[Federal Register: June 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 103)]
[Notices]
[Page 26252]
[DOCID:fr01jn09-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0224]

Small Entity Compliance Guide: Bottled Water: Residual
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a guidance for industry entitled ``Bottled Water:
Residual Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts--Small Entity
Compliance Guide'' for a direct final rule published in the Federal
Register of March 28, 2001. This small entity compliance guide (SECG)
is intended to set forth in plain language the requirements of the
regulation and to help small businesses understand the regulation.

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the SECG at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the SECG to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments
on the SECG to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written requests for
single copies of the SECG to the Division of Plant and Dairy Food
Safety (HFS-317), Office of Food Safety, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch
Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, or fax your request to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
electronic access to the SECG.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren Posnick Robin, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-317), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of March 28, 2001 (66 FR 16858), FDA issued
a direct final rule amending its bottled water quality standard
regulations by establishing allowable levels for three residual
disinfectants (chloramine, chlorine, and chlorine dioxide) and three
types of disinfection byproducts (DBPs) (bromate, chlorite, and
haloacetic acids (HAA5)), and by revising the existing allowable level
for the DBP total trihalomethanes (TTHM). FDA also revised, for the
three residual disinfectants and four types of DBPs only, the
monitoring requirement for source water found in the current good
manufacturing practice (CGMP) regulations for bottled water. On July 5,
2001 (66 FR 35373), FDA issued a technical amendment to correct an
editorial error and confirmed the effective date of January 1, 2002.
    FDA examined the economic implications of the direct final rule as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and
determined that the rule would have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. In compliance with section 212 of
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Public Law 104-
121), FDA is making available this SECG stating in plain language the
legal requirements of the March 28, 2001, direct final rule set forth
in 21 CFR parts 129 and 165 concerning the allowable levels and
monitoring requirements for the three residual disinfectants
(chloramine, chlorine, and chlorine dioxide) and four types of DBPs
(bromate, chlorite, HAA5, and TTHM).
    FDA is issuing this SECG as level 2 guidance consistent with FDA's
good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115(c)(2)). The SECG
represents the agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not
create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate
to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such
approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and
regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this SECG.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. The SECG and received comments may be
seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/guidance.html or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: May 22, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-12671 Filed 5-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10363-10367]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05217]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85318; File No. SR-MIAX-2019-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule

March 14, 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 March 1, 2019, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX
Options'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to modify certain of the Exchange's
system connectivity fees.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's principal
office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule regarding
connectivity to the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
amend Sections 5a) and b) of the Fee Schedule to increase the network
connectivity fees for the 1 Gigabit (``Gb'') fiber connection, the 10Gb
fiber connection, and the 10Gb ultra-low latency (``ULL'') fiber
connection, which are charged to both Members \3\ and non-Members of
the Exchange for connectivity to the Exchange's primary/secondary
facility. The Exchange also proposes to increase the network
connectivity fees for the 1Gb and 10Gb fiber connections for
connectivity to the Exchange's disaster recovery facility. Each of
these connections are shared connections, and thus can be utilized to
access both the Exchange and the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX PEARL, LLC
(``MIAX PEARL''). These proposed fee increases are collectively
referred to herein as the ``Proposed Fee Increases.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange initially filed the Proposed Fee Increases on July 31,
2018, designating the Proposed Fee Increases effective August 1,
2018.\4\ The First Proposed Rule Change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on August 13, 2018.\5\ The Commission received one
comment letter on the proposal.\6\ The Proposed Fee Increases remained
in effect until they were temporarily suspended pursuant to a
suspension order (the ``Suspension Order'') issued by the Commission on
September 17, 2018.\7\ The Suspension Order also instituted proceedings
to determine whether to approve or

