with the March 15, 2017 synchronization deadline to the
extent that such Business Clocks currently capture time in
milliseconds.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ Participants' Response Letter at 2.
    \165\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to time stamps on manual orders and electronic capture
of manual orders the Participants acknowledged in their response letter
that additional information will be provided in Technical
Specifications prepared by the Plan Processor and approved by the
Operating Committee.\166\ The Participants noted that the Technical
Specifications also will define the ``time of the allocation.'' The
Participants stated that as a result, the Participants cannot issue
additional information or definitions at this time since the
development and construction of the CAT System and Central Repository
are underway. The Participants represented that the Participants intend
to work with the Plan Processor to define various terms,

including ``time of the allocation,'' and to provide Technical
Specifications approved by the Operating Committee before Industry
Members will be required to report to the Central Repository on
November 15, 2018 (or November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members) or
comply with the February 19, 2018 Business Clock synchronization
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter discussed several concerns related to the clock
synchronization requirements of the proposed CAT Compliance Rules.\167\
This commenter noted that ``retention of a complete log of clock
synchronization events is an additional business cost without providing
compensatory regulatory benefit.'' \168\ This commenter urged FINRA to
collect clock synchronization data based on the data received as a
result of the requirements of FINRA Rule 4590 to see if such a log of
clock synchronization is ``required to effectively surveil for
compliance with clock synchronization standards'' and requested that
the Commission require FINRA to assess the effectiveness of the logging
requirement.\169\ This commenter also noted that there is a two year
difference in the log retention requirements between FINRA Rule 4590
and the proposed CAT Compliance Rules and stated that the extra two
years of log retention represents an additional business cost for
storage and clock management.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ FIF Letter at 2.
    \168\ FIF Letter at 2.
    \169\ FIF Letter at 2.
    \170\ FIF Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the Participants stated that they believe that it is
appropriate for Industry Members to maintain a log of all clock
synchronization events in order to demonstrate the Industry Members'
compliance with the Proposed Compliance Rule and the CAT NMS Plan and
to retain such log for five-years.\171\ The Participants noted that the
Business Clock synchronization log was discussed and considered in the
CAT NMS Plan Proposing and Adopting Releases, and that the Commission
considered an alternative where Industry Members would record only
exceptions to the clock synchronization requirement. Because the CAT
NMS Plan contains the requirement that logs be created and retained for
five-years, the Participants stated that the retention period set forth
in the Participants' Proposed Compliance Rules is consistent with the
data retention period applicable to the Central Repository as set forth
in Rule 613(e)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ Participants' Response Letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the clock synchronization procedures in the
proposed CAT Compliance Rules, one commenter also stated that proposed
Rules ``[do] not contain any definition of clock synchronization
certification procedures and schedules, reporting procedures for
violation notification or any specifics regarding documentation
requirements.'' \172\ This commenter requested that the date for
compliance with the clock synchronization procedures be delayed, and
requested that there be the adoption of ``one set of procedures for
clock synchronization management and reporting to regulators be adopted
across FINRA and CAT.'' \173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ FIF Letter at 3.
    \173\ FIF Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the Participants stated that they agree it would be
helpful to provide Industry Members with additional guidance regarding
Industry Members' compliance with the clock synchronization and
certification requirements set forth in the CAT NMS Plan and the
Proposed Compliance Rules.\174\ Accordingly, the Participants stated
that they have issued, or intend to issue, to their members guidance
approved by the Operating Committee regarding clock synchronization and
certification procedures and schedules, and documentation requirements
(i.e., regarding the logging of clock synchronization events). The
Participants represented that they intend to issue this guidance prior
to the initial March 15, 2017 compliance deadline. The Participants
also noted that thereafter they will issue additional guidance approved
by the Operating Committee regarding the reporting of violations of
applicable clock synchronization thresholds. Accordingly, the
Participants stated that they believe that the Proposed Compliance
Rules need not be amended at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ Participants' Response Letter at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters also discussed the application of the Firm
Designated ID requirement in the CAT NMS Plan. Both commenters noted
that the Proposed Compliance Rules require each Industry Member to
provide a Firm Designated ID ``for each Customer,'' whereas a ``Firm
Designated ID,'' in relevant part, is defined as a ``unique identifier
for each trading account. Both commenters requested that the
Participants amend the language of the Proposed Compliance Rules to
reflect the Exemption Order.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ FIF Letter at 3-4; Thomson Reuters Letter at 2-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the Participants stated that they recognize that the
definition of Firm Designated ID and the reporting requirements set
forth in Section 6.3 of the CAT NMS Plan, as well as the parallel
provisions in the proposed Participant Compliance Rules are somewhat
unclear.\176\ The Participants noted that the Customer Information
Approach is intended to require that each broker-dealer assign a unique
Firm Designated ID at the account level, rather than the customer
level. Accordingly, the Participants state that Section 6.3(d)(i)(A) of
the CAT NMS Plan, which refers to the assignment of a ``Firm Designated
ID(s) for each Customer,'' should not be interpreted to mean that each
Customer must have a unique Firm Designated ID, rather, a Firm
Designated ID must be assigned at the account level, so that multiple
Customers may have the same Firm Designated ID. The Participants
further stated that they will consider issuing additional guidance,
subject to the approval of the Operating Committee of the CAT NMS Plan,
to Industry Members on this issue and, as necessary, whether to amend
the CAT NMS Plan to clarify the use of Firm Designated IDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ Participants' Response Letter at 5. The Participants noted
that Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.'s proposed Rule 4.7(a)(1)(A)(i) and
4.7(a)(2)(C) refers to ``Customer'' rather than ``account.'' See,
e.g., Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.'s Proposed Compliance Rule Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change to Adopt Rules 4.5 Through 4.16 to
Implement the Compliance Rule Regarding the National Market System
Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail, Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 79927 (February 2, 2017), 82 FR 9874 (February 8, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter suggested that the Participants consider firms that
are exempt from reporting to OATS as ``Small Industry Members,''
stating that ``this should be so easy and so obviously warranted (given
the huge incremental cost of first-time order reporting for those firms
that choose to remain independent and comply) that we cannot imagine
any objection.'' \177\ This commenter also requested that a cost and
benefit analysis should be performed to review the impact of the CAT on
firms currently exempt from OATS.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ Wachtel Letter at 1.
    \178\ Wachtel Letter at 1, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the Participants stated they believe that the
definition of Small Industry Member for purposes of the CAT NMS Plan
and Participant Compliance Rules is appropriate and need not be
amended.\179\ The Participants noted that as a threshold matter, this
definition was created and adopted by the Commission rather than the
Participants, and that the definition of ``Small Industry Member'' in
the CAT

