[Federal Register: December 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 72692-72693]
[DOCID:fr21de07-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ08-3-000]

Southwestern Power Administration; Notice of Filing

December 14, 2007.
    Take notice that on December 6, 2007, Southwestern Power
Administration (Southwestern) filed revision to its non-jurisdictional
open access transmission tariff to incorporate Attachment O--
Transmission Planning Process. Southwestern requests for an effective
date for its Attachment O to be February 4, 2008.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC

Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call (866)
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 7, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-24753 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 197 (Friday, October 13, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47630-47631]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22123]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0626; A-1-FRL-9969-56-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Vermont; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress
Report; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the August 16, 2017, direct
final rule approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Vermont. Vermont's SIP revision addresses
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require
states to submit periodic reports

describing the progress toward reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
established for regional haze and a determination of adequacy of the
State's existing regional haze SIP. This action is being taken in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: The direct final rule published on August 16, 2017 (82 FR
38834), is withdrawn effective October 13, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne K. McWilliams, Air Quality
Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2),
Boston, MA 02109--3912, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile (617) 918-
0697, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the direct final rule, EPA stated that if
adverse comments were submitted by September 15, 2017, the rule would
be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA received an adverse comment prior
to the close of the comment period and, therefore, is withdrawing the
direct final rule. EPA will address the comment in a subsequent final
action based upon the proposed rule also published on August 16, 2017
(82 FR 38864). EPA will not institute a second comment period on this
action.

    Dated: September 27, 2017.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
 Accordingly, the amendments to 40 CFR 52.2370 published in the Federal
Register on August 16, 2017 (82 FR 38834), on page 38838 are withdrawn
effective October 13, 2017.

[FR Doc. 2017-22123 Filed 10-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 25)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6209-6213]
[DOCID:fr07fe06-7]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 268

[FRL-8027-6; EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0015]

Site-Specific Variance From the Land Disposal Restrictions
Treatment Standard for 1,3-Phenylenediamine (1,3-PDA)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to revise the waste
treatment standard for 1,3-phenylenediamine (1,3-PDA) for a biosludge
generated at DuPont's Chambers Works facility in Deepwater, New Jersey.
This variance is necessary because the facility is unable to measure
compliance with the 1,3-PDA land disposal restrictions treatment
standard in its multisource leachate treatment biosludge matrix. As a
practical matter, therefore, the facility cannot fully document
compliance with the requirements of the treatment standard. For the
same reason, EPA cannot ascertain compliance for this constituent.
Furthermore, faced with the inability to demonstrate treatment residual
content through analytical testing for this constituent, this facility
faces potential curtailment of 1,3-PDA production operations. This
site-specific variance will provide alternative technology treatment
standards for 1,3-PDA in multisource leachate that do not require
analysis of the biosludge matrix to determine whether the numerical
treatment standard is being met, thus ensuring that treatment
reflecting performance of the Best Demonstrated Available Technology
occurs and that threats to human health and the environment from land
disposal of the waste are minimized.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 10, 2006, unless the Agency
receives adverse comment by March 9, 2006. If adverse comment is
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0015. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 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, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA

West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the RCRA
docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information on this
rulemaking, contact Rhonda Minnick, Hazardous Waste Minimization and
Management Division, Office of Solid Waste (MC 5302 W), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view
the site-specific treatment standard as noncontroversial. We anticipate
no adverse comments because it is site-specific and the alternative
treatment standard that it establishes is based on performance of the
Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) that ensures treatment of
constituents with similar structure and physical form. We believe that
this treatment will minimize threats to human health and the
environment posed by land disposal of the waste. However, in the
``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register publication, we
are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to
grant this site-specific treatment variance, if adverse comments are
filed. This direct final rule will be effective on April 10, 2006
without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by March 9,
2006. If EPA receives adverse comment on this site-specific treatment
variance, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
indicating which aspects of the variance will become effective and
which are being withdrawn due to adverse comment. Any of the provisions
in today's direct final rulemaking for which we do not receive adverse
comment will become effective on the date set above. We will address
all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed
rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting on this site-specific variance must do
so at this time.

A. What Is the Basis for LDR Treatment Variances?

    Under section 3004(m) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), EPA is required to set ``levels or methods of treatment, if
any, which substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term threats to
human health and the environment are minimized.'' We interpret this
language to authorize treatment standards based on the performance of
the Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT). This interpretation
was upheld by the D.C. Circuit in Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v.
EPA, 886 F.2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
    We recognize that there may be wastes that cannot be treated to
levels specified in the regulations (see 40 CFR 268.40) because an
individual waste matrix or concentration can be substantially more
difficult to treat than those wastes we evaluated in establishing the
treatment standard (51 FR 40576, November 7, 1986). For such wastes,
EPA has a process by which a generator or treater may seek a treatment
variance (see 40 CFR 268.44). If granted, the terms of the variance
establish an alternative treatment standard for the particular waste at
issue.