disapprove the First Proposed Rule Change.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83786 (August 7,
2018), 83 FR 40106 (August 13, 2018) (SR-MIAX-2018-19). (The ``First
Proposed Rule Change'').
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ See Letter from Tyler Gellasch, Executive Director, The
Healthy Markets Association, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Commission, dated September 4, 2018 (``Healthy Markets Letter'').
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-84175 (September
17, 2018), 83 FR 47955 (September 21, 2018) (SR-MIAX-2018-19)
(Suspension of and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine
Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Fee Schedule Regarding Connectivity Fees for Members and Non-
Members).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Healthy Markets Letter argued that the Exchange did not provide
sufficient information in its filing to support a finding that the
proposal is consistent with the Act. Specifically, the Healthy Markets
Letter objected to the Exchange's reliance on the fees of other
exchanges to demonstrate that its fee increases are consistent with the
Act. In addition, the Healthy Markets Letter argued that the Exchange
did not offer any details to support its basis for asserting that the
proposed fee increases are consistent with the Act.
    On October 5, 2018, the Exchange withdrew the First Proposed Rule
Change.\9\ The Exchange refiled the Proposed Fee Increases on September
18, 2018, designating the Proposed Fee Increases immediately
effective.\10\ The Second Proposed Rule Change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on October 10, 2018.\11\ The Commission
received one comment letter on the proposal.\12\ The Proposed Fee
Increases remained in effect until they were temporarily suspended
pursuant to a suspension order (the ``Second Suspension Order'') issued
by the Commission on October 3, 2018.\13\ The Second Suspension Order
also instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the Second Proposed Rule Change.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84398 (October 10,
2018), 83 FR 52264 (October 16, 2018) (SR-MIAX-2018-19 (Notice of
Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule
Regarding Connectivity Fees for Members and Non-Members).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84357 (October 3,
2018), 83 FR 50976 (October 10, 2018) (SR-MIAX-2018-25). (The
``Second Proposed Rule Change''.) (Notice of Filing of a Proposed
Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule Regarding Connectivity Fees
for Members and Non-Members; Suspension of and Order Instituting
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Change).
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ See Letter from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, and Ellen Greene, Managing Director
Financial Services Operations, The Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association (``SIFMA''), to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Commission, dated October 15, 2018 (``SIFMA Letter'').
    \13\ See supra note 10.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SIFMA Letter argued that the Exchange did not provide
sufficient information in its filing to support a finding that the
proposal should be approved by the Commission after further review of
the proposed fee increases. Specifically, the SIFMA Letter objected to
the Exchange's reliance on the fees of other exchanges to justify its
own fee increases. In addition, the SIFMA Letter argued that the
Exchange did not offer any details to support its basis for asserting
that the proposed fee increases are reasonable. On November 23, 2018,
the Exchange withdrew the Second Proposed Rule Change.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84650 (November 26,
2018), 83 FR 61705 (November 30, 2018) (SR-MIAX-2018-25) (Notice of
Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule
Regarding Connectivity Fees for Members and Non-Members.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is now re-filing the Proposed Fee Increases, and is
also providing new information, including providing additional detail
about the market participants impacted by the Proposed Fee Increases,
as well as the additional costs incurred by the Exchange associated
with providing the connectivity alternatives, in order to provide more
transparency and support relating to the Exchange's belief that the
Proposed Fee Increases are reasonable, equitable, and non-
discriminatory, and to provide sufficient information for the
Commission to determine that the Proposed Fee Increases are consistent
with the Act. The proposed rule change is immediately effective upon
filing with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.
    The Exchange currently offers various bandwidth alternatives for
connectivity to the Exchange, to its primary and secondary facilities,
consisting of a 1Gb fiber connection, a 10Gb fiber connection, and a
10Gb ULL fiber connection. The 10Gb ULL offering uses an ultra-low
latency switch, which provides faster processing of messages sent to it
in comparison to the switch used for the other types of connectivity.
The Exchange currently assesses the following monthly network
connectivity fees to both Members and non-Members for connectivity to
the Exchange's primary/secondary facility: (a) $1,100 for the 1Gb
connection; (b) $5,500 for the 10Gb connection; and (c) $8,500 for the
10Gb ULL connection. The Exchange also assesses to both Members and
non-Members a monthly per connection network connectivity fee of $500
for each 1Gb connection to the disaster recovery facility and a monthly
per connection network connectivity fee of $2,500 for each 10Gb
connection to the disaster recovery facility.
    The Exchange's MIAX Express Network Interconnect (``MENI'') can be
configured to provide Members and non-Members of the Exchange network
connectivity to the trading platforms, market data systems, test
systems, and disaster recovery facilities of both the Exchange and its
affiliate, MIAX PEARL, via a single, shared connection. Members and
non-Members utilizing the MENI to connect to the trading platforms,
market data systems, test systems and disaster recovery facilities of
the Exchange and MIAX PEARL via a single, shared connection are
assessed only one monthly network connectivity fee per connection,
regardless of the trading platforms, market data systems, test systems,
and disaster recovery facilities accessed via such connection.
    The Exchange proposes to increase the monthly network connectivity
fees for such connections for both Members and non-Members. The network
connectivity fees for connectivity to the Exchange's primary/secondary
facility will be increased as follows: (a) From $1,100 to $1,400 for
the 1Gb connection; (b) from $5,500 to $6,100 for the 10Gb connection;
and (c) from $8,500 to $9,300 for the 10Gb ULL connection. The network
connectivity fees for connectivity to the Exchange's disaster recovery
facility will be increased as follows: (a) From $500 to $550 for the
1Gb connection; and (b) from $2,500 to $2,750 for the 10Gb connection.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \16\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \17\ in
particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among Exchange Members and
issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange also believes the proposal
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \18\ 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 and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customer, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, in that the Proposed Fee Changes are fair,
equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory, because the fees for the
connectivity alternatives available on the Exchange, as proposed to be
increased, are competitive and market-driven. The U.S. options markets
are highly competitive (there are currently 16 options markets) and a
reliance on competitive markets is an