NMS Plan refers to the definition of ``small broker-dealer'' in Rule
613 of Regulation NMS. Rule 613(a)(3)(v) and (vi) define ``small
broker-dealer'' by using the definition set forth in Rule 0-10(c) under
the Exchange Act.\180\ In adopting Rule 613, the Participants noted
that the Commission explained that defining ``small broker-dealer'' by
reference to Rule 0-10(c) ``is appropriate because it is an existing
regulatory standard that is an indication of small entities for which
regulators should be sensitive when imposing regulatory burden.'' \181\
The Participants stated that they cannot modify the definition of
``Small Industry Member'' because it is based on the definition of
small broker-dealer in Rule 613 and that the Commission would have to
effectuate any change to the requirement that broker-dealers (other
than ``small broker-dealers'') must report to the CAT no later than
two-years after the Effective Date.\182\ The Participants also noted
that after the CAT is operational and the Central Repository begins to
collect data, the Participants will conduct various assessments, as set
forth in Section 6.6 of the CAT NMS Plan, regarding the operations and
efficiency of the Plan Processor, CAT and Central Repository. As
necessary, the Participants will consider whether to amend any
requirements in the CAT NMS Plan or Proposed Compliance Rules, provided
that such amendments are necessary or appropriate and comply with Rule
613 of Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ Participants' Response Letter at 6.
    \180\ Rule 0-10(c) defines a ``small broker-dealer'' as one that
has total capital of less than $500,000 on the date in the prior
fiscal year as of which its audited financial statements were filed
(or on the last business day of the preceding fiscal year if not
required to file such statements), and those not affiliated with any
other person that is not a small business or small organization. See
Rule 0-10(c).
    \181\ See Approval Order, supra note 24 at 45722, 45804.
    \182\ Participants' Response Letter at 6. The Participants added
that ``[s]eparately, the Commission explained that the CAT NMS Plan
``attempts to mitigate its impact on [OATS-exempt or excluded
broker-dealers or limited purpose broker-dealers] by proposing to
follow a cost allocation formula that should charge lower fees to
smaller broker-dealers.'' Accordingly, the Participants stated that
they do not believe that an additional cost-benefit analysis is
necessary at this time. Participants' Response Letter at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After carefully considering the proposed CAT Compliance Rules, the
comments submitted, and the Participants' response to the comments, the
Commission finds that the proposals are consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to national securities exchanges.\183\ Specifically, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule changes are consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\184\ 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 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, and are not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers or dealers. In addition, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\185\ which
requires that the rules of a national securities exchange not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ In approving these proposed rule changes, the Commission
has considered the proposed rules' impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \184\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(5).
    \185\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 613(g) of Regulation NMS provides that each national
securities exchange and national securities association shall file with
the Commission pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act and Rule 19b-4
on or before 60 days from approval of the CAT NMS Plan a proposed rule
change to require its members to comply with the requirements of this
section and the national market system plan approved by the Commission.
In addition, Rule 608(c) of Regulation NMS provides that ``[e]ach self-
regulatory organization shall comply with the terms of any effective
national market system plan of which it is a sponsor or participant.
Each self-regulatory organization also shall, absent reasonable
justification or excuse, enforce compliance with any such plan by its
members and persons associated with its members.'' \186\ The Exchanges,
as Participants in the Plan, have obligations to comply, and enforce
compliance by their members, with the terms of the Plan. Accordingly,
the Exchanges filed these proposed rule changes to adopt their proposed
CAT Compliance Rules, which would impose compliance obligations on the
Exchanges' members. As discussed below, the Commission also believes
the proposals are consistent with the Act because they are designed to
assist the Exchanges in meeting their regulatory obligations pursuant
to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS and the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ 17 CFR 242.608(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Definitions

