[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 9426]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4220]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1875-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

Maryland; 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 Maryland (FEMA-1875-DR), dated February 19,
2010, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 19, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated February 19, 2010, 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 Maryland resulting from a severe winter storm and snowstorm
during the period of December 18-20, 2009, 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 Maryland.
    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) under the Public Assistance program in the designated
areas. You are further authorized to provide snow assistance under
the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period
during or proximate to the incident period. You may extend the
period of assistance, as warranted. This assistance excludes regular
time costs for the sub-grantees' regular employees.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance 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, Regis Leo Phelan, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Maryland have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    The counties of Baltimore, Caroline, Cecil, Harford, Howard,
Kent, Montgomery, and Queen Anne's for emergency protective
measures, (Category B) under the Public Assistance program.

    The counties of Baltimore, Caroline, Cecil, Harford, Howard,
Kent, Montgomery, and Queen Anne's for emergency protective measures
(Category B), including snow assistance, under the Public Assistance
program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the
incident period.

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. 2010-4220 Filed 3-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: March 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 56)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12556-12559]
[DOCID:fr25mr09-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0058; FRL-8780-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan;
Maryland; Reasonably Available Control Technology Requirements for
Volatile Organic Compounds

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to fully approve revisions to the
Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions pertain to
Maryland's major source volatile organic compound (VOC) reasonable
available control technology (RACT) regulation. EPA is converting the
conditional limited approval status of Maryland's VOC RACT regulations
to a full approval because EPA has approved all of the case-by-case
RACT determinations submitted by Maryland pursuant to the generic
provisions of its VOC RACT regulation as well as all of the RACT
requirements for categories of VOC sources submitted by Maryland in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on May 26, 2009 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse written comment by April 24, 2009. If EPA
receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2009-0058 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0058, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mail code 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2009-0058. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI 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 in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at Maryland Department of the
Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland,
21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Lewis,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under section 184 of the CAA, RACT as specified in sections
182(b)(2) and 182(f) applies throughout the ozone transport region
(OTR). The entire State of Maryland is located within the OTR.
Therefore, RACT is applicable statewide in Maryland. The major source
size generally is determined by the classification of the area in which
the source is located. However, for areas located in the OTR, the major
source size for stationary sources of VOCs is 50 tons per year (tpy)
unless the area's ozone classification prescribes a lower major source
threshold. The VOC RACT regulations that apply to source categories of
VOCs are generally those VOC RACT regulations adopted by a state based
upon Control Technique Guideline (CTG) documents issued by EPA. The
CTGs provide ``presumptive RACT emission limitations'' for categories
of major VOC sources. Major sources of VOC that are subject to RACT,
but that are not covered by a regulation adopted by a state pursuant to
a CTG are referred to as non-CTG VOC RACT sources. The State of
Maryland was required to adopt and submit as SIP revisions VOC RACT
regulations for the CTG documents issued between November 15, 1990 and
the date of 1-hour ozone attainment, and the CTG documents issued prior
to November 15, 1990. For major non-CTG VOC sources (not otherwise
already subject to RACT pursuant to a source category regulation under
the Maryland SIP), the State's VOC RACT regulations contain a
``generic'' RACT provision. A generic RACT regulation is one that does
not, itself, specifically define RACT for a source or source
categories, but instead allows for case-by-case RACT determinations.
The generic provisions of Maryland's VOC RACT regulation allow for
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to make case-by-case RACT
determinations that are then to be submitted to EPA for approval as
revisions to the Maryland SIP. Lastly, the Maryland SIP includes RACT
regulations submitted by Maryland and approved by EPA for categories of
VOC sources not covered by a CTG.
    On April 5, 1991, the State of Maryland formally submitted
amendments to its air quality regulations to EPA as a SIP revision.
Among the amendments submitted were revisions to Maryland Code of
Regulations (COMAR) <IP_ADDRESS> for Maryland's minor VOC source
requirements and the addition of COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>G, which requires
RACT for major sources of VOC that are not covered by Maryland's
category specific VOC RACT regulations.
    The April 5, 1991 submittal was amended on June 8, 1993 to
establish statewide applicability for COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>G and to lower
the RACT applicability threshold for non-CTG sources of VOC in
Maryland. The expanded geographic applicability of COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>
did result in the regulation of VOC sources which were previously not
regulated. However, the MDE made other specific amendments to COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>, found at <IP_ADDRESS>A which narrowed the applicability of
COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>B such that certain sources in Maryland's pre-
enactment nonattainment areas that were previously subject to COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>B were no longer covered by any enforceable emissions limit
until such time as Maryland approved case-by-case VOC RACT requirements
for them pursuant to the generic RACT provisions of COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>G.
This resulted in a temporary lapse of coverage for previously regulated
non-CTG major VOC sources in the State of Maryland.
    EPA proposed conditional approval of Maryland's April 5, 1991 and
June 8, 1993 submittals pertaining to COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>G and COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS> on March 1, 1996 (61 FR 8009). On September 4, 1998, EPA
withdrew the March 1, 1996 proposed conditional approval, and published
a direct final rule (63 FR 47174) granting a conditional limited
approval of the revisions to COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>G and COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>.
In the September 4, 1998 direct final rule, EPA stated that the
conditional nature of its approval would be satisfied once the MDE
either (1) certifies that it has submitted case-by-case RACT proposals
for all sources subject to the RACT requirements currently known to
MDE; or (2) demonstrates that the emissions from any remaining subject
sources represent a de minimus level of emissions as defined in the
September 4, 1998 rulemaking. The MDE was to satisfy the terms of the
conditional approval by a date certain no later than 12 months after
the effective date of EPA's final conditional approval. EPA also stated
that the limited approval status would be converted to full approval
once EPA had approved all of the case-by-case RACT requirements
submitted by MDE as SIP revisions.