appropriate means to ensure equitable and reasonable prices.
    The Exchange acknowledges that there is no regulatory requirement
that any market participant connect to the Exchange, or that any
participant connect at any specific connection speed. The rule
structure for options exchanges are, in fact, fundamentally different
from those of equities exchanges. The Exchange further recognizes that
the decision of whether to connect to the Exchange is separate and
distinct from the decision of whether and how to trade on the Exchange.
The Exchange acknowledges that many firms may choose to connect to the
Exchange, but ultimately not trade on it.
    The Exchange \19\ and MIAX PEARL \20\ are comprised of 41 distinct
Members between the two exchanges, excluding any additional affiliates
of such Members that are also Members of MIAX Options, MIAX PEARL, or
both. Of those 41 distinct Members, 33 Members have purchased the 1Gb,
10Gb, 10Gb ULL connections or some combination of multiple various
connections. Furthermore, every Member who has purchased at least one
connection also trades on the Exchange, MIAX PEARL, or both, with the
exception of one new Member who is currently in the on-boarding
process. The 8 remaining Members who have not purchased any
connectivity to the Exchange are still able to trade on the Exchange
indirectly through other Members or non-Member service bureaus that are
connected. These 8 Members who have not purchased connectivity are not
forced or compelled to purchase connectivity, and they retain all of
the other benefits of Membership with the Exchange. Accordingly,
Members have the choice to purchase connectivity and are not compelled
to do so in any way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Exchange has 38 distinct Members, excluding affiliated
entities. See MIAX Options Exchange Member Directory, available at
https://www.miaxoptions.com/exchange-members.
    \20\ MIAX PEARL has 36 distinct Members, excluding affiliated
entities. See MIAX PEARL Exchange Member Directory, available at
https://www.miaxoptions.com/exchange-members/pearl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to options trading, the Exchange had only 4.39% market
share of the U.S. options industry in 2018 in Equity/ETF classes
according to the OCC.\21\ For all of 2018, the Exchange's affiliate,
MIAX PEARL, had only 4.82% market share of the U.S. options industry in
Equity/ETF classes according to the OCC.\22\ The Exchange is aware of
no evidence that a combined market share of less than 10% provides the
Exchange with anti-competitive pricing power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Exchange Market Share of Equity Products--2018, The
Options Clearing Corporation, available at https://www.theocc.com/webapps/exchange-volume.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separately, the Exchange is not aware of any reason why market
participants could not simply drop their connections and cease being
Members of the Exchange if the Exchange were to establish unreasonable
and uncompetitive price increases for its connectivity alternatives. No
options market participant is required by rule, regulation, or
competitive forces to be a Member of the Exchange. Several market
participants choose not to be Members of the Exchange and choose not to
access the Exchange, and several market participants also access the
Exchange indirectly through another market participant. To illustrate,
the Exchange has only 45 Members (including all such Members' affiliate
Members). However, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'') has over 200
members,\23\ Nasdaq ISE, LLC has approximately 100 members,\24\ and
NYSE American LLC has over 80 members.\25\ If all market participants
were required to be Members of the Exchange and connect directly to the
Exchange, the Exchange would have over 200 Members, in line with Cboe's
total membership. But it does not. The Exchange only has 45 Members
(inclusive of Members' affiliates).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Form 1/A, filed August 30, 2018 (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/1800/18002831.pdf); Form 1/A, filed August 30,
2018 (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/1800/18002833.pdf);
Form 1/A, filed July 24, 2018 (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/1800/18002781.pdf); Form 1/A, filed August 30, 2018 (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1473845/999999999718007832/9999999997-18-007832-index.htm).
    \24\ See Form 1/A, filed July 1, 2016 (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/1601/16019243.pdf).
    \25\ See https://www.nyse.com/markets/american-options/membership#directory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange finds it compelling that all of the Exchange's
existing Members continued to purchase the Exchange's connectivity
services during the period for which the Proposed Fee Increases took
effect in August 2018. In particular, the Exchange believes that the
Proposed Fee Increases are reasonable because the Exchange did not lose
any Members (or the number of connections each Member purchased) or
non-Member connections due to the Exchange increasing its connectivity
fees through the First Proposed Rule Change, which fee increase became
effective August 1, 2018. For example, in July 2018, fourteen (14)
Members purchased 1Gb connections, ten (10) Members purchased 10Gb
connections, and fifteen (15) Members purchased 10Gb ULL connections.
(The Exchange notes that 1Gb connections are purchased primarily by EEM
Members; 10Gb ULL connections are purchased primarily by higher volume
Market Makers quoting all products across both MIAX and MIAX PEARL; and
10Gb connections are purchased by higher volume EEMs and lower volume
Market Makers.) The vast majority of those Members purchased multiple
such connections with the actual number of connections depending on the
Member's throughput requirements based on the volume of their quote/
order traffic associated with their business model. After the fee
increase, beginning August 1, 2018, the same number of Members
purchased the same number of connections.\26\ Furthermore, the total
number of connections did not decrease from July to August 2018, and in
fact one Member even purchased two (2) additional 10Gb ULL connections
in August 2018, after the fee increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Exchange notes that one Member downgraded one
connection in July, however such downgrade was done well ahead of
notice of the Proposed Fee Increase and was the result of a change
to the Member's business operation that was completely independent
of, and unrelated to, the Proposed Fee Increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, in July 2018, four (4) non-Members purchased 1Gb connections,
two (2) non-Members purchased 10Gb connections, and one (1) non-Member
purchased 10Gb ULL connections. After the fee increase, beginning
August 1, 2018, the same non-Members purchased the same number of
connections across all available alternatives and two (2) additional
non-Members purchased three (3) more connections after the fee
increase. These non-Members freely purchased their connectivity with
the Exchange in order to offer trading services to other firms and
customers, as well as access to the market data services that their
connections to the Exchange provide them, but they are not required or
compelled to purchase any of the Exchange's connectivity options.
    Of those Members and non-Members that bought multiple connections,
no firm dropped any connections beginning August 1, 2018, when the
Exchange increased its fees. Nor did the Exchange lose any Members.
Furthermore, the Exchange did not receive any comment letters or
official complaints from any Member or non-Member purchaser of
connectivity regarding the increased fees regarding how the fee
increase was unreasonable, unduly burdensome, or would negatively
impact their competitiveness

