[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8836]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03265]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9564-01-R6]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection
to State Operating Permit for ETC Texas Pipeline, Ltd, Waha Gas Plant,
Pecos County, Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final Order on Petition for objection to Clean Air
Act title V operating permit.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed
an Order dated January 28, 2022, granting a Petition dated March 10,
2020 from the Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club, Environment
Texas, and Texas Campaign for the Environment (the Petitioners). The
Petition requested that the EPA object to a Clean Air Act (CAA) title V
operating permit issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ) to ETC Texas Pipeline, Ltd (ETC) for its Waha Gas Plant
located in Pecos County, Texas.

ADDRESSES: The EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view copies of the final
Order, the Petition, and other supporting information. Out of an
abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA
Region 6 office is currently closed to the public to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. Please call or email the contact listed below if
you need alternative access to the final Order and Petition, which are
available electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petition-database.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aimee Wilson, EPA Region 6 Office, Air
Permits Section,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to
review and object to, as appropriate, operating permits proposed by
state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA. Section
505(b)(2) of the CAA authorizes any person to petition the EPA
Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days
after the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period if the EPA has
not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on
objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity
during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the
petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues
during the comment period or unless the grounds for the issue arose
after this period.
    The EPA received the Petition from the Petitioners dated March 10,
2020, requesting that the EPA object to the issuance of operating
permit no. O2546, issued by TCEQ to the Waha Gas Plant in Pecos County,
Texas. The Petition claims the proposed permit must include a schedule
addressing noncompliance at the Waha Gas Plant, fails to identify any
emission unit(s) authorized by one Permit by Rule (PBR) and three
Standard Exemptions incorporated as applicable requirements, fails to
establish monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping provisions that assure
compliance with PBR and Standard Exemption requirements, fails to
include specific enforceable terms and conditions for applicable NSPS
requirements, and the proposed permit's incorporation of ETC's PBR
registrations is deficient.
    On January 28, 2022, the EPA Administrator issued an Order granting
the Petition. The Order explains the basis for EPA's decision.

    Dated: February 9, 2022.
David Garcia,
Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2022-03265 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Voluntary UEIP, Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate Voluntary Use and Exposure Information Profile Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate (APFO)

I. CHEMICAL IDENTIFICATION Chemical Name: Ammonium Peffluorooctanoate CAS Number: 3825 26 l II. COMPANY IDENTIFICATION Company Name: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company Site Locations:

Site where APFO is used as a reaction aid:

Washington Works Route 892 Washington, WV 26 18 1 Sites where APFO containing products made at Washington Works are processed:

Parlin Plant Cheesequake Road Parlin, NJ 08859 Spruance Plant 5401 Jefferson Davis Hwy. Richmond, VA 23234 Site which disposes of waste containing APFO:

Chambers Works Rte. 130 Deepwater, NJ 08023 Technical Contact: Robert F. Pinchot (302) 999 4074 DuPont Fluoroproducts Chestnut Run Plaza Bldg. 71 l/ 2210 Centre Boulevard Wilmington, DE 1980507 11 2 3 ,  Voluntary UEIP, Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate , .

III. DUPONT AND CUSTOMER ACTIVITIES Narrative Description of APFO Use The block diagram on the back page titled "DuPont US APFO Balance" describes the processes discussed below.

DuPont uses APFO as a reaction aid in the production of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) co polymers. The process utilized at DuPont's Washington Works for making PTFE and co polymers consists of polymerizing TFE (and other co monomers if desired) in an aqueous media with a small amount of APFO to aid in the reaction.

Following the polymerization step, the polymer dispersion is either dried to remove water and APFO or concentrated (removing some of the APFO), stabilized and sold as an aqueous dispersion. The dried polymer contains very little, if any, APFO.

The APFO removed from the polymer is recovered for recycle, captured and destroyed off site in an incinerator, captured and sent to an offsite industrial landfill, and/ or emitted to air or water at the Washington Works.

The stabilized polymer dispersions are sold by DuPont to industrial customers (both in the US and outside the US) for a variety of uses, internally transferred to the DuPont Spruance Plant for the production of Teflon@ fibers and PTFE coated synthetic fibers, or internally transferred to the DuPont Parlin Plant for the production of Teflon@ Finishes.

A small amount of non hazardous waste polymer, water, APFO and other additives generated at Washington Works is treated in a wastewater treatment facility at DuPont's Chambers Works. This material is either emitted in the Chambers Works water discharge or captured on carbon and landfilled in a secure landfill.

The internal process at the DuPont Spurance Plant to produce Teflon@ fibers involves, for most of the product, a "sintering" step in which the APFO contained in the product is destroyed by the following reaction: '

CFa( CF& COO NH4+ + CF~( CF& CFZH + CO2 +NHs This reaction goes to completion at 350° C and 0.2s residence time. A small amount of product processed at DuPont's Spruance plant does not get sintered and thus contains a small amount of residual APFO. These products are used for industrial pump, valve and compressor packing materials.