    On December 19, 2008, MDE submitted a letter to EPA, certifying
that it had met the terms and conditions imposed by EPA in the
September 4, 1998 (63 FR 47174) conditional limited approval. The MDE
stated that it had fulfilled the terms and conditions of the
conditional limited approval by submitting case-by-case VOC RACT
facility determinations, category-specific VOC RACT and generic VOC
RACT regulations for approval as SIP revisions.
    EPA has reviewed the Maryland SIP and determined that MDE has
submitted RACT regulations for the sources covered by the CTG documents
issued between November 15, 1990 and the date of 1-hour ozone
attainment, and the CTG documents issued prior to November 15, 1990;
case-by-case RACT requirements for three facilities under its generic
VOC RACT rule; and category-specific VOC RACT regulations for the
remaining VOC sources located in the State of Maryland. EPA has
approved all of these Maryland submissions as SIP revisions. (See 40
CFR Part 52.1070 for the list and Federal Register citations of all
EPA-approved regulations and requirements of the Maryland SIP.) For
these reasons EPA is converting the conditional limited approval status
of COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>G and COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> to a full approval.
    Because EPA published its final rule granting conditional limited
approval of COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>G and COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> on September 4,
1998 (63 FR 47174) and that final rule had an effective date of
November 3 1998, the letter submitted by MDE on December 19, 2008
satisfying the conditional nature EPA's approval should have been
submitted by MDE no later than November 3, 1998. Under 110(k)(4) of the
CAA, unless the State satisfies the terms of a conditional approval of
a SIP submission within a date certain which may not exceed more than
12 months from the effective date of the conditional approval, EPA is
to treat the conditional approval as a disapproval. Only recently has
EPA realized that MDE did not submit the letter to EPA certifying that
it had met the terms and conditions imposed by EPA in the September 4,
1998 (63 FR 47174) conditional limited approval rule within the
specified 12-month time period from the November 3, 1998 effective date
of that rule. EPA acknowledges its oversight for not treating the
September 4, 1998 (63 FR 47174) conditional approval as a disapproval
for Maryland's failure to satisfy the terms of the conditional approval
within the one year period of time provided, and for not commencing the
sanctions clocks such a disapproval would have engendered pursuant to
Section 179 of the CAA. However, at this point in time, given that MDE
has submitted and EPA has approved as SIP revisions VOC RACT
requirements for all major sources of VOC in that State of Maryland as
required by the CAA, there is no purpose served in treating the
September 4, 1998 conditional as a disapproval. If EPA had treated its
conditional approval as disapproval and had commenced the sanctions
clocks or imposed sanctions, the remedy to halt the clocks or lift the
sanctions would have been for Maryland to submit and for EPA to approve
as SIP revisions RACT for all major VOC sources in Maryland. That
remedy has been fulfilled.

