[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 196 (Thursday, October 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63620-63626]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22249]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90076; File No. SR-MEMX-2020-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt the Initial
Fee Schedule and Other Fees for MEMX LLC

October 2, 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 September 21, 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 adopt (i) the initial fees and rebates applicable to Members \3\ of
the Exchange

pursuant to Exchange Rule 15.1(a) and (c), and (ii) regulatory fees
related to the Central Registration Depository (``CRD system''), which
will be collected by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') as set forth in proposed Rule 15.1(e). The text of the
proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 implement a fee schedule (the ``Fee
Schedule'') applicable to use of the Exchange. The Exchange will
commence operations as a national securities exchange on September 21,
2020, and thus, proposes the fees to be effective as of the date of
this filing.
    The Exchange first notes that upon launch it will operate 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 will be only one of several equities 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 18% of total market share.\4\
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 as it commences operations the Exchange
anticipates representing a small percentage of the overall market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Market share percentage calculated as of September 17, 2020.
The Exchange receives and processes data made available through
consolidated data feeds (i.e., CTS and UTDF).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transaction Fees
    Below is a description of the fees and rebates that the Exchange
intends to impose under the initial proposed Fee Schedule, which will
be applicable to transactions executed in all trading sessions. Under
the proposed Fee Schedule, the Exchange will operate a ``Maker-Taker''
model whereby it provides rebates to Members that provide liquidity and
charges fees to those that remove liquidity, as further described
below. The Exchange does not initially propose to charge different fees
or provide different rebates depending on the amount of orders
submitted to, and/or transactions executed on or through, the Exchange.
Accordingly, all fees and rebates described below are applicable to all
Members, regardless of the overall volume of a Member's trading
activities on the Exchange.
(A) Standard Fee for Removed Volume
    The Exchange proposes to charge a standard fee of $0.0025 per share
for executions of orders that remove liquidity from the MEMX Book \5\
(``Removed Volume'') in all securities traded on the Exchange priced at
or above $1.00 per share.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``MEMX Book'' refers to the Exchange system's electronic
file of orders. See Exchange Rule 1.5(q).
    \6\ This pricing is referred to by the Exchange as ``Removed
volume from MEMX Book'' on the proposed Fee Schedule with a Fee Code
of ``R'' to be provided by the Exchange on execution reports. The
Exchange's Fee Codes will assist both the Exchange and Members with
financial planning, tracking, and reconciliation of invoices
generated by the Exchange. The Exchange notes that it will also use
a second character, either ``A'' or ``B'' to indicate whether an
execution occurred: (A) In a security priced at or above $1.00 per
share or (B) below $1.00 per share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Standard Rebate for Added Displayed Volume
    The Exchange proposes to provide a standard rebate of $0.0029 per
share for executions of orders that: (i) Are displayed on the MEMX Book
and (ii) add liquidity to the Exchange (``Added Displayed Volume''), in
all securities traded on the Exchange priced at or above $1.00 per
share.\7\ The proposed standard rebate for Added Displayed Volume would
apply to the Reserve Quantity \8\ of an order such that any
replenishment amount of the Reserve Quantity of an order that is
executed against would be treated as Added Displayed Volume even though
such portion of the order was not displayed on the MEMX Book prior to
the order being replenished in accordance with the Member's
instructions and the Exchange's rules. The entire portion of the
Reserve Quantity of an order would be eligible for this rebate,
however, a Member would only receive such rebate for any portion(s) of
the Reserve Quantity that is (are) executed against.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This pricing is referred to by the Exchange as ``Added
displayed volume'' on the proposed Fee Schedule with a Fee Code of
``B'', ``D'' or ``J'' to be provided by the Exchange on execution
reports.
    \8\ ``Reserve Quantity'' refers to the portion of an order that
includes a Non-Displayed instruction in which a portion of that
order is also displayed on the MEMX Book. See Exchange Rule 11.6(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(C) Rebates for Added Displayed Volume That Establishes or Matches the
National Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO'')
    The Exchange proposes to provide an identical rebate of $0.0029 per
share for executions of Added Displayed Volume orders that either: (i)
establish the NBBO (``Setter Volume'') or (ii) establish a new best bid
or offer (``BBO'') on MEMX that matches the NBBO first established on
an away market (``Joiner Volume,'' and together with Setter Volume,
``NBBO Setter/Joiner Volume''), in all securities traded on the
Exchange priced at or above $1.00 per share. Because pricing will be
the same for all Added Displayed Volume, the Exchange does not propose
to add separate rebates on the Fee Schedule at this time for Setter
Volume or Joiner Volume or to define these categories on the Fee
Schedule. However, the Exchange proposes to provide separate Fee Codes
to Members for Setter Volume and Joiner Volume; thus, in addition to
the standard Fee Code applicable to Added Displayed Volume, or ``D'',
the Exchange proposes including Fee Codes of ``B'' for Setter Volume
and ``J'' for Joiner Volume on the same row as ``D'' in the transaction
fees table of the Fee Schedule.
    The purpose of including three separate Fee Codes for Added
Displayed Volume is to reflect the fact that the Exchange will provide
distinct Fee Codes on the execution reports provided to Members. The
Exchange believes this information will be useful for Members and the
Exchange to track executions of Added Displayed Volume that qualifies
as either Setter Volume or Joiner Volume and may also be useful for the
Exchange in considering potential pricing modifications to such orders
as it continues to evaluate its pricing structure on an ongoing basis
after its exchange launch. In the meantime, these Fee Codes will be
provided to Members on execution reports prior to the introduction of
any pricing incentives for such liquidity, even though the rebates to
be provided are the same as those provided as the standard rebate for
Added Displayed Volume. The Exchange notes that its technical
specifications make clear the different types of liquidity codes passed
back to Members on execution reports.