    The Commission finds that proposed CAT Compliance Rules addressing
definitions \187\ are consistent with the Act as they implement the CAT
NMS Plan. With the exception of the term ``CAT Reporting Agent,'' the
definitions in proposed CAT Compliance Rules are consistent with the
definitions of Article I, Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan. With respect
to the inclusion of a definition for ``CAT Reporting Agent,'' the
Exchanges note that the CAT NMS Plan permits an Industry Member to use
a third party, such as a vendor, to report the required data to the
Central Repository on behalf of an Industry Member, and that as
defined, a ``CAT Reporting Agent'' would be one type of Data Submitter,
which term is defined in the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ See supra note 27. The Commission also notes that NYSE
MKT's proposed change to NYSE MKT Rule 0--Equities, is reasonable to
clarify that the CAT Compliance Rules would apply to Industry
Members of the Exchange's equities and options markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that two commenters discussed the need for
further clarification on the application of the term ``Firm Designated
ID.'' The Participants responded that the Customer Information Approach
is intended to require that each broker-dealer assign a unique Firm
Designated ID at the account level, rather than the customer level.
Accordingly, a Firm Designated ID must be assigned at the account
level, so multiple Customers may be associated with the same Firm
Designated ID. The Commission believes that the definition of the term
Firm Designated ID and its applicability to accounts is consistent with
the Customer Information Approach and the CAT NMS Plan.

B. Clock Synchronization

    The Commission finds that the proposed CAT Compliance Rules
addressing clock synchronization \188\ are consistent with the Act as
they implement the clock synchronization provisions of the CAT NMS
Plan. The Commission notes that the proposed CAT Compliance Rules set
out the clock synchronization requirements for the Exchanges' members
and that these clock synchronization requirements, including the
synchronization standards, tolerance levels, documentation,
certification and violation reporting are consistent with and implement
the clock synchronization requirements of the CAT NMS Plan.\189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ See supra note 116.
    \189\ See CAT NMS Plan, Section 6.8.

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

    As noted above, two commenters raised concerns about the clock
synchronization requirements in proposed Rule 6820, including whether
the synchronization requirements of the rule apply to Business Clocks
that capture Manual Order Events; the definition of ``time of
allocation,'' the necessity of the clock synchronization log; and the
details concerning the clock synchronization certification. The
Participants responded by clarifying the applicability of the clock
synchronization requirements to Allocation Reports, and by stating that
the Participants intend to work with the Plan Processor to define
various terms, including ``time of allocation,'' and to provide
Technical Specifications approved by the Operating Committee--relating
to time stamps on manual orders and electronic capture of manual
orders, as well as the ``time of allocation''--before Industry Members
will be required to report to the Central Repository on November 15,
2018 (or November 15, 2019 for Small Industry Members) or comply with
the February 19, 2018 Business Clock synchronization requirement.\190\
The Participants also provided further details about the utility of the
synchronization logs and discussed the clock synchronization
certification requirements. The Commission believes that the
Participants' response is reasonable and consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ Participants' Response Letter at 3. See also Clock
Synchronization Exemption Request Letter, supra note 161, and Clock
Synchronization Order, supra note 163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Industry Member Data Reporting

    The Commission finds that the provisions of the proposed CAT
Compliance Rules regarding Industry Member data reporting \191\ are
consistent with the Act as they implement the data reporting
requirements for Industry Members that are required by the CAT NMS
Plan. As noted above, each Exchange's proposed CAT Compliance Rule is
divided into five sections which address (1) recording and reporting
Industry Member Data, (2) timing of the recording and reporting, (3)
the applicable securities covered by the recording and reporting
requirements, (4) the security symbology to be used in the recording
and reporting,\192\ and (5) error correction requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ See supra note 121.
    \192\ The Commission notes that, with respect to the security
symbology that must be reported by an Industry Member for an
Eligible Security that is not Exchange-listed, the proposed CAT
Compliance Rules state that an Industry Member should use the
symbology format approved by the Operating Committee. The Exchanges
represent that for such securities, there is no listing exchange to
provide the symbology format and that the requisite symbology format
has not been determined at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Customer Information Reporting