' P. J. Krusic, D. C. Roe, "Thermal decomposition of C8 fluorinated surfactants and related materials studied by high temperature gas phase "F NMR. A new Alternative to thermal gravimetric analysis, DuPont Internal Report. Voluntary UEIP, Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate The process for making Teflon@ finishes at the DuPont Parlin Plant involves a blending operation of fluoropolymer dispersions with other additives including solvents, binders, and pigments. The small amount of APFO emissions to water from this facility is due to waste generated during product changeovers. Some of the fluoropolymer dispersion is processed at contract facilities where the material is dried at temperatures ~350° C thus destroying the APFO according to the reaction above. This dried material is then incorporated into finishes products.

The final product produced is then sold to applicators that apply the product to a substrate (such as cookware) via automated spraying or rollercoating. Emissions of APFO from these operations consist of overspray that is either captured on filters and landfilled or absorbed into water resulting in a water emission. Product that is applied to the substrate is then typically "sintered" at temperatures approaching 800° F resulting in the removal of the APFO from the substrate and subsequent destruction according to the reaction above.

Customers of dispersion products use the material for a variety of applications. However, most applications involve a "sintering" step where the APFO is destroyed. There are a small number of applications where the customer heats the dispersion products to temperatures that allow the APFO to sublime resulting in air emissions. There are also a small number of applications where the customer's product is not heated resulting in the APFO staying with the product. These applications include industrial packings, and industrial filter fabrics.

IV. SITE RELEASE AND TRANSFER INFORMATION FOR TRI CHEMICALS Not applicable APFO is not listed on the TRI V. SITE RELEASE AND TRANSFER INFORMATION FOR NON TRI CHEMICALS A. On site Air Releases Estimated Total Annual Releases ( lbs. 1999) Washington Works Parlin Spruance Chambers Works Fugitive Negligible 0 0 0 Stack (Point Source) 24000 0 0 0 Comments Air emissions are estimated using engineering calculations and judgements and limited measurements of specific point sources conducted in the past.

4 5 Voluntary UEIP, Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate B. On site Water Releases Point Source Estimated Total Annual Releases ( Ibs. 1999) Washington Works Parlin Smuance Chambers Works 5.5000 300 150 9500 Comments Water emissions are estimated using engineering calculations and judgements and limited measurements of specific sources conducted in the past.

Washington Works emissions occur for approximately 350 days/ yr while the other sites' emissions occur for lo 100 days/ yr. Releases of APFO to the Ohio River from the DuPont Washington Works Plant were modeled using the Probabilistic Dilution Model (PDM Beta Version 4.0 Beta June 11, 1999, US EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics) and a constructed Microsoft@ Excel spreadsheet model. APFO release data for 1996 were used in both modeling exercises. 2 The PDM indicated that APFO concentrations of 1 .O ug C8 L would be exceeded about 50% of the time during the year. APFO concentrations of in the river would exceed 0.1 pg APFO/ L 90% of the time during the year and 10 p, g APFO/ L about 2.2% of the time during the year.

Average annual APFO concentrations in the Ohio River calculated by using a Microsoft@ Excel spreadsheet was 0.423 pg APFO/ L. Modeled AFPO concentrations in the river ranged from a low of 0.199 pg APFO/ L in March to a high of 0.965 pg APFOC 8/ L in September, which correspond to high and low river flows, respectively. Average Ohio River flows and volume data calculated from the US Geological Survey was collected at the Belleville Dam and used in the spreadsheet model. The Belleville Dam is on the Ohio River 13 miles downstream of the Washington Works Plant. This river flow data is the closest location downstream from the plant where this type of information is available.

In 1999 a drinking water sample obtained from GE plastics, Washington WV, immediately downstream on the Ohio River from DuPont Washington Works showed 0.552pg/ l APFO.

In addition samples obtained in January 2000 from three different wells at the Lubeck Public Service District, downstream of Washington Works on the Ohio River, showed 0.8yg/ l, 0.44pg/ l and 0.3 13 pg/ l. APFO.

' W. R. Berti, Modeling releases of ammonium perfluorooctanoate into the Ohio River, DuPont Internal Report EMSE 054 00.

5 6 Voluntary UEIP, Ammonium Peffluorooctanoate C. On Site Land Releases Chambers Works treats APFO containing waste in a wastewater treatment system. Engineering calculations and measurements indicate that approximately 30% of the APFO in the wastewater treated is absorbed on to a carbon media that is landfilled on site. These land releases are estimated to be 39001b in 1999.