II. Final Action

    EPA is converting its conditional limited approval of revisions to
COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>G and COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> to a full approval because
Maryland has satisfied the terms and conditions imposed in EPA's
conditional limited approval published on September 4, 1998 (63 FR
47174) and because EPA has approved all of the case-by-case RACT
determinations made by MDE under Maryland's generic VOC RACT rule. EPA
has reviewed the Maryland SIP and determined that MDE has submitted
RACT regulations for the sources covered by the CTG documents issued
between November 15, 1990 and the date of 1-hour ozone attainment, and
the CTG documents issued prior to November 15, 1990; case-by-case RACT
requirements for three facilities under its generic VOC RACT rule; and
category-specific VOC RACT regulations for the remaining VOC sources
located in the State of Maryland. EPA has approved all of these
Maryland submissions as SIP revisions in accordance with the
requirements of section 110 the CAA.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's
Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve
as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are
filed. This rule will be effective on May 26, 2009 without further
notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 24, 2009. If EPA
receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 26, 2009. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action converting the conditional limited
approval to a full approval of revisions to COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>G and
COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce
its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Volatile organic
compounds.

    February 24, 2009.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry for COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>G to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                  EPA-Approved Regulations in the Maryland SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Code of  Maryland                                  State                             Additional explanation/
administrative  regulations       Title/subject       effective      EPA approval date      citation at 40 CFR
      (COMAR)  citation                                  date                                     52.1100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<IP_ADDRESS>................  Applicability,             05/04/98  March 25, 2009 [Insert  (c) (174), (c) (175).
                              Determining               12/10/01   page number where the   On 2/27/03 (68 FR
                              Compliance,                          document begins].       9012), EPA approved a
                              Reporting, and                                               revised rule citation
                              General Requirements.                                        with a State
                                                                                effective date of 5/8/
                                                                                95 [(c)(182)(i)(D)].

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

* * * * *

Sec.  52.1072  [Amended]

0
3. In Sec.  52.1072, the table in paragraph (d) is removed and
reserved.

Sec.  52.1073  [Amended]

0
4. In Sec.  52.1073, the table in paragraph (e) is removed and
reserved.
 [FR Doc. E9-6654 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79244-79248]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26989]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90555; File No. SR-MEMX-2020-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Fee Schedule

December 3, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 30, 2020, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members \3\ pursuant to
Exchange Rules 15.1(a) and (c) in order to (i) provide pricing for
Retail Orders \4\ that add displayed liquidity and are executed on the
Exchange; and (ii) provide pricing for transactions in securities
priced below $1.00 per share that are executed on the Exchange. The
text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(p).
    \4\ A ``Retail Order'' means an agency or riskless principal
order that meets the criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03 that originates
from a natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by a Retail
Member Organization, provided that no change is made to the terms of
the order with respect to price or side of market and the order does
not originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized
methodology. See Exchange Rule 11.21(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 modify its fee schedule to adopt the fees
and rebates described herein applicable to Retail Orders that add
displayed liquidity to the Exchange (``Added