    The Commission finds that the provisions of the proposed CAT
Compliance Rules regarding the data reported to the CAT in order to
identify Customers \193\ are consistent with the Act as they implement
the reporting provisions of the CAT NMS Plan relating to the
identification of Customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ See supra note 131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Industry Member Information Reporting

    The Commission finds that the provisions of the proposed CAT
Compliance Rules which set out the requirements for Industry Members
regarding the data that they must report to identify such Industry
Member, including the timeframe for reporting such identifying
information,\194\ are consistent with the Act as they implement the
Industry Member reporting provisions of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ See supra note 133.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Time Stamps

    The Commission finds that the provisions of the proposed CAT
Compliance Rules regarding the time stamp increments to be used by
Industry Members in their CAT Reporting \195\ are consistent with the
Act as they implement the time stamp provisions of the CAT NMS Plan. In
general, the proposed CAT Compliance Rules require Industry Members to
record and report Industry Member Data to the Central Repository in
milliseconds, but provide that, to the extent any Industry Member's
order handling or execution systems utilize time stamps in increments
finer than milliseconds, such Industry Member is to record and report
Industry Member Data to the Central Repository with time stamps in such
finer increment. The proposed CAT Compliance Rules address the need for
Industry Members to capture Manual Order Events in increments up to and
including one second, provided that each Industry Member is required to
record and report the Electronic Capture Time in milliseconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ See supra note 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Clock Synchronization Rule Violation

    The Commission finds that the proposed CAT Compliance Rules
addressing clock synchronization rule violations \196\ are consistent
with the Act as they implement the clock synchronization rule violation
provisions of the CAT NMS Plan. Specifically, the Commission notes that
the proposed CAT Compliance Rules describe potential violations of the
clock synchronization time period requirements, and specifically state
that an Industry Member that engages in a pattern or practice of
reporting Reportable Events outside of the required clock
synchronization time period without reasonable justification or
exceptional circumstances may be considered in violation of these
Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ See supra note 136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Connectivity and Data Transmission

    The Commission finds that the provisions of the proposed CAT
Compliance Rules addressing connectivity and data transmission \197\
are consistent with the Act as they implement the connectivity and data
transmission provisions of the CAT NMS Plan. The proposed CAT
Compliance Rules require each Industry Member to transmit data as
required under the CAT NMS Plan to the Central Repository utilizing
such format(s) as may be provided by the Plan Processor and approved by
the Operating Committee, and require each Industry Member to connect to
the Central Repository using a secure method(s), including, but not
limited to, private line(s) and virtual private network connection(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ See supra note 137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed CAT Compliance Rules permit Industry Members to use
CAT Reporting Agents to fulfill their data reporting obligations
related to the CAT. The Commission notes that these provisions of the
proposed CAT Compliance Rules are substantively similar to FINRA Rule
7450(c), which permits OATS Reporting Members to enter into agreements
with Reporting Agents to fulfill the OATS obligations of the OATS
Reporting Member, specifies responsibilities and procedures for
maintaining such agreements between the OATS Reporting Member and the
Reporting Members, and clarifies that an OATS Reporting Member remains
primarily responsible for compliance with the OATS reporting rules.

I. Development and Testing

    The Commission finds that the proposed CAT Compliance Rules
addressing development and testing \198\ are consistent with the Act as
they implement the development and testing provisions of the CAT NMS
Plan. The proposed CAT Compliance Rules address Industry Members'
connectivity and testing requirements, including

connectivity and acceptance testing timelines. The proposed CAT
Compliance Rules address the requirements relating to Industry Members'
reporting of Customer and Industry Member information, the submission
of order data, including the Quote Sent time to be reported by Options
Market Makers. The proposed CAT Compliance Rules also require that each
Industry Member shall participate in the testing related to the Central
Repository, including any industry-wide disaster recovery testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ See supra note 139.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Recordkeeping

    The Commission finds that the proposed CAT Compliance Rules
addressing recordkeeping \199\ are consistent with the Act. The
Commission notes that the proposed CAT Compliance Rules require each
Industry Member to maintain and preserve, and specifies the manner in
which such records must be maintained and preserved, information
required to be recorded under each Exchange's proposed CAT Compliance
Rule for the period of time and accessibility specified in Rule 17a-
4(b).\200\ Because the proposed CAT Compliance Rules incorporate Rule
17a-4(b) and implements the recordkeeping provision of the CAT NMS
Plan, the Commission finds that the recordkeeping provisions of the
proposed CAT Compliance Rules are consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ See supra note 142.
    \200\ 17 CFR 240.17a-4(b). The Exchanges also note that the
recordkeeping provisions of the proposed CAT Compliance Rules are
based on FINRA Rule 7440(a)(5), which sets forth the recordkeeping
requirements related to OATS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Timely, Accurate and Complete Data