Prior operations have resulted in measurable APFO concentrations in three landfills operated by the Washington Works in West Virginia. At Letart" landfill surface water measurements in 1999 and 2000ytd range from 2.23p, g/ l to 324Op. g/ l with an average of 1392ugll. Groundwater measurements taken during the same time period at Letart landfill range from 60.3pg/ l to 174OOpg/ l with an average of 2537pg/ l. At the "local landfill" the groundwater concentrations range from O. O46pg/ l to 39pg/ l with an average of 8.83pg/ l. Surface water samples at the "local landfill" range from 0.54pg/ l to 87p, g/ l with an average of 18.5pg/ l. At Dry Run landfill there are limited measurements of groundwater and surface water with maximum concentrations in groundwater of 15pg/ l and the maximum concentration in the permitted outfall has been 33kg/ l.

In 1999 a RCRA Facility Investigation was completed for Washington Works and was submitted to EPA Region III in June 19994. The report contains data on groundwater concentrations of APFO at Washington Works.

D. Transfers to Off site Locations Washington Works:

Incineration Wastewater treatment Underground Injection Hazardous Waste Landfill Other landfill Recycle or recovery Estimated Total Annual Releases or Transfers (lb. 1999) 16000 13400" 0 2600 0 IV. ON SITE WORKPLACE EXPOSURE A. Information on the Number of Employees Potentially Exposed 3 Maps of the landfill locations and specific monitoring locations and results are available upon request. 4 Report was submitted to Martin. T. Kotsch, Remedial Program Manager, EPA Region III, Philadelphia. ' This is the same material that was described above in paragraph 1 of section V. D.

6 7 Voluntary UEIP, Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate The tables below describe the number of workers that may be exposed to APFO during their normal work activities for each of the three sites where APFO is used or APFO containing product is processed.

Hours/ Day co. 25 0.25 1 l 8 >8 <lO Washington Works Days/ yr 10 100 100 250 242 >250 Routine worker activities that have potential for exposure:

9 Handling raw material APFO 9 Handling raw dispersions containing APFO 9 Maintenance of polymerization reaction systems 9 Polymer dryer operation and maintenance 9 Packout of PTFE and co polymer dispersion products .9 Operation and maintenance of APFO recovery systems 7 27 Voluntary UEIP, Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate Parlin Plant Hours/ Day <0.25 0.25 l l 8 >8 <lO 10 100 Days/ yr 100 250 1 8 >250 Routine worker activities that have potential for exposure:

> Handling of PTFE and Co polymer dispersion products > Operation and maintenance of blending facilities & Packout of finished product Note that at no time is the material handled at the Parlin Plant at an elevated temperature where the APFO could sublime. Therefore there is little potential for exposure to airborne APFO at this facility. All exposure potential is through skin contact during handling of the polymer dispersion materials all of which contain <I% APFO with most containing ~0.25% APFO.

Hours/ Day co. 25 0.25 1 1 8 >a cl0 Spruance Plant Dayslyr 10 100 loo 250 <IO >250 Routine worker activities that have potential for exposure:

> Handling of PTFE and Co polymer dispersion products > Operation and maintenance of fiber coating facilities k Operation and maintenance of sintering rolls p Packaging of non sintered product.

Note that the PTFE and co polymer dispersion products used at the Spruance site contain <0.9% APFO with most containing approximately 0.3% APFO.

B. Information on the Exposure Levels of Washington Works Employees Since most of the processing done in the US with APFO and APFO containing intermediates and products is done at Washington Works, DuPont's airborne industrial hygiene data is concentrated at that site. The limited measurements of airborne APFO concentrations at the other sites where APFO containing products are used have shown much lower levels (mostly non detectable) levels of APFO. The data in the table below 8 9 Voluntary UEIP, Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate reflect monitoring done over the last 5 years at Washington Works. The sample results are a combination of chemical operator and maintenance worker personal samples.

Year Sample # of Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Type Samples Concentration (wb6> Concentration (mpb) Deviation (mph) 1999 Partial 100 <O. Ol 0.58 0.06 1 0.151 1998 Shift 83 .OOl 0.78 0.103 0.145 1997 (mostly 100 <O. Ol 2.4 0.146 0.378 1996 6 8 7 3 N/ D 0.29 0.055 0.069 1995 hours) 3 2 N/ D 0.16 0.067 0.063 Partial shift air samples are taken at the rate of 200 mL/ min using a Tenax collection tube that has been pretreated with sodium hydroxide/ ethylene glycol/ methanol. The APFO is desorbed from the tubes using methanolic hydrogen chloride, which also serves as a derivatizing reagent, converting the APFO to its methyl ester. After workup, the methyl ester is quantified using a gas chromatograph equipped with an electron capture detector. The methyl ester of perfluorodecanoic acid is used as an internal standard, and at least three calibration samples are prepared to cover the concentration range of interest. Precision is estimated to be +/ 10% relative.