Displayed Retail Volume'') and transactions in securities priced below
$1.00 per share (``Sub-Dollar Securities'') that are executed on the
Exchange, effective as of December 1, 2020.
    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues, to
which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on
publicly available information, no single registered equities exchange
currently has more than approximately 16% of the total market share of
executed volume of equities trading.\5\ Thus, in such a low-
concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities exchange
possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order flow, and
the Exchange currently represents less than 1% of the overall market
share.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Market share percentage calculated as of November 24, 2020.
The Exchange receives and processes data made available through
consolidated data feeds (i.e., CTS and UTDF).
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rebate for Added Displayed Retail Volume
    The Exchange recently adopted rules enabling Members to apply for
status as Retail Member Organizations,\7\ and once approved as such by
the Exchange, to designate qualifying orders as Retail Orders to the
Exchange.\8\ Currently, there are no pricing incentives for Retail
Orders, and Retail Orders are subject to the same standard fees and
rebates applicable as if such orders were not designated as Retail
Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A ``Retail Member Organization'' or ``RMO'' is a Member (or
a division thereof) that has been approved by the Exchange under
Exchange Rule 11.21 to submit Retail Orders. See Exchange Rule
11.21(a).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90278 (October 28,
2020), 85 FR 69667 (November 3, 2020) (SR-MEMX-2020-13). Retail
Orders are only designated as such to the Exchange and are not
identified as such on the Exchange's market data feeds or otherwise
identifiable as such to other market participants. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule to adopt pricing
for executions of Added Displayed Retail Volume and to adopt a fee code
applicable to executions of all Retail Orders. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to adopt a rebate of $0.0034 per share for executions
of Added Displayed Retail Volume transactions in securities traded on
the Exchange priced at or above $1.00 per share (the ``ADRV
Rebate'').\9\ The Exchange notes that the proposed ADRV Rebate would
not apply, and that the proposed standard pricing with respect to
transactions in Sub-Dollar Securities, as further described below,
would apply, to executions of Added Displayed Retail Volume
transactions in Sub-Dollar Securities. The Exchange also notes that the
proposed ADVR Rebate would not apply to executions of Retail Orders in
securities priced at or above $1.00 per share that add non-displayed
liquidity to the Exchange or remove liquidity from the Exchange, and
instead, the fees and rebates otherwise applicable to such transactions
under the current fee schedule would continue to apply. Thus, under the
proposal, an execution of a Retail Order in a security priced at or
above $1.00 per share that adds non-displayed liquidity to the Exchange
would receive a rebate of $0.0020 per share, which is the standard
rebate for adding non-displayed liquidity to the Exchange, and an
execution of a Retail Order in a security priced at or above $1.00 per
share that removes liquidity from the Exchange would be charged a fee
of $0.0025 per share, which is the standard fee for removing liquidity
from the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This proposed pricing is referred to by the Exchange as
``Added displayed volume, Retail Order'' on the fee schedule. The
Exchange is also proposing to adopt new fee code ``r'' to be
appended as the second character after the applicable first fee code
character for executions of all Retail Orders. The Exchange notes
that, as indicated on the current fee schedule, the Exchange also
appends as an additional character at the end of its fee codes
either ``A'' or ``B'' to indicate whether an execution occurred: (A)
In a security priced at or above $1.00 per share or (B) in a Sub-
Dollar Security. Accordingly, under the proposal, an execution of an
Added Displayed Retail Volume transaction in a security priced at or
above $1.00 per share would be assigned a fee code of ``BrA'',
``DrA'' or ``JrA'', as applicable, by the Exchange. Similarly, under
the proposal, an execution of an Added Displayed Retail Volume
transaction in a Sub-Dollar Security would be assigned a fee code of
``BrB'', ``DrB'' or ``JrB'', as applicable, by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pricing for Transactions in Sub-Dollar Securities
    The Exchange currently does not charge any fees or provide any
rebates for transactions in Sub-Dollar Securities that are executed on
the Exchange. The Exchange now proposes to charge a standard fee of
0.30% of the total dollar value of any transaction (including a Retail
Order) in Sub-Dollar Securities that removes liquidity from the
Exchange (``Removed Sub-Dollar Volume'').\10\ The Exchange also
proposes to provide a standard rebate of 0.30% of the total dollar
value of any transaction (including a Retail Order) in Sub-Dollar
Securities that adds liquidity, displayed or non-displayed, to the
Exchange (``Added Sub-Dollar Volume'').\11\ The proposed pricing for
Removed Sub-Dollar Volume and Added Sub-Dollar Volume would only apply
to transactions that are executed on the Exchange, and as such there
would continue to be no fee charged or rebate provided for transactions
in Sub-Dollar Securities that are routed to and executed at another
market center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This pricing is referred to by the Exchange on the fee
schedule under the existing description ``Removed volume from MEMX
Book'' with a fee code of ``RB'' or ``RrB'', as applicable, assigned
by the Exchange.
    \11\ This pricing is referred to by the Exchange on the fee
schedule under the existing description ``Added displayed volume'',
the existing description ``Added non-displayed volume'' or the
proposed new description ``Added displayed volume, Retail Order'',
as applicable, with a fee code of ``BB'', ``BrB'', ``DB'', ``DrB'',
``JB'', ``JrB'', ``HB'', ``HrB'', ``MB'' or ``MrB'', as applicable,
assigned by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rebate for executions of Added Sub-Dollar Volume is
intended to increase order flow in Sub-Dollar Securities to the
Exchange by incentivizing Members to increase the liquidity-providing
orders in Sub-Dollar Securities they submit to the Exchange, which
would support price discovery on the Exchange and provide additional
liquidity for incoming orders. The proposed fee for executions of
Removed Sub-Dollar Volume is intended to be a direct offset of the
rebate provided for Added Sub-Dollar Volume so that the Exchange may
remain revenue neutral with respect to such transactions while
attempting to compete with other venues to attract this order flow.
    The proposed rule change does not include different fees or rebates
for Retail Orders or transactions in Sub-Dollar Securities that depend
on the amount of orders submitted to, and/or transactions executed on
or through, the Exchange. Accordingly, all fees and rebates described
above are applicable to all Members, regardless of the overall volume
of a Member's trading activities on the Exchange.