(D) Standard Rebate for Added Non-Displayed Volume
    The Exchange proposes to provide a standard rebate of $0.0020 per
share for executions of orders that: (i) Are not displayed on the MEMX
Book and (ii) add liquidity to the Exchange (``Added Non-Displayed
Volume''), in all securities traded on the Exchange priced at or above
$1.00 per share.\9\ Similar to the proposal to add separate Fee Codes
for Setter Volume and Joiner Volume, as described above, the proposed
Fee Schedule reflects two different Fee Codes for Added Non-Displayed
Volume, specifically ``H'' and ``M''. The Exchange will provide Fee
Code ``M'' for the execution of an order that adds non-displayed
liquidity to the extent the order that provides liquidity includes a
Midpoint Peg instruction and Fee Code ``H'' for the execution of an
order that adds non-displayed liquidity but does not include a Midpoint
Peg instruction.\10\ The proposed standard rebate for Added Non-
Displayed Volume would apply to each of these the same. The purpose of
including both Fee Codes on the Fee Schedule is to reflect the fact
that the Exchange will separately record these transactions under
distinct Fee Codes on the execution reports provided to Members. The
Exchange believes this information will be useful for Members and the
Exchange to track executions of Added Non-Displayed Volume and may also
be useful for the Exchange in considering potential pricing
modifications to such orders as it continues to evaluate its pricing
structure on an ongoing basis after its exchange launch. The Exchange
again notes that its technical specifications make clear the different
types of liquidity codes passed back to Members on execution reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This pricing is referred to by the Exchange on the proposed
Fee Schedule as ``Added non-displayed volume.''
    \10\ The term ``Midpoint Peg'' refers to a Pegged Order with an
instruction to peg to the midpoint of the NBBO. See Exchange Rule
11.6(h)(2). The term ``Pegged Order'' refers to an order with
instructions to peg to the NBB, for a buy order, or the NBO, for a
sell order. See Exchange Rule 11.6(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to provide a higher rebate for executions of
Added Displayed Volume than for executions of Added Non-Displayed
Volume to incentivize displayed liquidity over non-displayed liquidity
on the Exchange, including orders with a displayed component and a non-
displayed component (i.e., orders with a Reserve Quantity), in order to
encourage and facilitate price discovery and price formation, which the
Exchange believes benefits all Members and investors.
(E) Standard Fee for Routed Removed Volume
    The Exchange proposes to charge a standard fee of $0.0030 per share
for all orders routed to another market that (i) are executed on an
away market and (ii) remove liquidity from the market to which it was
routed (``Routed Removed Volume''), in all securities traded on the
Exchange priced at or above $1.00 per share.\11\ All charges by the
Exchange for routing are applicable only in the event that an order is
executed; there is no charge for orders that are routed away from the
Exchange but are not filled. The Exchange notes that the fees for
routing relate to orders routed through the Exchange's affiliated
broker-dealer, MEMX Execution Services LLC. Routing services offered by
the Exchange and its affiliated broker-dealer are completely optional
and market participants can readily select between various providers of
routing services, including other exchanges and broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This pricing is referred to by the Exchange as ``Routed to
another market, removed liquidity'' on the proposed Fee Schedule
with a Fee Code of ``Z'' to be provided by the Exchange on execution
reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(F) Securities Priced Below $1.00 per Share
    The Exchange does not propose to charge any fee or provide any
rebate for executions of orders in securities priced below $1.00 per
share, including where an execution takes place on the Exchange or at
another market center if the order was routed away from the Exchange.
(G) Other Fees
    Under the initial proposed Fee Schedule, the Exchange proposes to
make clear that it does not charge any fees for membership, market data
products, physical connectivity or application sessions (e.g., trading
ports, market data ports, and/or drop copies). In addition, because, as
described below, the Exchange is proposing to include certain fees in
Rule 15.1 rather than on the Fee Schedule, the Exchange proposes to
state on the Fee Schedule that additional fees are set forth in Rule
15.1 of the MEMX Rulebook, and further, that such fees include
Regulatory Transaction Fees collected to fund MEMX's Section 31
obligations (as set forth in MEMX Rule 15.1(b)) and fees collected
through the CRD registration system for registration of associated
persons of Members that are not also FINRA members (as proposed to be
added as MEMX Rule 15.1(e)).
Regulatory Fees
    The Exchange proposes to adopt certain regulatory fees as new
paragraph (e) to Exchange Rule 15.1 related to the CRD system, which
are collected by FINRA.\12\ As proposed, FINRA will collect and retain
certain regulatory fees via the CRD system for the registration of
persons associated with a Member that is not also a FINRA member. The
CRD system fees are use-based and there is no distinction in the cost
incurred by FINRA if the user is a FINRA member or a member of an
exchange but not a FINRA member. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to
adopt the regulatory fees set forth in proposed Rule 15.1(e) to mirror
those assessed by FINRA pursuant to Section 4 (Fees) of Schedule A to
the FINRA By-Laws. As proposed, these fees are as follows: \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The CRD system is the central licensing and registration
system for the U.S. securities industry. The CRD system enables
individuals and firms seeking registration with multiple states and
self-regulatory organizations to do so by submitting a single form,
fingerprint card and a combined payment of fees to FINRA. Through
the CRD system, FINRA maintains the qualification, employment and
disciplinary histories of registered associated persons of broker-
dealers.
    \13\ The Exchange has only adopted the CRD system fees charged
by FINRA to non-FINRA members when such fees are applicable. In this
regard, certain FINRA CRD system fees and requirements are specific
to FINRA members, but do not apply to Members that are not also
FINRA members. Members that are also FINRA members are charged CRD
system fees according to Section 4 (Fees) of Schedule A to the FINRA
By-Laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) $100 for each initial Form U4 filed for the registration of a
representative or principal;
    (2) $110 for the additional processing of each initial or amended
Form U4, Form U5 or Form BD that includes the initial reporting,
amendment, or certification of one or more disclosure events or
proceedings;
    (3) $45 annually for each of the Member's registered
representatives and principals for system processing;
    (4) $15 for processing and posting to the CRD system each set of
fingerprints submitted electronically by the Member, plus a pass-
through of any other charge imposed by the United States Department of
Justice for processing each set of fingerprints;
    (5) $30 for processing and posting to the CRD system each set of
fingerprint cards submitted in non-electronic format by the Member,
plus a pass-through of any other charge imposed by the United States
Department of Justice for processing each set of fingerprints; and
    (6) $30 for processing and posting to the CRD system each set of
fingerprint results and identifying information that has been processed
through a self-