The data above show averages consistently below the AGCHI TLV of 0.01 mg/ m" with only a very few samples above the TLV. Where results are above or near to the TLV, the event is investigated and corrective action (additional personal protective equipment or engineering controls) to reduce the exposure levels is undertaken. Older data from the 1980's show higher levels of exposure. In the early 1990's Washington Works switched from receiving the APFO as a powder to receiving it as an aqueous solution. This change was done to reduce the potential for exposure during handling of the dry powder. It should be noted that in the 1997 time period, the site was starting up new APFO recovery facilities. Operating and maintenance difficulties associated with the start up of these facilities may have contributed to the higher levels of APFO in the personal samples during that year.

Task specific monitoring data and wipe monitoring data exist. However these data are not indicative of employee exposure and are not presented here. These samples are taken to identify areas where additional exposure controls may be necessary.

Engineering controls to reduce exposure consist of the following:

p Reaction systems are closed systems with continuous ambient monitoring for monomer concentrations > Ventilation systems are installed where airborne concentrations are significant > The polymer dryers operate under negative pressure to contain APFO and other materials.

6 mph= moles per billion. 0.56mpb is equivalent to the ACGIH TLV of O. Olmg/ m"

~._  .._ Voluntary UEIP, Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate p Recovery systems are in place to reduce airborne emissions,

Personal protective equipment that workers regularly wear consist of the following:

> Safety shoes and side shield safety glasses in all areas. g Impervious gloves when handling APFO solutions or aqueous dispersion products. k Chemical protective coveralls and goggles or face shields when the possibility of splashes of APFO containing solutions is present. 9 Airline respirators or cartridge respirators where monitoring has shown to have high exposure potential.

At Washington Works, blood serum levels of APFO have been measured since 198 1. Prior measurements of blood fluoride levels have been taken prior to 198 1 but are of limited value in assessing exposure to APFO. A summary of results of employees with identified APFO exposure potential the 1995, 1989 90, 1985, and 1984 volunteer sampling events is in the table below. Due to significant job assignment movement during this period of time, analysis of trends of data are difficult. The data in the table below prior to 1995 are for employees included in the 1995 sampling data so that comparisons of relative levels of APFO in blood serum can be compared. The entire data set of blood concentrations is available upon request.

Concentration Concentration ' This individual was working in a job that has APFO exposure potential at the time of the sample. * This individual consistently has had the highest blood concentration of APFO since APFO specific samples were taken. This employee left an APFO exposure potential assignment in 1991. In 1995 this employee's blood serum level was 4.4ppm. .c L .___.______  _._................ 2. '

.______....__...._................ .i .'

>

.. q :.. .._____....__ ~~ .,.... _ .......... .


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 159 (Friday, August 16, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41914-41915]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17671]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1995-0005; FRL-9998-43-Region 4]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Tennessee Products Superfund
Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 announces
the deletion of the Tennessee Products Superfund Site (Site) located in
Chattanooga, Tennessee, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The
NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of
Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation, have determined that all appropriate response actions
under CERCLA, other than Five Year Reviews, have been completed.
However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under
Superfund.

DATES: This action is effective August 16, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1995-0005. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is

restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Site information repositories. Locations, contacts,
phone numbers and viewing hours are:

U.S. EPA Region 4, Superfund and Emergency Management Division, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Hours: Monday through
Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of
Remediation, 1301 Riverfront Parkway, Suite 206, Chattanooga, Tennessee
37402. Hours: Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Phone: 423-
634-5745.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Zeller, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to be deleted from the NPL is:
Tennessee Products, Chattanooga, Tennessee. A Notice of Intent to
Delete for this Site was published in the Federal Register (84 FR
20073) on May 8, 2019.
    The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was
June 7, 2019. No public comments were received.
    EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action.
Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the
NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of
the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not
affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future
conditions warrant further actions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: August 5, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

Appendix B to Part 300--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the entry
for ``TN, Tennessee Products, Chattanooga.''

[FR Doc. 2019-17671 Filed 8-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 213 (Monday, November 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59428-59432]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23975]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87413; File No. SR-GEMX-2019-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Options 3,
Section 17, the Exchange's Kill Switch Risk Protection