2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\13\ in
particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members
and other persons using its facilities and is

not designed to unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular
venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient, and the
Exchange represents only a small percentage of the overall market. The
Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference
for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS,
the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and also recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to new or different pricing structures being
introduced into the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain
the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates, including with respect to
Added Displayed Retail Volume and transactions in Sub-Dollar
Securities, and market participants can readily trade on competing
venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more
favorable. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change reflects a
reasonable and competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize
market participants to direct order flow to the Exchange, which the
Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all
Members and investors. The Exchange notes that the proposal does not
include different fees or rebates for Retail Orders or transactions in
Sub-Dollar Securities depending on the amount of orders submitted to,
and/or transactions executed on or through, the Exchange. Accordingly,
the proposed pricing structure is applicable to all Members, regardless
of the overall volume of a Member's trading activities on the Exchange.
Rebate for Added Displayed Retail Volume
    The Exchange believes that the proposed ADRV Rebate is reasonable,
equitable, and consistent with the Act because it would incentivize
Members to submit additional displayed Retail Orders to the Exchange,
which would enhance liquidity in Retail Orders on the Exchange and
promote price discovery. The Exchange believes that this increased
displayed liquidity would potentially stimulate further price
competition for Retail Orders, thereby deepening the Exchange's
liquidity pool, enhancing market quality to the benefit of all Members
and investors by providing more trading opportunities, supporting price
discovery, and subjecting such transactions to the Exchange's
transparency, regulation, and oversight as a registered national
securities exchange.
    The Exchange notes that a significant percentage of the orders of
individual (i.e., retail) investors are executed over-the-counter.\15\
In addition, other exchanges maintain special pricing to encourage
entry of retail orders to their markets, in part, to compete against
the over-the-counter market.\16\ Without such pricing, the Exchange is
not currently competitive with such other exchanges. The Exchange
believes that it is thus appropriate to create a financial incentive to
bring more Retail Order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes
that investor protection and transparency is promoted by rewarding
displayed liquidity on exchanges, including the Exchange. By offering a
proposed ADRV Rebate of $0.0034, which is higher than the Exchange's
standard rebate of $0.0029 for executions of added displayed volume,
the Exchange believes it will encourage use of Retail Orders, while
maintaining consistency with the Exchange's overall pricing philosophy
of encouraging displayed liquidity. The Exchange places a higher value
on displayed liquidity because the Exchange believes that displayed
liquidity is a public good that benefits investors generally by
providing greater price transparency and enhancing public price
discovery, which ultimately lead to substantial reductions in
transaction costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., SEC Staff Report on Algorithmic Trading in U.S.
Capital Markets (August 5, 2020), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/Algo_Trading_Report_2020.pdf.
    \16\ See infra note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the proposed ADRV Rebate of
$0.0034 per share is reasonable and equitable because it is comparable
to, and competitive with, the rebates provided by other exchanges for
added displayed retail liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00
per share.\17\ The Exchange also believes that providing a rebate to
the liquidity adder, and charging a fee to the liquidity remover, with
respect to the execution of a displayed Retail Order is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is designed, and
the Exchange believes it is an appropriate effort, to incentivize
displayable liquidity provision on the Exchange, thereby contributing
to price discovery and price formation, consistent with the overall
goal of enhancing market quality. Moreover, the Exchange notes that
several other exchanges provide rebates to the liquidity adder, and
charge fees to the liquidity remover, with respect to executions of
retail orders, and that this aspect of the proposed ADRV Rebate does
not raise any new or novel issues that have not previously been
considered by the Commission in connection with the fees and rebates of
other exchanges.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC equities trading fee
schedule on its public website (available at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader.aspx?id=pricelisttrading2), which
reflects rebates to add displayed designated retail liquidity
ranging from $0.00325-$0.0033 per share depending on the percentage
add to total volume ratio, and a standard fee that generally applies
to retail orders that remove liquidity of $0.0030 per share; the
NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') equities trading fee schedule on its
public website (available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse-arca/NYSE_Arca_Marketplace_Fees.pdf), which reflects
rebates for retail orders that provide displayed liquidity ranging
from $0.0033-$0.0038 per share depending on the applicable tier; the
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe EDGX'') equities trading fee
schedule on its public website (available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/), which
reflects rebates for retail orders that add liquidity ranging from
$0.0032-$0.0037 per share depending on the applicable tier, and a
standard fee that generally applies to retail orders that remove
liquidity of $0.0027 per share.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange understands that Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \19\
prohibits an exchange from establishing rules that are designed to
permit unfair discrimination between market participants. However,
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act does not prohibit exchange members or other
broker-dealers from discriminating, so long as their activities are
otherwise consistent with the federal securities laws. While the
Exchange believes that markets and price discovery optimally function
through the interactions of diverse flow types, it also believes that
growth in internalization has required differentiation of Retail Order
flow from