regulatory organization other than FINRA.
2. Statutory Basis
Transaction Fees
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) \14\ of the Act in general, and
furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) \15\ of the Act, 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. Additionally, the Exchange
believes that the proposed fees and rebates are consistent with the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \16\ of the Act in that they are designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to a
free and open market and national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, and, particularly, are not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon its launch, the Exchange will operate 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. The Exchange believes that
the proposed Fee Schedule reflects a simple and competitive pricing
structure designed to incentivize market participants to add
aggressively priced displayed liquidity and direct their order flow to
the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would promote price discovery
and price formation and deepen liquidity that is subject to the
Exchange's transparency, regulation, and oversight as an exchange,
thereby enhancing market quality to the benefit of all Members and
investors.
    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, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, 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.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is appropriate, reasonable, and
consistent with the Act to charge a standard fee of $0.0025 per share
for Removed Volume from the MEMX Book because it is comparable to the
transaction fee charged by other exchanges to remove liquidity.\18\ The
Exchange further believes that this fee is equitably allocated and not
unfairly discriminatory because it applies equally to all Members and,
when coupled with higher rebates for adding displayed liquidity, as
described below, is designed to facilitate increased activity on the
Exchange to the benefit of all Members by providing more trading
opportunities and promoting price discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For example, the New York Stock Exchange trading fee
schedule on its public website reflects fees to ``take'' liquidity
ranging from $0.0024-$0.00275 depending on the type of market
participant, order and execution; see https://www.nyse.com/markets/nyse/trading-info/fees. The Nasdaq Stock Market trading fee schedule
on its public website reflects standard fees to ``remove'' liquidity
of $0.0030 per share for shares executed at or above $1.00 or 0.30%
of total dollar volume for shares executed below $1.00; see http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2. The Cboe BZX
trading fee schedule on its public website reflects standard fees
for ``removing'' liquidity of $0.0030 for shares executed at or
above $1.00 or 0.30% of total dollar volume for shares executed
below $1.00; see https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is appropriate, reasonable, and
consistent with the Act to provide a standard rebate of $0.0029 per
share for Added Displayed Volume in all securities traded on the
Exchange priced at or above $1.00 per share because this rebate is
consistent with transaction rebates provided by other exchanges.\19\
The Exchange further believes that this rebate structure is equitably
allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies equally to
all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For example, the New York Stock Exchange trading fee
schedule on its public website reflects a standard rebate for
``adding'' liquidity of $0.0012 for shares executed at or above
$1.00, with various tiers that provide the ability of a firm to
receive a rebate of $0.0029 per share or higher; see https://www.nyse.com/markets/nyse/trading-info/fees. The Nasdaq Stock Market
trading fee schedule on its public website reflects a standard
rebate for ``adding'' liquidity for shares executed at or above
$1.00 of $0.0020 in Tape A and B securities and $0.0015 in Tape C
securities, with various tiers that provide the ability of a firm to
receive a rebate of $0.0029 per share or higher; see http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2. The Cboe BZX
trading fee schedule on its public website reflects a standard
rebate for ``adding'' liquidity of $0.0020 for shares executed at or
above $1.00, with various tiers that provide the ability of a firm
to receive a rebate of $0.0029 per share or higher; see https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that charging a fee to the liquidity remover,
and providing a rebate to the liquidity adder, is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it incentivizes liquidity
provision on the Exchange. The Exchange also notes that several other
exchanges charge fees for removing liquidity and provide rebates for
adding liquidity, and that this aspect of the Exchange's proposed Fee
Schedule 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.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra notes 18 and 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to provide a higher rebate for executions of
Added Displayed Volume (including NBBO Setter/Joiner Volume) than for
executions of Added Non-Displayed Volume as this rebate structure is
designed to incentivize Members to send the Exchange displayable
orders, thereby contributing to price discovery and price formation,
consistent with the overall goal of enhancing market quality. Moreover,
the Exchange notes that there are precedents for exchanges to provide
rebates that distinguish between displayed and non-displayed volume to
incentivize displayed orders and facilitate price discovery.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that under the initial proposed Fee Schedule it
will pay a higher rebate for Added Displayed Volume than the fee it
charges for removing such volume, and as such the Exchange will have a
negative net capture (i.e., will lose money) with respect to such
transactions. The Exchange notes that it will only utilize a pricing
structure whereby it maintains a negative net capture with respect to
such transactions initially upon its launch and for a limited time
thereafter in an effort to encourage market participants to join,
connect to, and participate on the Exchange. As noted above, the
Exchange will operate in a highly competitive market, and the Exchange
believes this initial pricing structure will enable it to effectively
compete with other exchanges by attracting Members and order flow to
the Exchange, which will help the Exchange to gain market share for
executions. The Exchange expects to modify its pricing structure after
it has gained sufficient participation from