October 29, 2019.
    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 October 15, 2019, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The 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 proposes to amend Options 3, Section 17, which sets
forth the Exchange's optional Kill Switch risk protection.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqgemx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects 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 expand the optional Kill Switch risk
protection the Exchange offers to Members today to allow cancellation
and restriction of quotes, orders, or both. This new functionality will
be offered alongside the existing port Kill Switch (as defined below),
which currently allows Members to cancel and restrict only their
orders. The Exchange also proposes to amend its rules to add more
detail on how the port Kill Switch operates today. As discussed further
below, no functional changes to the existing port Kill Switch
functionality are being contemplated by this rule change; rather, the
Exchange is providing more detailed information on the port Kill Switch
so that the rule is more aligned with the current operation of existing
functionality.
Port Kill Switch
    Today, Kill Switch provides Members with a risk management tool for
immediate control of their order activity. Specifically as set forth in
Options 3, Section 17(a), Kill Switch enables Members to initiate a
message \3\

to the System \4\ to promptly cancel orders and restrict entry of new
orders until re-entry has been enabled. Members may submit a request to
the System to cancel orders for that Member. The System will send an
automated message to the Member when a Kill Switch request has been
processed by the Exchange's System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Today, Members are able to send a message to the Exchange to
initiate the Kill Switch. A Kill Switch message may be sent through
the Exchange order entry ports FIX, OTTO, or Precise (hereinafter,
referred to as ``port Kill Switch'').
    \4\ The term ``System'' means the electronic system operated by
the Exchange that receives and disseminates quotes, executes orders
and reports transactions. See Options 1, Section 1(a)(48).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If orders are cancelled by the Member utilizing the Kill Switch, it
will result in the removal of all orders for the Member.\5\ The Member
is unable to enter additional orders until the Member has made a verbal
request to the Exchange and Exchange staff has set a re-entry indicator
to enable re-entry.\6\ Once enabled for re-entry, the System will send
a Re-entry Notification Message to the Member. The applicable Clearing
Member for that Member will also be notified of the re-entry into the
System after orders are cancelled as a result of the Kill Switch,
provided the Clearing Member has requested to receive such
notification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Members may not cancel orders by symbol. Of note, Opening
Sweeps are also cancelled. An Opening Sweep is a Market Maker order
submitted for execution against eligible interest in the system
during the Opening Process pursuant to Options 3, Section 8(b)(1).
See Options 3, Section 7(t). Consistent with current auction
functionality, PIM auction orders and responses are not cancelled.
PIM is the Exchange's price improvement mechanism. See Options 3,
Section 13. Other auctions orders and responses are cancelled.
    \6\ The Member must directly and verbally contact the Exchange
to request the re-set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to provide additional detail regarding
the port Kill Switch described above to better align the Rule with
existing system functionality. The Exchange proposes to clarify that
Members may submit a Kill Switch request to the System through FIX,
OTTO, or Precise for the Member's requested identifier (i.e., badge \7\
or mnemonic \8\) (``Identifier'') on a user level (i.e., by individual
badge or mnemonic).\9\ As such, Members using the port Kill Switch
today may elect to cancel all existing orders and restrict entry of
additional orders by individual badge/mnemonic (i.e., Identifier).
Furthermore, if the Member's requested Identifier(s) is enabled to
trade on both the Exchange and the Exchange's affiliate, Nasdaq ISE
(``ISE''), the port Kill Switch applies across both GEMX and ISE.\10\
If a Member chooses to configure its Identifier on GEMX but not ISE,
the port Kill Switch activated on GEMX will only apply to that
Identifier on GEMX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A ``badge'' shall mean an account number, which may contain
letters and/or numbers, assigned to Market Makers. A Market Maker
account may be associated with multiple badges. See Options 1,
Section 1(a)(4).
    \8\ A ``mnemonic'' shall mean an acronym comprised of letters
and/or numbers assigned to Electronic Access Members. An Electronic
Access Member account may be associated with multiple mnemonics. See
Options 1, Section 1(a)(22).
    \9\ Using the port Kill Switch, Members are only able to cancel
and restrict their order activity at the user level (i.e., by