other order flow types. The differentiation proposed herein by the
Exchange is not designed to permit unfair discrimination, but instead
to promote a competitive process around Retail Order executions such
that retail investors would receive better rebates on the Exchange than
they do currently in order to encourage entry of retail orders to the
Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposed ADRV Rebate
is not unfairly discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pricing for Transactions in Sub-Dollar Securities
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes with respect to
pricing for executions of transactions in Sub-Dollar Securities would
incentivize submission of additional liquidity in Sub-Dollar Securities
to the Exchange through the proposed rebate of 0.30% of the total
dollar value of any Added Sub-Dollar Volume transactions, thereby
promoting price discovery and transparency, and enhancing order
execution opportunities for all Members. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rebate for Added Sub-Dollar Volume is reasonable because it
would incentivize Members to direct more order flow in Sub-Dollar
Securities to the Exchange. The Exchange notes that other exchanges
provide rebates for liquidity-adding transactions in Sub-Dollar
Securities, but that these are denominated in dollar amounts per share
rather than a percentage of the total dollar amount of the
transaction.\20\ The Exchange expects that the proposed rebate for
Added Sub-Dollar Volume transactions would typically result in a higher
overall credit for a given transaction than the rebates offered by
other exchanges, although the Exchange notes that it may also result in
a lower overall credit for such transaction depending on the number of
shares traded and the total dollar value of the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., the Cboe EDGX equities trading fee schedule on
its public website (available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/), which reflects a rebate of
$0.00009 per share for liquidity-adding transactions in securities
priced below $1.00 per share; the NYSE Arca equities trading fee
schedule on its public website (available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse-arca/NYSE_Arca_Marketplace_Fees.pdf),
which reflects a rebate of $0.00004 per share for liquidity-adding
transactions in securities priced below $1.00 per share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee for Removed Sub-
Dollar Volume is reasonable because it is in line with the fees charged
by other exchanges for liquidity-removing transactions in Sub-Dollar
Securities.\21\ The Exchange believes that, given the competitive
environment in which the Exchange currently operates, the proposed
pricing structure, with an offsetting fee and rebate, with respect to
executions of transactions in Sub-Dollar Securities, is a reasonable
attempt to increase liquidity in Sub-Dollar Securities on the Exchange
and improve the Exchange's market share relative to its competitors
while remaining revenue neutral with respect to such transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, e.g., the Cboe EDGX equities trading fee schedule on
its public website (available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/), which reflects a fee of
0.30% of the total dollar value of the transaction for liquidity-
removing transactions in securities priced below $1.00 per share;
the Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. equities trading fee schedule on its
public website (available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/), which reflects a fee of 0.30% of the
total dollar value of the transaction for liquidity-removing
transactions in securities priced below $1.00 per share; the NYSE
Arca equities trading fee schedule on its public website (available
at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse-arca/NYSE_Arca_Marketplace_Fees.pdf), which reflects a fee of 0.295% of
the total dollar value for liquidity-taking transactions in
securities priced below $1.00 per share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee and rebate
structure applicable to executions of transactions in Sub-Dollar
Securities is equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory
because it applies equally to all Members and is reasonably related to
the value of the Exchange's market quality associated with higher
volume. A number of Members currently transact in Sub-Dollar Securities
and they, along with additional Members that choose to direct order
flow in Sub-Dollar Securities to the Exchange, would all qualify for
the proposed fee and rebate. The Exchange believes that maintaining or
increasing the proportion of transactions in Sub-Dollar Securities that
are executed on the Exchange would benefit all investors by deepening
the Exchange's liquidity pool, which would support price discovery,
promote market transparency and improve investor protection, further
rendering the proposed changes reasonable and equitable.
    In conclusion, the Exchange also submits that its proposed fee
structure satisfies the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of
the Act for the reasons discussed above in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
its Members and other persons using its facilities and is not designed
to unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers. As described more fully below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition, the Exchange believes that its
transaction pricing, including with respect to Retail Orders and
transactions in Sub-Dollar Securities, is subject to significant
competitive forces, and that the proposed fees and rebates described
herein are appropriate to address such forces.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as
discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would
encourage the submission of additional order flow, including Retail
Orders and orders in Sub-Dollar Securities, to the Exchange, thereby
promoting market depth, enhanced execution opportunities, as well as
price discovery and transparency for all Members. Furthermore, the
Exchange believes that the proposed changes would allow the Exchange to
compete more ably with other execution venues by providing more
competitive pricing for Added Displayed Retail Volume and transactions
in Sub-Dollar Securities, thereby making it a more desirable
destination venue for its customers. As a result, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes
``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders,
large and small.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes would incentivize
market participants to direct more order flow to the Exchange. Greater
liquidity benefits all Members by providing more trading opportunities
and encourages Members to send orders to the Exchange, thereby
contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which benefits all Members.
The proposed fees and rebates for Added Displayed Retail Volume and
transactions in Sub-Dollar Securities would be available to all
similarly-situated market participants, and, as such, the proposed
change would not impose a disparate burden on competition among market
participants on the Exchange. As such, the Exchange believes the
proposed changes would not impose any burden on intramarket competition
that is not necessary or

appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intermarket Competition
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. Members have
numerous alternative venues that they may participate on and direct
their order flow to, including 15 other equities exchanges and numerous
alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues. As noted
above, no single registered equities exchange currently has more than
approximately 16% of the total market share of executed volume of
equities trading, and the Exchange currently represents less than 1% of
the overall market share. Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly
competitive market, no single equities exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of order flow. Moreover, the Exchange
believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from
month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order
flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of products, in
response to new or different pricing structures being introduced into
the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's
transaction fees and rebates, including with respect to Added Displayed
Retail Volume and transactions in Sub-Dollar Securities, and market
participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchange
and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. As described above, the proposed changes are
competitive proposals through which the Exchange is seeking to
encourage certain order flow to be sent to the Exchange.
    Additionally, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \23\ The fact
that this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the
courts. In NetCoalition v. SEC, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows:
``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . .
As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and
sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-
routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders
for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .''.\24\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed fee change imposes any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra note 14.
    \24\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \25\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \26\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-MEMX-2020-14 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-MEMX-2020-14. 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-MEMX-2020-14, and should be submitted on
or before December 30, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26989 Filed 12-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 17829]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07008]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP21-659-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Compliance filing 3.29.21 Annual Fuel and Losses
Retention Calculations.
    Filed Date: 3/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20210329-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-660-000.
    Applicants: Bison Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Company Use Gas Annual Report 2021.
    Filed Date: 3/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20210329-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/12/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 30, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-07008 Filed 4-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 3, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19990-19991]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07649]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0807; FRL-9783-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Ohio; Ohio Ambient Air Quality Standards; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects an error in the codification in an
October 26, 2010, final rule under the Clean Air Act. This rule
approved revisions to Ohio regulations that consolidated air quality
standards in a new chapter of rules and adjusted the rule references
accordingly in various related rules. Of particular note is a revision
that adjusted the provision for measurements for comparison with the
particulate matter air quality standards. EPA erroneously codified
approval of the entirety of the rule, which may be misread as having
inadvertently approved several other provisions which were not
addressed in the October 26, 2010 final rule, and which EPA in separate
rulemaking had proposed to disapprove. Therefore, EPA is correcting its
action to clarify the codification to show that only one paragraph of
this rule was approved. This action simply makes the codification
consistent with the approval.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 3, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 26, 2010, EPA published a final
approval of Ohio rules consolidating the State's air quality standards
into Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-25 and modifying an assortment
of related rules, mostly providing test methods for measurements used
to assess attainment of those standards, so that these related rules
would properly reference the relocated air quality standard rules. This
action was published at 75 FR 65572 as a direct final rule.
    In codifying the approval of these rules, EPA erroneously appeared
to approve the entirety of the modified rules, even though in some
cases only one paragraph was addressed or modified. OAC 3745-17-03
included pertinent revisions in paragraph (A) specifying test methods
for the particulate matter air quality standards. However, OAC 3745-17-
03 also included numerous unrelated revisions that had not been
previously approved, most notably including revisions that EPA had
proposed to disapprove (see 70 FR 36901, published June 27, 2005).
EPA's notice of direct final rulemaking published October 26, 2010,
provided no discussion of the issues related to the other sections of
OAC 3745-17-03, reflecting the fact that EPA intended only to approve
and codify the revisions in OAC 3745-17-03(A). Therefore, EPA today is
correcting the codification for that action to indicate that only OAC
3745-17-03(A) of that rule is approved. This makes the codification
match the approval.