amongst other market participants. Therefore, the Exchange believes
that the Proposed Fee Increases are fair, equitable, and non-
discriminatory, as the fees are competitive.
    The Exchange believes that the Proposed Fee Increases are equitably
allocated among Members and non-Members, as evidenced by the fact that
the fee increases are allocated across all connectivity alternatives,
and there is not a disproportionate number of Members purchasing any
alternative--fourteen (14) Members purchased 1Gb connections, ten (10)
Members purchased 10Gb connections, fifteen (15) Members purchased 10Gb
ULL connections, four (4) non-Members purchased 1Gb connections, two
(2) non-Members purchased 10Gb connections, and one (1) non-Member
purchased 10Gb ULL connections. The Exchange recognizes that the
relative fee increases are 27% for the 1Gb connection, 10.9% for the
10Gb connection, and 9.4% for the 10Gb ULL connection, but the Exchange
believes that percentage increase differentiation is appropriate, given
the different levels of service provided and the largest percentage
increase being associated with the lowest cost connection.
    Second, the Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act because the Proposed Fee Increases allow the
Exchange to recover a portion (less than all) of the increased costs
incurred by the Exchange associated with providing and maintaining the
necessary hardware and other infrastructure to support this technology
since it last filed to increase its connectivity fees in December 2016,
which became effective on January 1, 2017.\27\ Put simply, the costs of
the Exchange to provide these services have increased considerably over
this time, as more fully-detailed and quantified below. The Exchange
believes that it is reasonable and appropriate to increase its fees
charged for use of its connectivity to partially offset the increased
costs the Exchange incurred during this time associated with
maintaining and enhancing a state-of-the-art exchange network
infrastructure in the U.S. options industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79666 (December 22,
2016), 81 FR 96133 (December 29, 2016) (SR-MIAX-2016-47) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Fee Schedule To Modify the Exchange's Connectivity Fees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange's increased costs associated with
supporting its network are due to several factors, including increased
costs associated with maintaining and expanding a team of highly-
skilled network engineers (the Exchange also hired additional network
engineering staff in 2017 and 2018), increasing fees charged by the
Exchange's third-party data center operator, and costs associated with
projects and initiatives designed to improve overall network
performance and stability, through the Exchange's R&D efforts.
    In order to provide more detail and to quantify the Exchange's
increased costs, the Exchange notes that increased costs are associated
with the infrastructure and increased headcount to fully-support the
advances in infrastructure and expansion of network level services,
including customer monitoring, alerting and reporting. Additional
technology expenses were incurred related to the expanding its
Information Security services, monitoring and remediation, as well as
Regulation SCI mandated processes associated with network technology.
All of these additional expenses have been incurred by the Exchange
since it last increased its connectivity fees on January 1, 2017.
Examples include an approximate 70% increase in technology-related
personnel costs in infrastructure, due to expansion of services/
support; an approximate 10% increase in datacenter costs due to price
increases and footprint expansion; an approximate 5% increase in
vendor-supplied dark fiber due to price increases and expanded
capabilities; and a 30% increase in market data connectivity fees. The
Exchange also incurred significant capital expenditures over this same
period to upgrade and enhance the underlying technology components, as
more fully-detailed below.
    Further, because the costs of operating a data center are
significant and not economically feasible for the Exchange, the
Exchange does not operate its own data centers, and instead contracts
with a third-party data center provider. The Exchange notes that
larger, dominant exchange operators own/operate their data centers,
which offers them greater control over their data center costs. Because
those exchanges own and operate their data centers as profit centers,
the Exchange is subject to additional costs. As a result, the Exchange
is subject to fee increases from its data center provider, which the
Exchange experienced in 2017 and 2018 of approximately 10%, as cited
above.
    Further, the Exchange invests significant resources in network R&D
to improve the overall performance and stability of its network. For
example, the Exchange has a number of network monitoring tools (some of
which were developed in-house, and some of which are licensed from
third-parties), that continually monitor, detect, and report network
performance, many of which serve as significant value-adds to the
Exchange's Members and enable the Exchange to provide a high level of
customer service. These tools detect and report performance issues, and
thus enable the Exchange to proactively notify a Member (and the SIPs)
when the Exchange detects a problem with a Member's connectivity. The
costs associated with the maintenance and improvement of existing tools
and the development of new tools resulted in significant increased cost
to the Exchange since January 1, 2017.
    Certain recently developed network aggregation and monitoring tools
provide the Exchange with the ability to measure network traffic with a
much more granular level of variability. This is important as Exchange
Members demand a higher level of network determinism and the ability to
measure variability in terms of single digit nanoseconds. Also, the
Exchange routinely conducts R&D projects to improve the performance of
the network's hardware infrastructure. As an example, in the last year,
the Exchange's R&D efforts resulted in a performance improvement,
requiring the purchase of new equipment to support that improvement,
and thus resulting in increased costs in the hundreds of thousands of
dollars range. In sum, the costs associated with maintaining and
enhancing a state-of-the-art exchange network infrastructure in the
U.S. options industry is a significant expense for the Exchange that
continues to increase, and thus the Exchange believes that it is
reasonable to offset a portion of those increased costs by increasing
its network connectivity fees, as proposed herein. Overall, the
Proposed Fee Increases are projected to offset only a portion of the
Exchange's increased network connectivity costs that were incurred by
the Exchange since it last adjusted its connectivity fees.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that other exchanges have similar connectivity
alternatives for their participants, including similar low-latency
connectivity. For example, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx''), NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``Arca''), NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'') and Nasdaq ISE, LLC
(``ISE'') all offer a 1Gb, 10Gb and 10Gb low latency ethernet
connectivity alternatives to each of their participants.\29\ The
Exchange further

notes that Phlx, ISE, Arca and NYSE American each charge higher rates
for such similar connectivity to primary and secondary facilities.\30\
Additionally, the Exchange's proposed connectivity fees to its disaster
recovery facility are within the range of the fees charged by other
exchanges for similar connectivity alternatives.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Phlx and ISE Rules, General Equity and Options Rules,
General 8, Section 1(b). Phlx and ISE each charge a monthly fee of
$2,500 for each 1Gb connection, $10,000 for each 10Gb connection and
$15,000 for each 10Gb Ultra connection, which the equivalent of the
Exchange's 10Gb ULL connection. See also NYSE American Fee Schedule,
Section V.B, and Arca Fees and Charges, Co-Location Fees. NYSE
American and Arca each charge a monthly fee of $5,000 for each 1Gb
circuit, $14,000 for each 10Gb circuit and $22,000 for each 10Gb LX
circuit, which the equivalent of the Exchange's 10Gb ULL connection.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ See Nasdaq ISE, Options Rules, Options 7, Pricing Schedule,
Section 11.D. (charging $3,000 for disaster recovery testing &
relocation services); see also Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'') Fees
Schedule, p. 14, Cboe Command Connectivity Charges (charging a
monthly fee of $2,000 for a 1Gb disaster recovery network access
port and a monthly fee of $6,000 for a 10Gb disaster recovery
network access port).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In particular, the Exchange has
received no official complaints from Members or others who connect to
it that its fees or the Proposed Fee Increases are negatively impacting
or would negatively impact their abilities to compete with other market
participants. Further, the Exchange is unaware of any assertion that
its existing fee levels or the Proposed Fee Increases would somehow
unduly impair its competition with other options exchanges. To the
contrary, if the fees charged are deemed too high by market
participants, they can simply disconnect.
    While the Exchange recognizes the distinction between connecting to
an exchange and trading at the exchange, the Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive options market in which market
participants can readily connect and trade with venues they desire. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to
remain competitive with other exchanges. The Exchange believes that the
proposed changes reflect this competitive environment.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\32\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \33\ thereunder.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \33\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2019-10 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-MIAX-2019-10. 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-MIAX-2019-10 and should be submitted on
or before April 10, 2019.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-05217 Filed 3-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8362-8363]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01420]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0008]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Tombigbee River, Naheola, AL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Meridian & Bigbee Railroad (MNBR)
vertical lift bridge across the Tombigbee River, mile 128.6 (Black
Warrior Tombigbee Waterway mile 173.6) at Naheola, between Choctaw and
Marengo Counties, Alabama. The deviation is necessary to conduct
maintenance essential for the continued safe operation of the bridge.
This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation
position for certain daytime hours for two (2) three day periods
between Friday, January 20, 2017, and Sunday, January 29, 2017.