individual Identifier). As discussed below, the new Kill Switch
enhancement will offer Members the additional option of submitting
requests at the user level or group level--in other words, by
individual Identifier or for a group of Identifiers. See, e.g.,
Nasdaq Options Market (``NOM'') Chapter VI, Sec. 6(d), which sets
forth NOM's Kill Switch rule, for similar terminology related to
Identifier.
    \10\ Thus, for example, an Electronic Access Member that is
configured to trade on ISE and GEMX in mnemonics ABCD1, ABCD2, and
ABCD3 would submit a separate request for each mnemonic using the
port Kill Switch, which would result in the cancellation of all
existing orders and the restriction of additional orders associated
with mnemonics ABCD1, ABCD2, and ABCD3 across both ISE and GEMX. The
ability to kill interest across both ISE and GEMX is a feature that
was carried over from the Exchange's previous T7 trading system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the current rule text does not specifically provide for these
two features (i.e., the ability to cancel and restrict orders by
individual Identifier(s) and, if set by the Member, across both GEMX
and ISE), the existing port Kill Switch functionality operates in this
manner today. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to replace the
existing language in section (a)(1) with the following to make clear
how the System operates today: ``A Member may submit a request to the
System through FIX, OTTO, or Precise to cancel all existing orders and
restrict entry of additional orders for the requested Identifier(s) on
a user level on Nasdaq GEMX, or across both Nasdaq GEMX and Nasdaq ISE,
in either case as set by the Member.''
    As noted above, the Exchange is not proposing any functional
modifications to the existing port Kill Switch; rather, all of the
changes proposed above are to provide additional specificity as to how
the port Kill Switch operates today for greater consistency between the
rule text and the operation of the System. Lastly, the Exchange
proposes to delete the last sentence of (a)(1), which is redundant with
the re-entry provisions already set forth in the Rule.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Options 3, Section 17(a)(2). As discussed below, this
section will be renumbered as section (a)(3) under this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GUI Kill Switch
    The Exchange also proposes to add new functionality that would
enhance the current Kill Switch risk protection for orders to apply to
both orders and quotes.\12\ The Exchange will provide this enhancement
through a separate graphical user interface (hereinafter, ``GUI Kill
Switch'') as an alternative way for Members to manage their trading
activity.\13\ As discussed below, the new GUI Kill Switch will be
functionally similar to the existing port Kill Switch, with the most
notable difference being the added ability to cancel all existing
quotes and block the entry of additional quotes. For instance, similar
to the port Kill Switch today, Members will be able to use the GUI Kill
Switch for requested Identifier(s) to apply either on GEMX only or
across both GEMX and ISE, depending on how the Identifier(s) was set up
by the Member. Accordingly, Options 3, Section 17 will be amended to
reflect that the Exchange will offer the proposed GUI Kill Switch
alongside the existing port Kill Switch. In particular, paragraph (a)
will provide that Kill Switch would enable Members to initiate a
message to the System to promptly cancel and restrict their quote and
order activity on GEMX, or across both GEMX and ISE, as further
described in the Rule. The Exchange also proposes to specify that
Members may submit a Kill Switch request to the System for certain
Identifier(s) on either a user or group level. Permissible groups must
reside within a single Member firm.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As discussed more fully later in the filing, the proposed
Kill Switch enhancement will also have additional features to allow
Members to kill quotes and/or orders for requested Identifier(s) on
either a user or group level.
    \13\ The GUI Kill Switch will be available to all Members
through a web-based interface.
    \14\ For example, a permissible group could include all badges
associated with a Market Maker. Member would be able to set up these
groups beforehand to include all or some of the Identifiers
associated with the Member firm so that a GUI Kill Switch request
could apply to this pre-defined group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, while the proposed language in section (a) on
applying Kill Switch for requested Identifier(s) across both GEMX and
ISE is new, these features exist today with respect to the port Kill
Switch. Accordingly, the proposed changes in (a) with respect to order
cancellation and restriction clarify the current manner in which the
port Kill Switch operates today, and also extends the rule to encompass
the proposed GUI Kill Switch.
    The Exchange further proposes to describe the new GUI Kill Switch
functionality in new section (a)(2).\15\ Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to add the following: ``Alternatively, a