market participants to eliminate the negative net capture and instead
be profitable with respect to such transactions. The Exchange believes
the initial pricing structure, including the negative net capture for
Added Displayed Volume transactions, is designed to incentivize market
participants to add aggressively priced displayed liquidity and direct
their order flow to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would
promote price discovery and price formation and deepen liquidity that
is subject to the Exchange's transparency, regulation, and oversight as
an exchange, thereby enhancing market quality to the benefit of all
Members and investors. The Exchange does not believe that the negative
net capture with respect to Added Displayed Volume transactions will
materially impact the capitalization of the Exchange or otherwise
impair the Exchange's ability to operate or regulate itself. The
Exchange is well-capitalized and able to absorb losses resulting from a
negative net capture, particularly given the Exchange's intention to
operate in this fashion on a temporary basis. Moreover, the Exchange's
parent company, MEMX Holdings LLC, has agreed to provide adequate
funding for the Exchange's operations, including the regulation of the
Exchange, and to reimburse the Exchange for its costs and expenses to
the extent the Exchange's assets are insufficient to meets its costs
and expenses.
    With respect to orders routed to other markets, the Exchange also
believes that it is appropriate, reasonable, and consistent with the
Act to charge a standard fee of $0.0030 for Routed Removed Volume
because this fee is similar to the fees charged by other exchanges for
routed orders that remove liquidity from the destination market.\22\
The Exchange's initial fee for routing is intended to be a simple and
transparent fee for Members that wish to use routing services provided
by the Exchange. The Exchange reiterates that the routing services
offered by the Exchange and its affiliated broker-dealer are completely
optional and that the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily select between various
providers of routing services with different product offerings and
different pricing. The Exchange believes that its flat fee structure
for orders routed to all away venues is a fair and equitable approach
to pricing, as it will provide certainty with respect to execution
fees. As a general matter, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees
will allow it to recoup and cover its costs of providing routing
services and to make some additional profit in exchange for the
services it provides. The Exchange also believes the standard fee for
Routed Removed Volume is an equitable and not an unfairly
discriminatory allocation of fees because it applies equally to all
Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For example, the New York Stock Exchange trading fee
schedule on its public website reflects a standard fee for routing
of $0.0035, with a tier that provides a firm the ability to pay a
reduced routing fee of $0.0030; see https://www.nyse.com/markets/nyse/trading-info/fees. The Nasdaq Stock Market trading fee schedule
on its public website reflects a standard routing fee of $0.0030;
see http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2. The
Cboe BZX trading fee schedule on its public website reflects a
standard fee for routing of $0.0030; see https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that not charging a fee for membership,
market data products, physical connectivity and application sessions is
appropriate, reasonable, and consistent with the Act because it may
incentivize broker-dealers to become Members of the Exchange and to
therefore direct order flow to the Exchange, and such orders will have
the benefit of exchange transparency, regulation, and oversight. One of
the primary objectives of MEMX is to provide competition and to reduce
fixed costs imposed upon the industry. As such, while MEMX does intend
to adopt fees other than transaction fees and such other fees as set
forth in Rule 15.1 in the future, MEMX is not doing so at this time
and, when it does, it intends to do so in a fair and transparent
manner. As noted above, MEMX will operate in a highly competitive
environment, and not charging fees for such services and access is
designed to enable it to compete effectively and to encourage market
participants to connect to the Exchange.
    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, does not permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers,
and 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, particularly as the proposal neither targets
nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular category of
market participant. As described more fully below in the Exchange's
statement regarding the burden on competition, the Exchange believes
that it is subject to significant competitive forces, and that its
proposed fee and rebate structure is an appropriate effort to address
such forces.
Regulatory Fees
    The Exchange believes that proposed Rule 15.1(e) is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6(b) \23\ of the Act in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \24\ of the Act, in particular, in
that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees and
other charges among its Members, and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers. All similarly situated
Members are subject to the same fee structure, and every Member firm
must use the CRD system for registration and disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fees are reasonable because they are identical to
those adopted by FINRA for use of the CRD system for disclosure and the
registration of associated persons of FINRA members.\25\ As FINRA noted
in its filing adopting its existing fees, it believes the fees are
reasonable based on the increased costs associated with operating and
maintaining the CRD system, and listed a number of enhancements made to
the CRD system since the last fee increase, including: (1)
Incorporation of various uniform registration form changes; (2)
electronic fingerprint processing; (3) Web EFTTM, which
allows subscribing firms to submit batch filings to the CRD system; (4)
increases in the number and types of reports available through the CRD
system; and (5) significant changes to BrokerCheck, including making
BrokerCheck easier to use and expanding the amount of information made
available through the system.\26\ These increased costs are similarly
borne by FINRA when a Member that is not a member of FINRA uses the CRD
system, so the fees collected for such use should mirror the fees
assessed on FINRA members, as is proposed by the Exchange. FINRA
further noted its belief that the proposed fees are reasonable because
they help to ensure the integrity of the information in the CRD system,
which is important because the Commission, FINRA, other self-regulatory
organizations and state securities regulators use the CRD system