DATES: This temporary deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on Friday,
January 20, 2017, through 6 p.m. on Sunday, January 29, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0008] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Giselle MacDonald, Bridge
Administration Branch, Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Meridian & Bigbee Railroad (MNBR)
requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule of the
Meridian & Bigbee (MNBR) vertical lift bridge across the Tombigbee
River, mile 128.6 (Black Warrior Tombigbee Waterway mile 173.6) at
Naheola, between Choctaw and Marengo Counties, Alabama, in order to
replace the mitre rails, which are essential for the continued safe
operation of the bridge. The current bridge operating schedule is found
in 33 CFR 117.118, and the bridge has a vertical clearance of 12.2 feet
above ordinary high water (OHW), elevation of 64.5 feet, in the closed-
to-navigation position and 55 feet above OHW in the open-to-navigation
position.
    This deviation will allow the bridge to remain in the closed-to-
navigation position from 7 a.m. until 6 p.m., each day, January 20,
2017, through January 22, 2017, and from 7 a.m. until 6 p.m., each day,
January 27, 2017, through January 29, 2017, with a scheduled two-hour
opening, from 11 a.m. until 1 p.m., each day to facilitate passage of
vessel traffic. The bridge will be open-to-navigation to facilitate
vessel traffic at night.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so at any time. Navigation on the waterway consists of tugs with
tows, fishing vessels, and recreational craft.
    The Coast Guard will inform the waterways users through Local and
Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for
the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: January 17, 2017.
Eric Washburn,
Bridge Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-01420 Filed 1-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 26476]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11763]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 8005-006]

Moomaws Dam Hydroelectric Corporation, Columbia Mills
Hydroelectric Limited Partnership; Notice of Transfer of Exemption

    1. By letter filed April 26, 2017, Moomaws Dam Hydroelectric
Corporation informed the Commission that the exemption from licensing
for the Moomaws Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 8005, originally issued
June 21, 1984 \1\ has been transferred to the Columbia Mills
Hydroelectric Limited Partnership. The project is located on the Maury
River in Rockbridge County, Virginia. The transfer of an exemption does
not require Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Order Granting Exemption from Licensing of a Small Project
of 5 Megawatts or Less. Rockfish Corporation, Inc., 27 FERC ] 62,331
(1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Columbia Mills Hydroelectric Limited Partnership is now the
exemptee of the Moomaws Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 8005. All
correspondence should be forwarded to: Mr. Gregory Cloutier, President
and Mr. William Allin, Vice President, Columbia Mills Hydroelectric
Limited Partnership, c/o Powerhouse Systems, Inc., 80A Elm Street,
Lancaster, NH 03584, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 1, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-11763 Filed 6-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 64262-64263]
[DOCID:fr15no07-111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56771; File No. SR-CHX-2005-34]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto
Regarding Cancellation of the Stock Leg of a Stock-Option Order and
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Amendment
No. 3 Thereto

November 8, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On November 14, 2005, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to permit the cancellation of the stock leg of a
stock-option order \3\ if market conditions in a non-Exchange market
prevent the options leg of the order from being executed at the agreed
upon price. On July 11, 2006, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as amended, was
published for comment in the Federal Register on July 27, 2006.\4\ The
Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. The Exchange
filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change on October 22, 2007,
and withdrew Amendment No. 2 on November 5, 2007. On November 5, 2007,
CHX filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposal.\5\ This order approves the

proposed rule change, as amended. In addition, the Commission is
publishing notice to solicit comment on, and is simultaneously
approving on an accelerated basis, Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ A ``stock-option order'' would be defined as an order to buy
or sell a stated number of units of an underlying or a related
security coupled with either (i) the purchase or sale of option
contract(s) on the opposite side of the market representing either
the same number of units of the underlying or related security or
the number of units of the underlying security necessary to create a
delta-neutral or delta-hedged position or (ii) the purchase or sale
of an equal number of put and call option contracts, each having the
same exercise price, expiration date and each representing the same
number of units of stock as, and on the opposite side of the market
from, the underlying or related security portion of the order. See
CHX's proposed Interpretation and Policy .01(b) to Rule 9 under
Article 20.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54185 (July 20,
2006), 71 FR 42693 (``Notice'').
    \5\ In Amendment No. 3, CHX made revisions to the proposed rule
text and purpose section of the proposal to conform the proposal
with changes to the Exchange's trading model that were approved by
the Commission after publication of the Notice. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 54550 (September 29, 2006), 71 FR 59563
(October 10, 2006). In addition, in Amendment No. 3 CHX added a
representation to the proposal that would require CHX to establish a
special trade indicator for stock-option orders prior to the
proposal becoming operative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 9 under Article 20 to
add new Interpretation and Policy .01, to permit the cancellation of
the stock leg of a stock-option order if market conditions in a non-
Exchange market prevent the options leg of the order from being
executed at the agreed-upon price.\6\ The market conditions that would
be sufficient to justify cancellation of the stock leg of a stock-
option order include a sudden change in the price of the options
involved in the transaction prior to execution of the trade or a
trading halt or systems failure that precludes immediate execution of
the options leg at the agreed upon price. The Exchange's proposed rule
also would require CHX floor participants that handle stock-option
orders that are cancelled in accordance with the proposed rule to
maintain records ``sufficient to establish that market conditions in a
non-Exchange market prevented the execution of the option leg(s).'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CHX represented that the stock leg of a stock-option order
always would be presented to the CHX with an identified buyer and
seller who have agreed to the terms of the trade, and that both the
buyer and seller would be aware of the possibility that the stock
leg of a stock-option order may be cancelled on the CHX if the
corresponding options leg is not executed because of market
conditions. See Notice, supra note 5.
    \7\ See CHX's proposed Interpretation and Policy .01(c) to
Exchange Rule 9 under Article 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change, the Exchange
amended the proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to state that it
would not become operative until a special trade indicator to identify
stock transactions that are part of stock-option orders is implemented.
The purpose of this trade indicator would be to provide notice to
market participants that these stock trades could be cancelled. This
trade indicator must be used on such transactions reported through the
Consolidated Tape Association Plan and the Nasdaq/UTP Plan.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\8\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ which requires, among other things, that
the rules of a national securities exchange be 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. The
Commission notes that the Exchange's proposed Interpretation and Policy
.01 to Exchange Rule 9 under Article 20 is substantially similar to
current Rule 6.48(b) of the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated, which permits cancellation of the options leg of a stock-
option order under the same circumstances described in the Exchange's
proposed rule. Accordingly, the Commission finds that it is reasonable
for the Exchange to provide CHX floor participants with the ability to
cancel the stock leg of a stock-option order in certain limited
circumstances when market conditions prevent the completion of the
options leg of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 3
to the proposed rule change prior to 30 days after the date of
publication of notice of filing thereof in the Federal Register. This
amendment will ensure that, before the proposed rule change becomes
operative, an indicator is developed that will make transparent the
potential cancellation of stock-option orders. Accordingly, the
Commission finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 3 to the
proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change,
including whether Amendment No. 3 to 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-CHX-2005-34 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2005-34. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2005-34 and should be
submitted on or before December 6, 2007.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CHX-2005-34), as amended, is
approved, and that Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change (SR-CHX-
2005-34) is approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-22336 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 19, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9989-9990]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 573