Member may submit a request to the System through a graphical user
interface to cancel all existing, and restrict entry of additional,
quotes and/or orders for the requested Identifier(s) on either a user
or group level on Nasdaq GEMX, or across both Nasdaq GEMX and Nasdaq
ISE, in either case as set by the Member.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In light of adopting this new section, current (a)(2) will
be renumbered as (a)(3).
    \16\ Members may not cancel orders and quotes by symbol using
the GUI Kill Switch, similar to how orders may not be cancelled by
symbol through the port Kill Switch today. Also similar to the port
Kill Switch, Opening Sweeps will be cancelled upon initiating the
GUI Kill Switch. Lastly, all auction orders and responses other than
PIM orders/responses will similarly be cancelled. See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed enhancement to the Kill
Switch will offer Members an alternative means to control their
exposure, through a separate interface which is not dependent on the
integrity of the member's own systems, should the member experience a
failure. Because the proposed enhancement will be provided through a
separate user interface instead of one of the Exchange's order entry
ports, the Exchange believes it would promote transparency in its Rules
to separately define these alternative methods in (a)(1) and (a)(2). As
noted above, the proposed enhancement is similar to the existing port
Kill Switch that allows Members to control their order activity but has
additional optionality, most significantly the ability to cancel and
restrict quotes, orders, or both. Furthermore, Members can set up the
GUI Kill Switch so they are able to control their quote and/or order
activity for an individual Identifier or a group of Identifiers,\17\ as
compared to the port Kill Switch which is limited to individual
Identifiers only.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As noted above, NOM Chapter VI, Sec. 6(d) has similar
terminology in its Kill Switch rule. See supra note 9. Furthermore,
the proposed GUI Kill Switch is functionally similar to NOM's Kill
Switch in that both are offered through a separate graphical user
interface and have similar features, including the ability for
members to apply Kill Switch for certain identifiers on a user or
group level.
    \18\ As an example of the GUI Kill Switch, assume a Market Maker
is configured to trade on ISE and GEMX in badges 123A, 123B, and
123C, with pre-defined settings that include all three badges as one
group to which the GUI Kill Switch will apply. The Market Maker
could then submit a GUI Kill Switch request to restrict their quote
activity for the pre-defined group, resulting in the cancellation of
all existing quotes and restriction of additional quotes associated
with badges 123A, 123B, and 123C across both ISE and GEMX. The same
Market Maker could instead opt to submit a GUI Kill Switch request
for only badge 123A to cancel all existing quotes and restrict entry
of additional quotes for that individual badge. The proposed
functionality therefore allows the Member to have more optionality
as compared to the existing mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The re-entry provisions in section (a)(3) will also be amended
throughout to reflect that the re-entry process after initiating the
GUI Kill Switch will be identical to the current process for the port
Kill Switch. Specifically, once a Member initiates either the port or
GUI Kill Switch, the Member will be unable to enter additional orders,
and/or quotes if pursuant to the GUI Kill Switch, for the affected
Identifier(s) until the Member has made a verbal request to the
Exchange and Exchange staff has set a re-entry indicator to enable re-
entry.\19\ Lastly, the Exchange proposes to make a related change in
the last sentence of section (a)(3) to delete the reference to order
cancellation, and also provide that the ``applicable Clearing Member
will be notified of such re-entry . . .'' for better readability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Identical to re-entry for the port Kill Switch, Members
must directly and verbally contact the Exchange to request the re-
set if they initiate the GUI Kill Switch. See supra note 6 with
accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \20\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \21\ in particular, in that it is designed 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, by enhancing the risk protections available to Members. The
proposal promotes policy goals of the Commission which has highlighted
the need for execution venues, exchange and non-exchange alike, to
enhance risk protection tools and other mechanisms to decrease risk and
increase stability.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \22\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 69077
(March 8, 2013), 78 FR 18083 (March 25, 2013) (Proposing Release) at
18090-91; and 73639 (November 19, 2014), 79 FR 72251 (December 5,
2014) (Adopting Release) at 72253 (highlighting that quality
standards, testing and improved error response mechanisms are among
the issues needing very thoughtful and focused attention in today's
securities markets).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed GUI Kill Switch, similar to the existing port Kill
Switch, is designed to protect Members in the event the Member
encounters a situation, like a systems issue, for which they would need
to withdraw temporarily from the market. The individual Member firm
benefits of enhanced risk protections, including Kill Switch
mechanisms, flow downstream to counter-parties both at the Exchange and
at other options exchanges, thereby increasing systemic protections as
well. Additionally, because the Exchange will continue offer this
optional risk tool to all Members, the Exchange believes that it will
encourage liquidity generally and remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
protect investors and the public interest. To the extent the Exchange's
proposal provides Members with greater control over their quotes and
orders, and allows them to remove quotes and cancel orders in an
appropriate manner, then the proposal may encourage Members to provide
liquidity on GEMX and thus contribute to fair and orderly markets in a
manner that protects the public interest and protects investors.
    As noted above, this optional risk tool will continue to be offered
to all Members. The Exchange further represents that its proposal will
continue to operate consistently with the firm quote obligations of a
broker-dealer pursuant to Rule 602 of Regulation NMS and that the
functionality is not mandatory. Specifically, any interest that is
executable against a Member's orders or quotes that are received \23\
by the Exchange, prior to the time the Kill Switch is processed by the
System, will automatically execute at the price up to the Member's
size. The Kill Switch message will be accepted by the System in the
order of receipt in the queue and will be processed in that order so
that interest that is already accepted into the System will be
processed prior to the Kill Switch message. Messages sent to the System
by the Kill Switch are processed in the order they are received by the
matching engine, through the same queuing mechanism that a quote or
order message is processed. The Exchange also notes that the latency
profile of the GUI Kill Switch is comparable to the latency profile of
killing interest through a message based Kill Switch from a Member's
order entry port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The time of receipt for an order or quote is the time such
message is processed by the Exchange's order book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Market Maker's obligation to provide two-sided quotes on a daily
basis is not diminished by the removal of such quotes and/or orders by
utilizing the Kill Switch. Market Makers that utilize Kill Switch will
not be relieved of the obligation to provide intra-day quotes pursuant
to Options 2, Section 5(e), nor will it prohibit the Exchange from
taking disciplinary action against a Market Maker for failing to meet
its quoting obligations each trading day.
    The proposed changes will also permit Clearing Members that clear
transactions on a Member's behalf