to make licensing and registration decisions, among other things.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67247 (June 25,
2012), 77 FR 38866 (June 29, 2012) (SR-FINRA-2012-30).
    \26\ See id. at 77 FR 38866, 38868.
    \27\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed fees, like FINRA's
fees, are consistent with an equitable allocation of fees because the
fees will apply equally to all individuals and Members required to
report information to the CRD system. Thus, those members that register
more individuals or submit more filings through the CRD system will
generally pay more in fees than those members that use the CRD system
to a lesser extent. In addition, the proposed fees, like FINRA's fees,
are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they will result
in the same regulatory fees being charged to all Members required to
report information to the CRD system and for services performed by
FINRA, regardless of whether or not such Member is a FINRA member.

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

Transaction Fees
    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. Rather, as
discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would
encourage the submission of additional order flow to a public exchange,
thereby promoting market depth, execution incentives and enhanced
execution opportunities, as well as price discovery and transparency
for all Members. 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.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra note 17, at 70 FR 37496, 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary,
the Exchange believes that the proposed pricing structure will increase
competition and is intended to draw volume to the Exchange as it
commences operations. 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, and market participants can readily trade on competing venues
if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
As a new exchange, the Exchange expects to face intense competition
from existing exchanges and other non-exchange venues that provide
markets for equities trading. With respect to the Exchange's initial
pricing whereby it will operate with a negative net capture with
respect to transactions involving Added Displayed Volume, the Exchange
is proposing this pricing initially upon its launch and for a limited
time thereafter in an effort to encourage market participants to join,
connect to, and participate on the Exchange. The Exchange expects to
modify its pricing structure after it has gained sufficient
participation from market participants to eliminate the negative net
capture and instead be profitable with respect to such transactions.
Although this pricing incentive is intended to attract liquidity to the
Exchange, most other exchanges in operation today already offer
multiple incentives to their participants, including tiered pricing
that provides higher rebates or discounted executions, and other
exchanges will be able to modify such incentives in order to compete
with the Exchange. With respect to the specific pricing resulting in
the negative net capture, the Exchange also notes that the proposed fee
for Removed Volume is neither the lowest fee in the market today \29\
nor is the proposed rebate provided to Added Displayed Volume the
highest rebate in the market today.\30\ Accordingly, with respect to a
participant deciding to either submit an order to add liquidity or
seeking to remove liquidity, there are multiple exchanges that will
continue to be competitively priced for such orders when compared to
the Exchange's pricing. Further, while pricing incentives do cause
shifts of liquidity between trading centers, market participants make
determinations on where to provide liquidity or route orders to take
liquidity based on factors other than pricing, including technology,
functionality, and other considerations. Consequently, the Exchange
believes that the degree to which its fees and rebates could impose any
burden on competition is extremely limited, and does not believe that
such fees would burden competition of Members or competing venues in a
manner that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ For example, the Investors Exchange fee schedule on its
public website reflects standard fees for matched liquidity of
$0.0009 for shares executed at or above $1.00, which would apply to
all orders removing liquidity; see https://iextrading.com/trading/fees/. Other markets offering ``taker/maker'' pricing provide
rebates to provide liquidity; see, e.g., Nasdaq BX fee schedule, at
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=bx_pricing; Cboe BYX fee
schedule at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/byx/.
    \30\ See supra note 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed fees and rebates apply equally to all Members. The proposed
pricing structure is intended to encourage market participants to add
displayed and non-displayed liquidity to the Exchange by providing
rebates that are comparable to those offered by other exchanges as well
as to provide a competitive rate charged for removing liquidity, which
the Exchange believes will help to encourage Members to send orders to
the Exchange to the benefit of all Exchange participants. As the
proposed rates are equally applicable to all market participants, the
Exchange does not believe there is any burden on intramarket
competition.
Regulatory Fees
    The Exchange does not believe that proposed Rule 15.1(e) will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically,
the Exchange believes that the proposed fees in this Rule will result
in the same regulatory fees being charged to all Members required to
report information to the CRD system and for services performed by
FINRA, regardless of whether or not such Members are FINRA members.