[Docket No. FDA-2017-F-0969]

Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals;
Spent Bleaching Clay

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification; petition for rulemaking; amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is
amending a notice of petition announcing that the Canadian Oilseed
Processors Association has filed a petition proposing that the food
additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of spent
bleaching clay as a flow agent in canola meal for all livestock and
poultry species. Additionally, the petition proposes that the
regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of silicon dioxide
and diatomaceous earth for use as components of spent bleaching clay.
This petition included a request for categorical exclusion, but after
review we determined the petitioner should prepare an environmental
assessment (EA). The petitioner has prepared and submitted an EA, which
at this time is being placed in the docket for public review and
comment.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the petitioner's
environmental assessment by April 18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before April 18, 2019. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of April 18, 2019. Comments received
by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as

well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and
identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in
``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2017-F-0969 for ``Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking
Water of Animals; Spent Bleaching Clay.'' Received comments, those
filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket
and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chelsea Trull, Center for Veterinary
Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, (HFV-224), 7519 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 409(b)(5) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5)), notice was given in the
Federal Register of April 18, 2017 (82 FR 18268), that a food additive
petition (FAP 2299) has been filed by the Canadian Oilseed Processors
Association, 404-167 Lombard Ave., Winnipeg MB R3B 0T6, Canada. The
petition proposes to amend Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) in part 573 Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water
of Animals (21 CFR part 573) to provide for the safe use of spent
bleaching clay as a flow agent in canola meal for all livestock and
poultry species. Additionally, the submission proposes that the
existing regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of silicon
dioxide (21 CFR 573.940) and diatomaceous earth (21 CFR 573.340) for
use as components of spent bleaching clay.
    This petition included a request for categorical exclusion, but
after review we determined the proposed action on spent bleaching clay
does not meet the criteria for a categorical exclusion under 21 CFR
25.32(r). The petitioner has prepared and submitted an EA.
    We are reviewing the potential environmental impact of this
petition. To encourage public participation consistent with regulations
issued under the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1501.4(b)),
we are placing the EA submitted with the petition that is the subject
of this notice on public display at the Dockets Management Staff (see
DATES and ADDRESSES) for public review and comment.
    We will also place on public display, at the Dockets Management
Staff and at https://www.regulations.gov, any amendments to, or
comments on, the petitioner's EA without further announcement in the
Federal Register. If, based on our review, we find that an
environmental impact statement is not required, and this petition
results in a regulation, we will publish the notice of availability of
our finding of no significant impact and the evidence supporting that
finding with the regulation in the Federal Register in accordance with
21 CFR 25.51(b).

    Dated: March 13, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-05103 Filed 3-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 51 (Friday, March 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9565-9567]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04809]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85288; File No. SR-DTC-2018-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or
Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Settlement Guide
Procedures To Provide Status Information for Institutional Transactions
to a Matching Utility

March 11, 2019.
    On November 29, 2018, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC''), filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change, to allow DTC to share status information with matching
utilities (SR-DTC-2018-010), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on December 12, 2018.\3\ As of March 11, 2019, the
Commission has received one comment letter to the proposed rule
change.\4\ On December 26, 2018, the Commission extended the time
period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, to March 12, 2019.\5\
This order institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
\6\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84751 (December 7,
2018), 83 FR 63948 (December 12, 2018) (SR-DTC-2018-010)
(``Notice'').
    \4\ Letter from Mari-Anne Pisarri, Chief Financial Officer,
Pickard Djinis and Pisarri LLP, dated January 2, 2019, to Eduardo A.
Aleman, Assistant Secretary, Commission, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-dtc-2018-010/srdtc2018010-4842066-77179.pdf
(``SS&C Letter'').
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84954 (December 26,
2018), 84 FR 873 (January 31, 2019) (SR-DTC-2018-010).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