Correction

    In the codification published in the Federal Register on October
26, 2010 (75 FR 65572), on page 65574 in the second column, the
paragraph numbered (c)(138)(i)(A), erroneously reading: ``Ohio
Administrative Code Rule 3745-17-03 `Measurement methods and
procedures.', effective April 18, 2009,'' is corrected to read:
``Paragraph (A) of Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-17-03,
`Measurement methods and procedures.', effective April 18, 2009.''
    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary
to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing
notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that
there is good cause for making today's rule final without prior
proposal and opportunity for comment because EPA is merely correcting
an incorrect codification in a previous action. The corrected
codification reflects the revisions that EPA approved in its direct
final rule. We find that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B). Thus, notice and opportunity for public comment are
unnecessary.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is therefore
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). Because
the agency has made a ``good cause'' finding that this action is not
subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute as indicated in the Supplementary
Information section above, it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a
significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and
204 of UMRA. This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect
on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of governments, as
specified by Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    This technical correction action does not involve technical
standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of
environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has
taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630
(53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by examining the takings implications of
the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings'' issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose
an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to
make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the
agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This
determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2).
As stated previously, EPA had made such a good cause finding, including
the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of April 3,
2013. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This correction to 40 CFR 52 for Ohio
is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 11, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. Section 52.1870 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(151)(i)(A) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (151) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Paragraph (A) of Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-17-03,
``Measurement methods and procedures.'', effective April 18, 2009.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-07649 Filed 4-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 173 (Friday, September 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50751]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19541]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-346, OMB Control No. 3235-0392]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, Washington, DC 20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 15g-3

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (''PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
existing collection of information provided for in Rule 15g-3--Broker
or dealer disclosure of quotations and other information relating to
the penny stock market (17 CFR 240.15g-3) under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 15g-3 requires that brokers and dealers disclose to customers
current quotation prices or similar market information in connection
with transactions in penny stocks. The purpose of the rule is to
increase the level of disclosure to investors concerning penny stocks
generally and specific penny stock transactions.
    The Commission estimates that approximately 178 broker-dealers will
each spend an average of approximately 87.0833333 hours annually to
comply with this rule. Thus, the total time burden is approximately
15,501 hours per year.
    Rule 15g-3 contains record retention requirements. Compliance with
the rule is mandatory. The required records are available only to the
examination staff of the Commission and the self regulatory
organizations of which the broker-dealer is a member.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom,
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by
sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 7, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-19541 Filed 9-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P