    The Commission finds that the proposed CAT Compliance Rules
addressing timely, accurate and complete data \201\ are consistent with
the Act as they implement the requirements for reporting data to the
CAT as set forth in the CAT NMS Plan. The Exchanges note that the
proposed CAT Compliance Rules implement the requirement in Rule 613 and
the CAT NMS Plan that data reported to the CAT be timely, accurate and
complete. Specifically, the proposed CAT Compliance Rules require that
Industry Members record and report data to the Central Repository as
required by the each Exchange's proposed CAT Compliance Rule in a
manner that ensures the timeliness, accuracy, integrity and
completeness of such data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ See supra note 148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed CAT Compliance Rules require Industry Members to
accurately provide the LEIs in their records as required by each
Exchange's proposed CAT Compliance Rule and states that Industry
Members may not knowingly submit inaccurate LEIs to the Central
Repository. The proposed CAT Compliance Rules note, however, that this
requirement does not impose any additional due diligence obligations on
Industry Members with regard to LEIs for CAT purposes. The proposed CAT
Compliance Rules also require Industry Members to be in compliance with
the Error Rate as set forth in the CAT NMS Plan and the Compliance
Thresholds as discussed in the CAT NMS Plan and determined by the
Operating Committee. The proposed CAT Compliance Rules implement the
CAT NMS Plan's provisions.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ See CAT NMS Plan, Sections 6.4; 6.5(d); Appendix C,
Section A.3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Compliance Dates