pursuant to a Letter of Guarantee \24\ to receive information regarding
the Member's re-entry into the System after the Member initiates the
GUI Kill Switch, and makes the verbal request to the Exchange for re-
entry pursuant to Options 3, Section 17(a). As is the case today with
the port Kill Switch, because such Clearing Members guarantee all
transactions on behalf of that Member and therefore bear the risk
associated with those transactions, the Exchange believes that it is
appropriate for the Clearing Member to receive information regarding
re-entry into the System after quotes and/or orders are cancelled as a
result of the GUI Kill Switch, should the Clearing Member request such
notification. This information may help provide Clearing Members with
greater control and flexibility in managing the risk associated with
the Member's activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ A Letter of Guarantee obligates the issuing Clearing Member
to accept financial responsibilities for all Exchange transactions
made by the guaranteed Member. See Options 6, Section 4(a) and (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal also extends the cross-market feature
available today through the port Kill Switch to the proposed GUI Kill
Switch. The Exchange notes that issues that would prompt a Member to
submit a Kill Switch request are normally not confined to a member's
activity on a single exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that
offering both the port and GUI Kill Switch protections on a cross-
market basis would help Members to more effectively manage their risk
when trading on multiple markets, and reduce disruptive trading events
to the benefit of all members and investors. For the same reasons, the
Exchange already offers other cross market risk protections pursuant to
the Market Wide Risk Protection (``MWRP'') \25\ as well as for market
maker quotes, both of which can be applied across GEMX and ISE similar
to the port and GUI Kill Switch.\26\ Like MWRP and the cross-market
protections for market maker quotes, the Exchange ported over the Kill
Switch's cross-market feature from the Exchange's previous trading
system with minimal modifications to minimize the impact to Members
that were already familiar with the existing risk management tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Options 3, Section 15(b)(1)(D).
    \26\ See Options 3, Section 15(b)(3)(B)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to add
greater specificity with respect to how the port Kill Switch currently
operates (i.e., that a Kill Switch request sent through FIX, OTTO, or
Precise will result in the cancellation of all existing orders, and
restrict entry of additional orders for the requested Identifier(s) on
a user level on GEMX, or across both GEMX and ISE, in either case as
set by the Member) will promote greater transparency around the
existing Kill Switch, and will serve to better align the Exchange's
rules with current System functionality, to the benefit of investors
and the public interest.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal does not impose an
undue burden on intramarket competition because all Members may avail
themselves of the Kill Switch. The Kill Switch risk protection is
optional. The proposed rule change to expand this risk protection to
encompass quote cancellation and restriction will further protect
Members in the event the Member is suffering from a systems issue or
from the occurrence of unusual or unexpected market activity that would
require them to withdraw from the market in order to protect investors.
As discussed above, the proposed GUI Kill Switch, like the existing
port Kill Switch, would be offered cross-market to Members that want to
be protected from inadvertent exposure to excessive risk when trading
on both GEMX and ISE. The Exchange does not believe that permitting
this functionality to be cross-market will impose any undue burden on
intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the target of the cross-
market feature is to reduce risk for Members that trade on GEMX and
ISE. As noted above, issues that would prompt a Member to submit a Kill
Switch request are normally not confined to a Member's activity on a
single exchange, so the Exchange believes that having the ability to
manage risk across more than one market will ultimately be beneficial
by providing Members with greater control over their quotes and orders,
which may reduce disruptive trading events to the benefit of all
investors and the public interest. Finally, the Exchange notes other
exchanges, including the Exchange's affiliated options markets,
similarly offer Kill Switch protections for both quotes and orders.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The proposed GUI Kill Switch protections are similar to
those available on its affiliated options markets Nasdaq BX
(``BX''), NOM, and Nasdaq Phlx (``Phlx''), except BX, NOM, and Phlx
Kill Switches do not apply cross-market to other affiliated
exchanges. As discussed above, the proposed GUI Kill Switch may
apply across GEMX and ISE, if set by the Exchange member. See BX
Chapter VI, Section 6(d); NOM Chapter VI, Section 6(d); and Phlx
Rule 1019(b). See also CBOE Exchange Rule 5.34(c)(7) and BOX Options
Exchange Rule 7280(b) for other options exchanges that offer Kill
Switch protections for quotes and orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \28\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the pre-filing
requirement. The Commission hereby waives that requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \30\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\31\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay.
According to the Exchange, waiver of the operative delay is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest because it
would provide Members with greater control over their quotes and
orders, which may reduce disruptive trading events to the benefit of
all investors and the public interest. The Exchange notes that similar
kill switch protections are available on other options exchanges and
that the Commission has previously approved similar cross market risk
protections,\32\ and that as such, the proposed rule change does not
raise any new, unique or substantive issues. The Commission

believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the
Commission waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change operative upon filing.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \32\ See supra notes 25-27 and accompanying text.
    \33\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is 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 to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the 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-GEMX-2019-15 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-GEMX-2019-15. 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, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. 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-GEMX-2019-15 and should be submitted on
or before November 25, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-23975 Filed 11-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P