Background

    DTC proposed to amend the procedures, set forth in the DTC
Settlement Service Guide (``Settlement Guide''),\7\ to allow DTC to
provide status information (``Status Information'') for institutional
transactions in eligible securities (``Institutional Transactions'')
\8\ to an entity providing a matching service (``Matching
Utility''),\9\ as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Each capitalized term not otherwise defined herein has its
respective meaning as set forth in the Rules, By-Laws and
Organization Certificate of The Depository Trust Company
(``Rules''), available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.aspx and the Settlement Service Guide, available at
http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/service-guides/
Settlement.pdf.
    \8\ DTC defined in the Notice an Institutional Transaction as a
securities transaction between a broker-dealer and its institutional
customer (e.g., sell-side firms, buy-side institutions, and
custodians).
    \9\ A ``matching service'' is defined in the Settlement Guide as
an electronic service to match trade information, centrally, between
a broker-dealer and its institutional customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the Settlement Guide, for a Matching Utility to
establish and maintain a connection with DTC, the Matching Utility must
be able to balance with DTC in an automated way \10\ and communicate
transactions to and from DTC with information required though mandated
fields in order to provide DTC with data necessary for it to be able to
process a transaction.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For each Matching Utility interfacing with DTC, DTC
requires the Matching Utility to deliver a daily message on each
business day shortly after noon from the Matching Utility with their
accepted item counts of institutional delivery and ID Net
transaction totals for Settlement Date minus one transactions. DTC's
system will compare the totals from the Matching Utility to its
accepted item counts. If the totals match, an ``acknowledged
balance'' balance file will be sent to the Matching Utility. If the
totals do not match, DTC will respond with the list of Settlement
Date minus one control numbers received from the Matching Utility,
along with their respective transaction types for the originating
Matching Utility to compare. Id.
    \11\ The mandated fields for this purpose are the transaction
control number (``Control Number''), DTC receiver and deliverer
account numbers, CUSIP, message type, share quantity, market type,
buy-sell indicator, broker ID, ID agent internal account number,
broker internal account number, agent bank ID, settlement amount,
origination entity, recipient of message, institution, and
settlement date. Id. Institutional Transactions that are not
Affirmed Transactions, but which include a Control Number, may be
submitted directly by Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The submission of an Affirmed Transaction by the Matching Utility
to DTC, on behalf of a Participant, constitutes the duly authorized
instruction of the Participant to DTC to process the Affirmed
Transaction in accordance with the Rules and Procedures.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    A transaction submitted to DTC for processing may be subject to a
processing exception (``Exception''), causing it to pend in the DTC
system or not be processed because the transaction does not satisfy
certain requirements and/or controls set forth in the Rules and Service
Guide. A Matching Utility that has submitted an Institutional
Transaction to DTC, or is otherwise involved with the matching of a
transaction, does not receive Status Information regarding the
transaction and is therefore unable to provide services to facilitate
resolution of processing Exceptions occurring at DTC. Therefore, in
order to resolve an Exception, the Participants to an Institutional
Transaction must (i) access Status Information directly through the DTC
Settlement User Interface and (ii), as necessary, supply the
information to their customers that are counterparties to the
transaction on their books, in order to facilitate the coordination of
the resolution of the Exception among the counterparties.

Proposed Rule Change

    DTC received a request from its Matching Utility affiliate, ITP
Matching (US) LLC (``ITP''), to receive Status Information so that ITP
may transmit the Status Information to counterparties in a centralized
format. DTC believes that distribution of Status Information to
relevant counterparties in a centralized format would facilitate
Participants' ability to monitor Exceptions and coordinate with their
institutional customers in order to resolve Exceptions.
    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, in order to facilitate more
seamless transmission of the Status Information for (i) Affirmed
Transactions and (ii) other Institutional Transactions that may have
been confirmed at a Matching Utility and received a Control Number, and
are submitted directly to DTC by a Participant in an instruction
containing the Control Number, (collectively, ``Eligible
Transactions'') to Participants and facilitate their ability to manage
Exceptions, DTC proposes to amend the Settlement Guide to provide that
DTC may provide Status Information on Eligible Transactions to the
applicable Matching Utility that submitted the transaction to DTC, or
with respect to which its Control Number is included in transaction
details provided by a Participant,\13\ if so requested by the Matching
Utility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ DTC states that it is DTC's understanding that a
transaction that has been confirmed within a Matching Utility's
system, but has not been affirmed, may be assigned a Control Number
by the Matching Utility. Any transaction not affirmed by a Matching
Utility would not be submitted by it to DTC as an Affirmed
Transaction. In that case, the Participant may submit the
transaction directly through DTC as a Deliver Order, and include the
applicable Control Number as assigned by the Matching Utility on its
submission to DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this regard, DTC would send to a Matching Utility Status
Information for Eligible Transactions that DTC has received from the
Matching Utility or have been entered by the Participant,

that have a Control Number associated with that Matching Utility. The
Status Information provided to the Matching Utility would include the
status of the transaction (e.g., the Delivery of Securities has been
made within DTC, the transaction is pending Delivery within DTC, or the
transaction was reclaimed (i.e., sent back to the Deliverer)) and a
reason for any pending status (e.g., the Deliverer has insufficient
inventory in the applicable Securities, the Deliverer has insufficient
Collateral, the Receiver to the transaction has insufficient Net Debit
Cap, etc.). The Status Information would also include information
(``Identifying Information'') to facilitate the Matching Utility's
ability to identify the applicable Eligible Transaction and reconcile
the Status Information to the Eligible Transaction in its records.
Identifying Information would include, but not be limited to, (i) the
applicable Control Number (ii) identification numbers of the
Participants to the transaction, (iii) quantity of Securities, (iv)
dollar amount of the transaction, and (v) an indicator of whether the
transaction was submitted to DTC by the Matching Utility or directly by
a Participant.