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 \31\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \32\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \32\ 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-2020-10 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-MEMX-2020-10. 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-MEMX-2020-10 and should be submitted on
or before October 29, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-22249 Filed 10-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 210)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63699-63701]
[DOCID:fr31oc06-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0539, EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0610; FRL-8224-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving requests submitted by the Indiana Department
of Environmental Management (IDEM) on December 21, 2005 and June 27,
2006 to revise the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) in two
areas: to amend 326 IAC 1-3-4, ambient air quality standards, to
provide consistency between State and Federal reference conditions for
measurements of particulate matter air quality; and to update the
references to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) from the 2002
edition to the 2004 edition.

DATES: This rule is effective on January 2, 2007, unless EPA receives
adverse written comments by November 30, 2006. If EPA receives adverse
comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0539, EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0610 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section,
Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
     Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0539, EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0610. 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 www.regulations.gov website 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. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Jonathan Nichols, Life
Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Nichols, Life Scientist,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
    A. Submitting CBI
    B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
II. Background
    A. When Did the State Submit the Requested Rule Revisions to
EPA?
    B. Did Indiana Hold Public Hearings for Each of These Rule
Revisions?
III. What Are the Revisions That the State Requests Be Incorporated
Into the SIP?
    A. CFR Reference
    B. Reference Conditions for PM Measurements
IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

A. Submitting CBI

    Do not submit this information to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the

information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
    Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at

your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Background

A. When Did the State Submit the Requested Rule Revisions to EPA?

    IDEM submitted the requested rule revisions related to an update to
the CFR reference on December 21, 2005, followed by the update
providing consistency between State and Federal particulate matter
reference conditions on June 27, 2006.

B. Did Indiana Hold Public Hearings for Each of These Rule Revisions?

    IDEM held public hearings for both of the rule revisions that were
submitted: particulate matter reference condition standards rule
revision public hearings were held on October 5, 2005, and December 7,
2005; and CFR reference update public hearings were held on February 2,
2005 and June 1, 2005. IDEM did not receive any comments concerning
either rule revision.

III. What Are the Revisions That the State Requests Be Incorporated
Into the SIP?

    The State has requested the following revisions: Changes to 1-1-3,
References to the Code of Federal Regulations; and changes to 326 IAC
1-3-4, to provide consistency between State and Federal particulate
matter measurement reference standards. The revisions are described in
more detail below.

A. CFR Reference

    The reference to the CFR was updated in 326 IAC 1-1-3 from the 2002
edition to the 2004 edition. This is solely an administrative change
that allows Indiana to reference a more current CFR.

B. Reference Conditions for PM Measurement

    IDEM is requesting the amendment of 326 IAC 1-3-4, ambient air
quality standards, to provide consistency between State (326 IAC 1-3-4)
and Federal (40 CFR 50.3) reference conditions for measurements of
particulate matter air quality.
    In 1997, EPA promulgated revised particulate matter national
ambient air quality standard revisions at 40 CFR part 50 for both
PM10 (coarse particulate matter) and PM2.5 (fine particulate
matter). Measurement of both standards was to be reported based on
ambient air volume measured at the actual ambient temperature and
pressure at the monitoring site during the measurement period. The
Indiana Air Pollution Control Board adopted these standards on
September 1, 2004.
    As a result of litigation over the 1997 standards in which the
PM10 standard was vacated, EPA revised 40 CFR 50.3 on July
30, 2004 (69 FR 45592, 45595).\1\ It now reflects the former standard
reference conditions, i.e., 25 degrees Celsius (temperature) and 760
millimeters of mercury (1,013.2 millibars) (pressure) for
PM10. The submitted revisions to 326 IAC 1-3-4 should ensure
that specified reference measurement conditions in the Indiana SIP are
consistent with 40 CFR 50.3, as revised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. EPA, 175 F.3d
(D.C. Cir. 1999); affirmed inpart, reversed in part, 531 U.S. 457
(2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    We are approving revisions to the Indiana SIP in two areas:
    (1) To amend 326 IAC 1-3-4, ambient air quality standards, to
provide consistency between State (326 IAC 1-3-4) and Federal (40 CFR
50.3) reference conditions for measurements of particulate matter air
quality; and (2) to update the references to the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) from the 2002 edition to the 2004 edition.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the State plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective January 2, 2007
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by November 30, 2006. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this
action will be effective January 2, 2007.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866; Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' 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).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by State law, it 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).

Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
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 (59
FR 22951, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132 Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not 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 government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act.

Executive Order 13045 Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. 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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    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 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. 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.
section 804(2).
    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 January 2, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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. This action 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 14, 2006.
Norman Niedergang,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 P--Indiana

0
2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(177) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (177) The Indiana Department of Environmental Management submitted
revisions to Indiana's State Implementation plan on December 21, 2005,
and June 27, 2006. Revisions to 326 IAC 1-3-4 provide consistency
between State (326 IAC 1-3-4) and Federal (40 CFR 50.3) reference
conditions for measurements of particulate matter air quality; and
amendments to 326 IAC 1-1-3 update the references to the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) from the 2002 edition to the 2004 edition.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. The following sections of the
Indiana Administrative Code are incorporated by reference.
    (A) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 1: General Provisions, Rule 1: Provisions Applicable
Throughout Title 326, Section 3: References to the Code of Federal
Regulations. Filed with the Secretary of State on October 14, 2005 and
effective on November 13, 2005. Published at Indiana Register, Volume
29, Number 3, December 1, 2005 (29 IR 795).
    (B) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 1: General Provisions, Rule 3: Ambient Air Quality
Standards, Section 4: Ambient Air Quality Standards. Filed with the
Secretary of State on March 6, 2006 and effective on April 5, 2006.
Published at Indiana Register, Volume 29, Number 7, April 1, 2006 (29
IR 2179).