    The Commission finds that the compliance dates in the proposed CAT
Compliance Rules \203\ are consistent with the Act, as they implement
the compliance dates for reporting data to the CAT as set forth in the
CAT NMS Plan and an exemptive order issued by the Commission. The
proposed CAT Compliance Rules state that, except as otherwise set forth
in each Exchange's proposed CAT Compliance Rule, the compliance date
for the proposed CAT Compliance Rules will be the date of Commission
approval of the proposed CAT Compliance Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ See supra note 152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed CAT Compliance Rules state that each Industry Member
that captures time in milliseconds shall comply with the provisions of
each Exchange's proposed Rule regarding Business Clock synchronization
on or before March 15, 2017. Also, the proposed CAT Compliance Rules
state that each Industry Member that does not capture time in
milliseconds shall comply with the provisions of each Exchange's
proposed Rule regarding Business Clock sychronization on or before
February 19, 2018. The Commission notes that the compliance date for
Industry Members regarding Business Clocks that do not capture time in
milliseconds reflects the exemptive relief requested by the
Participants and granted by the Commission with regard to the clock
synchronization requirements related to Business Clocks that do not
capture time in milliseconds.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ See supra note 163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed CAT Compliance Rules also require each Industry Member
(other than Small Industry Members) to record and report the Industry
Member Data to the Central Repository by November 15, 2018, and each
Industry Member that is a Small Industry Member to record and report
the Industry Member Data to the Central Repository by November 15,
2019.\205\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ Such compliance dates are consistent with the compliance
dates set forth in SEC Rule 613(a)(3)(v) and (vi), and Sections
6.7(a)(v) and (vi) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed CAT Compliance Rules implement the CAT NMS Plan's
provisions regarding the reporting of Industry Member data to the
Central Repository.
    The Commission notes that one commenter also requested that the
Exchanges classify all firms currently exempt from reporting to OATS to
be classified as a ``Small Industry Member'' as defined by the CAT NMS
Plan.\206\ The commenter notes that some OATS exempt firms would be
classified as Large Industry Members but really should be subject to
the three year implementation timeframe for Small Industry Members. The
Participants responded that the definition of ``Small Industry Member''
is appropriate because it is an existing regulatory standard. The
Commission believes that the Exchanges' proposed rule changes' use of
the ``Small Industry Member'' definition is consistent with the CAT NMS
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ Wachtel Letter at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that a commenter suggested that a cost/benefit
analysis be performed to review the impact of CAT on firms currently
exempt from reporting to OATS. The Participants responded the
Commission had already undertaken into account the impact of CAT on
firms currently exempt from OATS. The Commission likewise notes that it
took into account the impact of the Plan on firms currently exempt from
reporting to OATS when it approved the CAT NMS Plan.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule changes (SR-BatsBYX-2017-02; SR-BatsBZX-2017-08;
SR-BatsEDGA-2017-03; SR-BatsEDGX-2017-08; SR-BOX-2017-07; SR-C2-2017-
007; SR-CBOE-2017-012; SR-CHX-2017-03; SR-ISE-2017-08; SR-IEX-2017-04;
SR-ISEGemini-2017-04; SR-ISEMercury-2017-03; SR-MIAX-2017-03; SR-PEARL-
2017-04; SR-NASDAQ-2017-008; SR-BX-2017-007; SR-PHLX-2017-07; SR-NYSE-
2017-01; SR-NYSEArca-2017-03; SR-NYSEArca-2017-04; SR-NYSEMKT-2017-02;
SR-NSX-2017-03) are approved.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-05505 Filed 3-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 82 (Wednesday, April 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23801-23802]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09902]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-E-0102]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; Xience Xpedition Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for Xience Xpedition Everolimus Eluting
Coronary Stent System and is publishing this notice of that
determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the
extension of a patent which claims that medical device.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written petitions (two copies are required) and written comments
to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Submit petitions electronically to http://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FDA-2013-S-0610.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of
Management, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Campus, Rm. 3180,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug
and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide
that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as
the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical
device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory
review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a
product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the
amount of extension an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing
phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until
the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the device and continues until
permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of
a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of
extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (half
the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have
occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the
length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include
all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C.
156(g)(3)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the medical device, Xience Xpedition
Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System. Xience Xpedition Everolimus
Eluting Coronary Stent System is indicated for improving coronary
luminal diameter in subjects with symptomatic heart disease due to de
novo native coronary artery lesions (length <=32 millimeters (mm)) with
reference vessel diameter of >=2.25 mm and <=4.25 mm. Subsequent to
this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application
for Xience Xpedition Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System (U.S.
Patent No. 7,828,766) from Abbott Cardiovascular Systems Inc., and the
USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's
eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated May 22,
2014, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a
regulatory review period and that the approval of Xience Xpedition
Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System represented the first
permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the
USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review
period.
    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
Xience Xpedition Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System is 178 days.
Of this time, zero (0) days occurred during the testing phase of the
regulatory review period, while 178 days occurred during the approval
phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 520(g) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(g)) involving
this device became effective: Not Applicable. Applicant did not perform
clinical investigations utilizing the patented device, but, rather,
sought and was granted marketing approval based on a supplemental
filing to a previously approved premarket approval application (PMA).
    2. The date an application was initially submitted with respect to
the device under section 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e): June 27,
2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the PMA for Xience
Xpedition Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System (PMA P110019S025)
was initially submitted June 27, 2012.
    3. The date the application was approved: December 21, 2012. FDA
has verified the applicant's claim that PMA P110019S025 was approved on
December 21, 2012.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO
applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual
period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 178 days of patent term extension.
    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments and ask for a
redetermination by June 29, 2015. Furthermore, any interested person
may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant
for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review
period by October 26, 2015. To meet its burden, the petition must
contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept.
857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should
be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments and written or
electronic petitions. It is only necessary to send one set of comments.
Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. If you submit a written petition, two copies
are required. A petition submitted electronically must be submitted to
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Comments and
petitions that have not been made publicly available on http://www.regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: April 23, 2015.
Peter Lurie,
Associate Commissioner for Public Health Strategy and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2015-09902 Filed 4-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: December 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 232)]
[Notices]
[Page 73316-73317]
[DOCID:fr02de08-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13304-000]

BPUS Generation Development, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene and Competing Applications

November 25, 2008.
    On October 21, 2008, BPUS Generation Development, LLC filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
proposing to study the feasibility of the Umtanum RidgePumped Storage
Project to be located in Grant, Yakima, and Benton Counties, Washington
on federal land administered by the Department of Defense and the
Bureau of Land Management. The proposed project would be closed loop
but would use initial and make-up water from the Columbia River.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) Two upper earthen dams
with a height of 170 feet and 30 feet respectively; (2) an upper
reservoir with a surface area of 93 acres, a capacity of 5,390 acre-
feet, and a maximum pool elevation of 2,390 feet msl; (3) a lower
earthen dam with a height of 70 feet; (4) a lower reservoir with a
surface area of 126 acres, a capacity of 6,490 acre-feet, and a maximum
pool elevation of 510 feet msl; (5) four, nine foot diameter, steel
lined penstocks of various lengths; (6) an underground powerhouse
containing 4 pump/turbine units with a total installed capacity of
1,100 MW; ( 7) a 19.5 mile long, 500 kV transmission line and; (8)
appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an annual
production of 3,148 GWh which would be sold to a local utility.