Proposed Changes to the Settlement Guide

    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, DTC proposed to revise the
Settlement Guide to allow DTC to provide Status Information of (i)
Affirmed Transactions and (ii) other institutional transactions to a
Matching Utility that requests such information, but only for those
transactions that are associated with a Control Number relating to the
Matching Utility. The proposed text to the Settlement Guide would also
(x) describe the types of Status Information and related Identifying
Information that would be shared with a Matching Utility in this
regard, and (y) provide that DTC may charge a fee (``Status Information
Fee'') to a Matching Utility that receives Status Information as set
forth in the DTC Fee Guide.\14\ The proposed rule change would also add
a defined term for ``Control Number'' to the Settlement Guide in
existing text where the term is referred to but not defined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/
legal/fee-guides/dtcfeeguide.pdf. Any such fee would be the subject
of a subsequent proposed rule change that DTC would file with the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would require that prior to providing
Status Information to a Matching Utility, DTC would obtain the written
agreement, in such form as determined by DTC from time to time
(``Status Information Agreement''), from the Matching Utility that
includes the following:
    (i) A request from the Matching Utility to receive Status
Information from DTC;
    (ii) an agreement by the Matching Utility that the Matching Utility
will not distribute Status Information to any third party other than
(a) the Participants indicated on the Status Information and (b) the
institutional customers that are counterparties to the transaction for
which the Participants indicated on the Status Information are acting
with respect to the transaction;
    (iii) the agreement of the Matching Utility that the Matching
Utility will indemnify, hold harmless and agree, on demand, to
reimburse DTC, its stockholders, officers, directors and employees from
and against and for any and all claims, liabilities, obligations,
damages, actions, penalties, losses, costs, expenses and disbursements,
including, without limitation, attorneys' fees and disbursements
(``Claims''), which they may sustain by reason of DTC's providing
Status Information to the Matching Utility, except for any Claims which
result from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the person
asserting a right to indemnification;
    (iv) the agreement of the Matching Utility to pay the Status
Information Fee;
    (v) the agreement of the Matching Utility to notify DTC immediately
if the Matching Utility becomes aware of Status Information provided to
it by DTC being distributed to a third party other than as authorized
pursuant to (ii) above; and
    (vi) the acknowledgement of the Matching Utility that DTC may
terminate the Status Information Agreement in the event that (a) DTC
becomes aware that the Matching Utility has used or distributed the
Status Information in a manner that violates the terms of the Status
Information Agreement, (b) the Matching Utility does not pay the Status
Information Fee in accordance with the terms of the Fee Schedule, or
(c) DTC submits a rule filing to the SEC, which is approved by the SEC
or otherwise becomes effective pursuant to the Act to discontinue DTC's
distribution of Status Information to Matching Utilities.

III. Summary of Comment Received

    The Commission received one comment letter in opposition to the
proposal. The commenter notes, that in 2015, the Commission issued an
order permitting the commenter to operate as a Matching Utility,\15\
and that in accordance with the Commission's order, the commenter and
ITP have undertaken negotiations to facilitate the development of
linkages and interfaces that would permit interoperability between the
two Matching Utilities.\16\ Nevertheless, to date, the commenter and
ITP have not achieved interoperability. The commenter opposes the
proposal because the commenter believes that the proposal would (i)
hinder the development of linked and coordinated facilities for
clearance and settlement and (ii) impose an impermissible burden on
competition.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Bloomberg STP LLP; SS&C Technologies, Inc.; Order of the
Commission Approving Applications for an Exemption from Registration
as a Clearing Agency, Exchange Act Release No. 76514 (November 24,
2015), 80 FR 75388 (December 1, 2015).
    \16\ The Commission's order also permitted a second entity to
act as a Matching Utility, but that entity did not submit a comment
letter.
    \17\ See SS&C Letter at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the commenter, through the proposed rule change, ITP
is ``asking DTC to charge it for Status Information, and to confirm
that DTC will not send Status Information to a competing Matching
Utility unless that competing Matching Utility has the sell side on its
platform and submits the transaction for settlement.'' \18\ The
commenter asserts that given the ``sealed ecosphere in which DTC
operates,'' the proposal is a way for ITP to ``switch revenue from one
DTC pocket to another, while giving ITP an excuse not to pass
acknowledgement messages through its interface for free.'' \19\ The
commenter also asserts that ``[i]t is impossible to tell from this
filing if or how this Status Information differs from the pre-
settlement details that DTC already supplies ITP through Trade Suite.''
\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See id.
    \19\ See id.
    \20\ See SS&C Letter at 2. According to the commenter,
TradeSuite is an ITP services that automates post-trade messaging
and settlement for domestic and cross-border trades of equity and
fixed income securities, and that DTC's Inventory Management System
supplies TradeSuite with updates regarding pre-settlement status of
affirmed trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter believes that the proposal would impose a burden on
competition because (i) it would be merely a paper transfer of revenue
between DTC and ITP without any revenue or cost impact at the parent
level and (ii) DTC is not similarly restricted from monetizing this
information through the depository or ITP.\21\ In contrast, the
commenter argues that the proposed fee would be a true cost for the
commenter because the

commenter would be faced with a choice of absorbing the fee and raising
its operating costs, or passing the fee through to its customers,
forcing its prices to become less competitive.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id. at 5.
    \22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Change and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \23\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of proceedings is
appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised
by the proposed rule change. Institution of proceedings does not
indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect
to any of the issues involved. Rather, the Commission seeks and
encourages interested persons to comment on the proposed rule change,
and provide the Commission with arguments to support the Commission's
analysis as to whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\24\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of, and input from a commenter with respect to, the proposed
rule change's consistency with Section 17A of the Act,\25\ and the
rules thereunder, including the following provisions: (i) Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\26\ which requires, among other things, that
the rules of a clearing agency must be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions; and
(ii) Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act,\27\ which requires that the rules
of a clearing agency do not impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission invites
the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed
rule change is consistent with Sections 17A(b)(3)(F) and (I) of the
Act, cited above, or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and
regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues
relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an
oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will
consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(g) under the Act,\28\ any request for
an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(g).
    \29\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants to the Commission
flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either oral or
notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate for
consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved
or disapproved by April 5, 2019. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
April 15, 2019. 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-DTC-2018-010 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-DTC-2018-010. 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 such filings also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of DTC and on DTCC's website
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). 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-DTC-2018-010 and should be submitted on
or before April 5, 2019. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by April
15, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-04809 Filed 3-14-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P