 [FR Doc. E6-18169 Filed 10-30-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19074-19076]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7372]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1164; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-084-AD;
Amendment 39-17002; AD 2012-06-21]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; DASSAULT AVIATION Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
DASSAULT AVIATION Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by multiple reports of fuel leakage from a defective fuel
high-level sensor located in the wing front spar. This AD requires
inspecting to determine fuel quantity sensors part numbers and
replacing of certain fuel quantity sensors with new fuel quantity
sensors. We are issuing this AD to prevent internal fuel leakage with
significant fuel vapors, which could result in a fire hazard.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 4, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 4, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone: (425)
227-1137; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 4, 2011 (76
FR 68368). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Several Mystere-Falcon 900 aeroplanes experienced fuel leakage
from a defective fuel high-level sensor located in the wing front
spar.
    Investigations revealed that the leakage was due to a defective
fuel quantity sensor Part Number (P/N) 722105-2.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to an
internal fuel leakage with significant fuel vapours, which could
result in a fire hazard.
    To address this unsafe condition, Dassault Aviation have
developed an improved fuel quantity sensor with a new concept of
sealing.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the
identification of the affected sensors and replacement with the
improved part.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (76 FR 68368, November 4,
2011) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed, except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (76 FR 68368, November 4, 2011) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 68368, November 4, 2011).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 110 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $4,000 per
product. Where the service

information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty,
we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do
not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may
incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $477,400, or
$4,340 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect 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 government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (76 FR 68368, November 4,
2011), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2012-06-21 DASSAULT AVIATION: Amendment 39-17002. Docket No. FAA-
2011-1164; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-084-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 4, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to DASSAULT AVIATION Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900
airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by multiple reports of fuel leakage from a
defective fuel high-level sensor located in the wing front spar. We
are issuing this AD to prevent internal fuel leakage with
significant fuel vapors, which could result in a fire hazard.

 (f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Part Identification and Replacement

    Within 440 flight hours or 9 months after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first, do the actions specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Inspect the fuel quantity sensors to determine whether part
number (P/N) 722105-2 is installed.
    (2) Replace all P/N 722105-2 fuel quantity sensors with new P/N
722105-3 fuel quantity sensors, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin
F900-410, dated December 20, 2010.

(h) Parts Installation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
fuel quantity sensor having P/N 722105-2 on any airplane.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(j) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2011-0049, dated March 21, 2011; and Dassault Mandatory
Service Bulletin F900-410, dated December 20, 2010; for related
information.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference (IBR) of the following service information under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51:
    (i) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F900-410, dated December
20, 2010.
    (2) For DASSAULT AVIATION service information identified in this
AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack,
New Jersey 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com.

    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 19, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-7372 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48186-48187]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19716]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86896]

Order Granting Application by Nasdaq BX, Inc. for Exemption
Pursuant to Section 36(a) of the Exchange Act From the Rule Filing
Requirements of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act With Respect to the
Nasdaq Rule 1000 Series Incorporated by Reference

September 6, 2019.
    Nasdaq BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') has filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') an application for an
exemption under Section 36(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \1\ from the rule filing requirements of Section
19(b) of the Exchange Act \2\ with respect to certain rules of The
Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') that the Exchange seeks to
incorporate by reference.\3\ Section 36(a)(1) of the Exchange Act,\4\
subject to certain limitations, authorizes the Commission to
conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person, security, or
transaction, or any class thereof, from any provision of the Exchange
Act or rule thereunder, if necessary or appropriate in the public
interest and consistent with the protection of investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm(a)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
    \3\ See letter from Brett M. Kitt, Senior Associate General
Counsel, Nasdaq Inc., to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission,
dated June 17, 2019, at 2 (``Exemptive Request'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange filed a proposed rule change \5\ under Section 19(b)
of the Exchange Act to replace its existing membership rules, as set
forth in the Rule 1000 Series of its rulebook, with the Rule 1000
Series of the Nasdaq rulebook, as such rules may be in effect from time
to time.\6\ Namely, in the proposed rule change, the Exchange proposed
to incorporate by reference the Nasdaq Rule 1000 Series such that
Nasdaq Rule 1000 Series would be applicable to the Exchange's
applicants, members, associated persons, and other persons subject to
the Exchange's jurisdiction as though such rules were fully set forth
within the Exchange's rulebook.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86425 (July 22,
2019), 84 FR 36139 (July 26, 2019) (SR-BX-2019-022). Although the
proposed rule change was filed pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii)
of the Exchange Act, and thereby became effective upon filing with
the Commission, the Exchange stipulated in its proposal that the
incorporation by reference would not be operative until such time as
the Commission grants this Exemptive Request.
    \6\ For purposes of this application, the Nasdaq Rule 1000
Series refers to the Nasdaq Rule 1000 Series with the exception of
Nasdaq Rules 1031, 1050, 1090, 1130, 1150, 1160, or 1170. The
Exchange will retain its existing corresponding versions of each of
these rules and will not incorporate by reference the Nasdaq
versions of the same.
    \7\ See note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested, pursuant to Rule 0-12 under the
Exchange Act,\8\ that the Commission grant the Exchange an exemption
from the rule filing requirements of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act
for changes to the Exchange's rules that are effected solely by virtue
of a change to the Nasdaq Rule 1000 Series that are incorporated by
reference. Specifically, the Exchange requests that it be permitted to
incorporate by reference changes made to the Nasdaq Rule 1000 Series
that are cross-referenced in the Exchange's rules without the need for
the Exchange to file separately the same proposed rule change pursuant
to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.0-12.
    \9\ See Exemptive Request, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that the Nasdaq Rule 1000 Series are not
trading rules.\10\ Moreover, the Exchange states that it proposes to
incorporate by reference a category of rules (rather than individual
rules within a category).\11\ The Exchange also represents that, as a
condition of this exemption, the Exchange will provide written notice
to its applicants and members whenever