    Applicant Contact: Jeffrey M. Auser, BPUS Generation Development,
LLC, 225 Greenfield Parkway, Suite 201, Liverpool, NY 13088 (315) 461-
8579.
    FERC Contact: Steven Sachs<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
    Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    For more information on how to submit these types of filings please
go to the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http:/
/www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13304) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-28578 Filed 12-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38796-38797]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15971]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2203-013--Alabama]

Alabama Power Company; Holt Hydroelectric Project; Notice of
Revised Restricted Service List for a Programmatic Agreement

    Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR section 385.2010,
provides that, to eliminate unnecessary expense or improve
administrative efficiency, the Secretary may establish a restricted
service list for a particular phase or issue in a proceeding. The
restricted service list should contain the names of persons on the
service list who, in the judgment of the decisional authority
establishing the list, are active participants with respect to the
phase or issue in the proceeding for which the list is established.
    The Commission staff is consulting with the Alabama State Historic
Preservation Officer (Alabama SHPO) and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) pursuant to the Advisory
Council's regulations, 36 CFR part 800, implementing section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. section
470f), to prepare a programmatic agreement for managing properties
included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of
Historic Places that could be affected by issuance of a new license for
the Holt Hydroelectric Project No. 2203.
    The programmatic agreement, when executed by the Commission, the
Alabama SHPO, and the Advisory Council, would satisfy the Commission's
section 106 responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried
out in accordance with the license until the license expires or is
terminated (36 CFR section 800.13(e)). On August 30, 2011, the
Commission staff established a

restricted service list for the Holt Hydroelectric Project.
    On June 21, 2012, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma requested a
revision to the restricted service list. The revision is: ``Terry Cole,
THPO'' is replaced with ``Dr. Ian Thompson, THPO, or Representative''.

    Dated: June 25, 2012.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15971 Filed 6-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                                CARIBBEAN BASIN ETHANOL DEHYDRATION

                                     ENERGY USUAGE AND CO2 EMISSIONS

Hydrous ethanol is imported from Brazil to dehydration plants in the
Caribbean Basin where it is processed through molecular sieve technology
into anhydrous ethanol.  The dehydration process requires steam energy
to heat and cool ethanol.  The energy used to create steam is generated
by burning fossil fuels which range from natural gas in Trinidad to
heavy fuel oil at the plants in the other countries.

Industry experts have calculated that approximately 4000 BTU’s of fuel
and .05kwh of electricity are used in the conversion of one gallon of
hydrous to anhydrous ethanol.1  All this fossil fuel energy usage
represents less than 5 gCO2MJ when calculated using the GREET model.

Additional CO2 emissions are generated from the transportation of the
ethanol from Brazil to the Caribbean Basin and then onward to the United
States.  These emissions are no greater than from the transportation of
ethanol directly from Brazil to the United States.

Also, pathways for Brazilian cane-based ethanol through CB ethanol
dehydration facilities are more economically viable than the pathway for
ethanol shipped via a direct route for anhydrous ethanol from Brazil to
California.  As noted by EPA in their proposed RFS2 rules, “the most
likely route(for Brazilian cane-based ethanol is) through the Caribbean
Basin Initiative”” because the ethanol would not be subject to the
54 cent per gallon and 2.5% ad valorem tariffs.  Indeed, since a duty
drawback loophole ended in September 2008, direct Brazil to U.S. ethanol
shipments have practically ceased.

In analyzing the differences in the direct Brazil to U.S. pathway and
the CB dehydration pathway to determine the lifecycle emissions, it is
necessary for a fair comparison to look at such factors as the fugitive
emissions from the pipelines carrying the hydrous or anhydrous ethanol
as well the natural gas.  Dehydration plants in the Caribbean Basin are
at or near the ports so the distances traveled- and  the accompanying
fugitive emissions -in pipelines are negligible.  This is not the case
in Brazil.  Fossil fuels such as natural gas may be shipped hundreds of
miles and even imported from Bolivia in pipelines of various age and
states of repair.

Since the same technology is used in Brazil and in CB countries to
dehydrate ethanol, the same amount of energy should be generally
required to power the dehydration process in Brazil and the Caribbean
Basin.  The dehydration plants in the Caribbean Basin are

1. Source:  Swain, R.L. Bibb, “Molecular Sieve Dehdyrators.  How they
became the industry standard and how they work”, Chapter 19 in the
Alcohol Textbook, p. 292

newer than those in Brazil and because of age and technology are more
efficient.  These factors as well as the greater emissions from  the
cyclohexane and benzene used in the azeotropic distillation of some of
the dehydration plants in Brazil needs to be considered in comparing the
dehydration pathways in the Caribbean Basin and Brazil.

We encourage EPA to use these factors as credits and lower the life
cycle carbon footprint of Caribbean Basin dehydration.

The energy usage differs from plant to plant in the Caribbean Basin.
The table below indicates the range.