B. What Is the Basis of the Current 1,3-PDA Treatment Standard?

    The treatment standard for 1,3-PDA was promulgated in the Dyes and
Pigments (K181) hazardous waste listing on February 24, 2005 (70 FR
9138) and it became effective on August 23, 2005. The 1,3-PDA treatment
standard was placed in the Table of Treatment Standards (see 40 CFR
268.40) under ``K181'' (the waste code for the Dyes and Pigments
listing) and under ``F039'' (the waste code for multisource leachate).
It is the F039 treatment standard for 1,3-PDA that is addressed in this
site-specific variance. We also added this constituent to the Universal
Treatment Standard Table (see 40 CFR 268.48), which means that when
1,3-PDA is reasonably expected to be present in a characteristic waste
at point of generation it must be considered an underlying hazardous
constituent requiring treatment.
    In the final rule, we set a numerical nonwastewater treatment
standard of

0.66 mg/kg for 1,3-PDA, based on use of the best demonstrated available
technology (BDAT) of combustion. For purposes of establishing the
treatment standard, we grouped 1,3-PDA with other waste constituents
(notably 1,2-PDA, but also including o-Anisidine, p-Cresidine, 2,4-
dimethylaniline, aniline and 4-chloroaniline). No actual treatment data
were available for 1,3-PDA. However, the 0.66 mg/kg treatment standard
was based on: (1) The thermal stability index ranking system and
incinerability index (if the most difficult to treat constituents can
be destroyed via incineration, then all less stable constituents can
also be destroyed); and (2) similar chemical structures and chemical
and physical properties that are exhibited by the constituents in each
treatability group (incineration should be able to destabilize and
destroy each of the compounds in a similar fashion). See the ``Best
Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) Background Document for Dyes
and Pigments Production Wastes,'' December 2004, section 2.2.3.

II. What Is the Basis for Today's Determination?

A. What Criteria Govern a Treatment Variance?

    Facilities can apply for a site-specific variance in cases where a
waste that is generated under conditions specific to only one site
cannot be treated to the specified levels. In such cases, the generator
or treatment facility may apply to the Administrator, or a delegated
representative, for a site-specific variance from a treatment standard.
One of the demonstrations that an applicant for a site-specific
variance may make is that it is not physically possible to treat the
waste to the level specified in the treatment standard (40 CFR
268.44(h)(1)). This is the criteria pertinent to today's variance, in
that it is not technically possible to measure the constituent in
DuPont's biosludge treatment residual, as explained below.

B. What Does DuPont Request?

    DuPont contacted EPA about an analytical problem it is having with
1,3-PDA in their multisource leachate (F039) treatment biosludge. The
facility produces 1,3-PDA in their plant and then pipes the wastewaters
from manufacturing 1,3-PDA to an onsite biological wastewater treatment
plant. DuPont ultimately disposes of the biosolids containing 1,3-PDA
into their hazardous waste landfill. The mass loading levels of the
waste 1,3-PDA do not trigger the K181 listing, so such placement is not
considered land disposal of a hazardous waste. However, the landfill is
permitted to accept biosolids with several listed hazardous wastes and,
as a result, generates F039 (a hazardous waste), which is reasonably
expected to contain 1,3-PDA. The F039 is introduced by pipeline into
DuPont's biological treatment system, a two-step biological process
that includes the use of activated carbon. Biodegradation reduces
organics in this system by approximately 99%. The treatment residual is
a F039 biosludge that is high in carbon. It is this biosludge that is
the basis of the requested treatability variance.
    DuPont has sent the biosludge to several commercial laboratories
for analysis to see if it met the treatment standard and could be
legally land disposed. The laboratories have consistently been unable
to detect 1,3-PDA in this high carbon matrix. When asked if they could
develop a new detection method for this constituent, only one
laboratory was interested in attempting to do so, but indicated that it
could take a year to develop and it likely would have a detection limit
around 13 mg/kg (the detection limit for a similar compound, 1,4-PDA).
This detection limit is much higher than the 1,3-PDA treatment standard
of 0.66 mg/kg.
    DuPont pointed out that when the treatment standard for a similar
compound, 1,2-PDA (1,2-phenylenediamine, o-phenylenediamine), was
promulgated in the dyes and pigments listing rule, we set a treatment
standard expressed as specified technologies because of method
detection problems: We specified that combustion (CMBST), or chemical
oxidation (CHOXD) followed by biodegradation (BIODG) or carbon
adsorption (CARBN), or a treatment train of BIODG followed by CARBN are
the treatment standard. DuPont requested that we provide a variance
that would set specified technologies as the treatment standard for
1,3-PDA at their Chambers Works facility, as we did for 1,2-PDA. We
believe that this is a reasonable request because when we evaluated the
waste constituents to determine the original treatment standards, we
grouped 1,3-PDA with 1,2-PDA (and other constituents) because they are
similar in chemical structure and physical properties.