Nasdaq proposes a change to Nasdaq Rule 1000 Series.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. at 2.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ The Exchange states that it will provide such notice via a
posting on the same website location where the Exchange posts its
own rule filings pursuant to Rule 19b-4(l) within the timeframe
required by such Rule. In addition, the Exchange states that the
website posting will include a link to the location on Nasdaq's
website where the applicable proposed rule change is posted. Id. at
2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, this exemption is necessary and
appropriate because it will result in the Exchange's membership rules
and processes being consistent with the relevant cross-referenced
Nasdaq membership rules and processes at all times.\13\ The Exchange
states that harmonization of the membership rules and processes between
the Exchange and Nasdaq will ease compliance burdens for those seeking
membership on both exchanges and increase internal efficiencies
associated with administering the membership rules and processes of
each exchange.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Exemptive Request, supra note 3, at 2.
    \14\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has issued exemptions similar to the Exchange's
request.\15\ In granting similar exemptions, the Commission stated that
it would consider future exemption requests, provided that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 80338
(March 29, 2017), 82 FR 16464 (April 4, 2017) (order granting
exemptive request from MIAX PEARL, LLC relating to rules of Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC incorporated by reference);
72650 (July 22, 2014), 79 FR 44075 (July 29, 2014) (order granting
exemptive requests from NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. and the NASDAQ Stock
Market LLC relating to rules of NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC incorporated by
reference); 67256 (June 26, 2012), 77 FR 39277, 39286 (July 2, 2012)
(order approving SR-BX-2012-030 and granting exemptive request
relating to rules incorporated by reference by the BX Options
rules); 61534 (February 18, 2010), 75 FR 8760 (February 25, 2010)
(order granting BATS Exchange, Inc.'s exemptive request relating to
rules incorporated by reference by the BATS Exchange Options Market
rules) (``BATS Options Market Order''); and 57478 (March 12, 2008),
73 FR 14521, 14539-40 (March 18, 2008) (order approving SR-NASDAQ-
2007-004 and SR-NASDAQ-2007-080, and granting exemptive request
relating to rules incorporated by reference by The NASDAQ Options
Market).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') wishing to
incorporate rules of another SRO by reference has submitted a written
request for an order exempting it from the requirement in Section 19(b)
of the Exchange Act to file proposed rule changes relating to the rules
incorporated by reference, has identified the applicable originating
SRO(s), together with the rules it wants to incorporate by reference,
and otherwise has complied with the procedural requirements set forth
in the Commission's release governing procedures for requesting
exemptive orders pursuant to Rule 0-12 under the Exchange Act; \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 17 CFR 240.0-12 and Securities Exchange Act Release No.
39624 (February 5, 1998), 63 FR 8101 (February 18, 1998)
(``Commission Procedures for Filing Applications for Orders for
Exemptive Relief Pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange Act; Final
Rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The incorporating SRO has requested incorporation of
categories of rules (rather than individual rules within a category)
that are not trading rules (e.g., the SRO has requested incorporation
of rules such as margin, suitability, or arbitration); and
     The incorporating SRO has reasonable procedures in place
to provide written notice to its members each time a change is proposed
to the incorporated rules of another SRO.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See BATS Options Market Order, supra note 15 (citing
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49260 (February 17, 2004), 69 FR
8500 (February 24, 2004) (order granting exemptive request relating
to rules incorporated by reference by several SROs) (``2004
Order'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Exchange has satisfied each of
these conditions. Further, the Commission also believes that granting
the Exchange an exemption from the rule filing requirements under
Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act will promote efficient use of the
Commission's and the Exchange's resources by avoiding duplicative rule
filings based on simultaneous changes to identical rule text sought by
more than one SRO.\18\ The Commission therefore finds it appropriate in
the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors to
exempt the Exchange from the rule filing requirements under Section
19(b) of the Exchange Act with respect to the above-described rules it
incorporates by reference. This exemption is conditioned upon the
Exchange promptly providing written notice to its applicants and
members whenever Nasdaq changes a rule that the Exchange incorporates
by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See BATS Options Market Order, supra note 15, 75 FR at
8761; see also 2004 Order, supra note 17, 69 FR at 8502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange
Act,\19\ that the Exchange is exempt from the rule filing requirements
of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act solely with respect to changes to
the rules identified in the Exemptive Request, provided that the
Exchange promptly provides written notice to its applicants and members
whenever Nasdaq proposes to change a rule that the Exchange has
incorporated by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(76).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-19716 Filed 9-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P