                         CO2 EMISSIONS FROM CB ETHANOL DEHYDRATION

  ENERGY USAGE                            Per Gallon of Anhydrous
Produced

    Gallons of fuel oil
.031   to .044

    BTU of natural gas                                            5,000

    KWH of electricity                                            .0458
to .0617

                                          CO2 EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

           Natural Gas   Fuel Oil    Electricity

 CO2 emissions per gallon of

       anhydrous ethanol produced (lbs)                         0.47
          0.65

CO2 emissions (gCO2/MJ)                                            2.64
             3.67

CO 2 emissions(gCO2/MJ) per gallon

         of anhydrous ethanol produced
                                   1.31

TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS FROM

          ENERGY USAGE
3.95               4.98

Caribbean Basin ethanol dehydration emits less than 5 g of CO2/MJ from
fossil fuels used to produce anhydrous ethanol.  Credits from factors
indicated above should be applied to reduce this number.  Nevertheless,
this number should be within the life cycle threshold to classify CB
ethanol as an advanced biofuel.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 124 (Thursday, June 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 38727]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15351]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4120-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Vermont; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Vermont (FEMA-4120-DR), dated June 13, 2013,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 13, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated June 13, 2013, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Vermont resulting from severe storms and flooding during the
period of May 22-26, 2013 is of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of Vermont.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide emergency protective measures
(Category B) and permanent work (Categories C-G) under the Public
Assistance program in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation
throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal
assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the
Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Mark H. Landry, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Vermont have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Chittenden, Essex, and Lamoille Counties for emergency
protective measures (Category B) and permanent work (Categories C-G)
under the Public Assistance program.
    All counties within the State of Vermont are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-15351 Filed 6-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11285-11286]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03794]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0433; FRL-10020-75-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Public Notification Requirements for
Combined Sewer Overflows in the Great Lakes Basin (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Public Notification Requirements
for Combined Sewer Overflows in the Great Lakes Basin (EPA ICR Number
2562.03, OMB Control Number 2040-0293) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA). This is a proposed extension of the ICR which is
currently approved through April 30, 2021. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register on September 2, 2020
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given
below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 26,
2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to EPA, referencing Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0433, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Baehr, National Program Branch,
Water Permits Division, OWM Mail Code: 4203M, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This ICR calculates the incremental increase in burden
and costs associated with implementation of the Combined Sewer Overflow
(CSO) public notification requirements for CSO permittees in the Great
Lakes Basin approved during the Public Notice Requirements for Combined
Sewer Overflow Discharges to the Great Lakes rulemaking. In 2018, EPA
established public notification requirements for permittees authorized
to discharge from a CSO to the Great Lakes Basin [83 FR 712]. These
requirements address: (1) Signage; (2) notification to local public
health department and other potentially affected public entities; (3)
notification to the public; and (4) annual notice. Additionally,
permittees are required to develop a public notification plan and seek
and consider input on these plans from local public health departments
and other potentially affected public entities. The public notification
plans also provide state permit writers with detailed information
needed to write permit conditions. The rule protects public health by
ensuring timely notification to the public and to public health
departments, public water systems and other potentially affected public
entities, including Indian tribes. It provides additional specificity
beyond existing public notification requirements to ensure timely and
consistent communication to the public regarding CSO discharges to the
Great Lakes Basin. Timely notice may allow the public and affected
public entities to take steps to reduce the public's potential exposure
to pathogens associated with human sewage, which can cause a wide
variety of health effects, including gastrointestinal, skin, ear,
respiratory, eye, neurological, and wound infections.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: CSO permittees in the Great Lakes
Basin, Great Lakes States (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory. 40 CFR 122.38.
    Estimated number of respondents: 164 (157 permittees and 7 States).
    Frequency of response: Responses include one-time implementation
activities, such as signage, activities that occur once per year, such
as providing annual notice, and initial and follow-up activities that
would occur during and after CSO discharge events.
    Total estimated burden: 8,694 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $426,059 (per year), includes $5,412 in
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is an estimated net decrease of 1,607
burden hours since the prior approved ICR. The decrease in labor hours
from the prior ICR is due to the completion of capital activities
performed during startup performed during the prior ICR. Also, one
permittee (Woodville, Ohio NPDES Permit No. OH0020591) separated the

city's combined sewer system and therefore, is no longer within the
scope of the rule and this updated ICR. There was an increase in labor
costs ($31,841) due to a projected increase in labor base wages and
total compensation (i.e., benefits). There was a decrease in non-labor
costs (-$65,038) due to a decrease in capital costs after the initial
startup period of the prior ICR. Overall, total burden hours decreased
by 1,607 hours and total burden cost decreased by $31,048 for the
three-year period.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-03794 Filed 2-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P