C. New Treatment Standard for 1,3-PDA

    We are granting DuPont's request in today's site-specific variance.
Under one of the criteria for a variance from the treatment standard,
the applicant must demonstrate that it is not physically possible to
treat the waste to the level specified in the treatment standard. We
believe that today's variance falls into this category, in that it is
technically impossible for DuPont to demonstrate that it complies with
a treatment level when laboratories have not been able to detect the
waste in DuPont's particular, site-specific biosludge matrix.\1\
Therefore, certification that this constituent has been treated in the
F039 biosludge matrix is not possible, and without the certification,
disposal of the F039 biosludge cannot legally occur. This situation may
impede production of 1,3-PDA at the facility, because legal disposal of
this waste would no longer be available. See Steel Manufacturers
Association v. EPA., 27 F.3d 642, 646-47 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (absence of a
treatment standard providing a legal means of disposing of wastes from
a process is equivalent to shutting down that process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This finding is similar to a previous LDR determination. We
originally promulgated a numerical treatment standard for 1,2-PDA
(o-phenylenediamine) on April 8, 1996 (61 FR 15583). However, we
subsequently withdrew the treatment standard because of poor method
performance on September 4, 1998. We stated at that time that
treatment of other constituents would provide adequate treatment for
o-phenylenediamine (63 FR 47409).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The alternative treatment standard established by today's site-
specific variance is: Combustion (CMBST), or chemical oxidation (CHOXD)
followed by biodegradation (BIODG) or carbon adsorption (CARBN), or a
treatment train of BIODG followed by CARBN, the same treatment standard
we set in the K181 listing rule for a similar constituent, 1,2-PDA. By
altering the treatment standard for 1,3-PDA to allow certification of
compliance based on the use of specified treatment technologies without
constituent-specific testing, we can ensure that effective treatment
occurs without delay and can also assure that threats to human health
and the environment are minimized. We believe that DuPont's two-step
biological treatment system that includes the use of activated carbon
effectively treats 1,3-PDA in the F039 multisource leachate waste.\2\
And, as mentioned in footnote 1, we made a similar finding that
treatment of other carbamate waste constituents would adequately treat
1,2-PDA, when we withdrew it as a constituent of concern in 1998.
Likewise, we believe that treatment of the other constituents of

concern in DuPont's F039 multisource leachate waste will serve as a
surrogate for 1,3-PDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ When we originally promulgated treatment standards for F039,
we stated that constituents on the BDAT list serve as surrogates for
those constituents that may be present in the multisource leachate
that cannot be adequately analyzed (55 FR 22622, June 1, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Because this action
creates no new regulatory requirements, it has been determined that
this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
This action is a site-specific variance to the LDR treatment standards,
which allows a specified BDAT treatment technology to be used for
treating one facility's hazardous waste prior to land disposal. The
facility remains subject to the unchanged Land Disposal Restrictions
paperwork requirements found at 40 CFR 268.7.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This treatment variance does not create any new regulatory
requirements. Rather, it establishes an alternative treatment standard
for a specific waste stream that replaces a standard already in effect,
and it applies to only one facility. Therefore, I hereby certify that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This rule, therefore, does not require a
regulatory flexibility analysis.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty
on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. This
action is a site-specific variance that allows a different treatment
standard to be met for treating one constituent in one facility's
hazardous waste prior to land disposal.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will 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. This action is a site-specific
variance for one facility. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action
is a site-specific variance that applies to only one facility, which is
not a tribal facility. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule.

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

    ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    Today's final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it does not meet either of these criteria. The waste described in this
site-specific treatment standard variance will be treated and then
disposed of in existing, permitted RCRA Subtitle C landfills, ensuring
that there will be no risks that may disproportionately affect
children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The Agency uses
established technical standards when determining the best demonstrated
available technologies upon which land disposal restrictions treatment
standards are based. Therefore, there is no need to provide Congress an
explanation because consensus standards were used in establishing this
alternative treatment standard for 1,3-PDA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns and
is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to
enhance environmental quality for all residents of the United States.
The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population,
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income bears
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
impacts as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and
that all people live in clean and sustainable communities. In response
to Executive Order 12898 and to concerns voiced by many groups outside
the Agency, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response formed
an Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of
environmental justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop
an overall strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER
Directive No. 9200.3-17).
    Today's variance applies to waste that is treated in an existing,
permitted RCRA Subtitle C facility, ensuring protection to human health
and the environment. Therefore, today's rule will not result in any
disproportionately negative impacts on minority or low-income
communities relative to affluent or non-minority communities.

K. Congressional Review

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types
of rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801
because this is a rule of particular applicability, applying only to a
specific waste type at one facility under particular circumstances.
    A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published
in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), however, this rule will be effective April 10,
2006.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 27, 2006.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 268--LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, and 6924.

0
2. Section 268.44, the table in paragraph (o) is amended by adding in
alphabetical order an additional entry for ``DuPont Environmental
Treatment Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ'' and adding a new footnote 13
to read as follows:

Sec.  268.44  Variance from a treatment standard.

* * * * *
    (o) * * *

                                        Table.--Wastes Excluded From the Treatment Standards Under Sec.   268.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Wastewaters                       Nonwastewaters
                                                                   Regulated     -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Facility name \1\ and address  Waste code       See also          hazardous      Concentration (mg/                      Concentration
                                                                  constituent             L)               Notes             (mg/kg)           Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
DuPont Environmental Treatment       F039   Standards under    1,3-               NA...............  NA...............  CMBST; CHOXD fb           (\13\)
 Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ.              Sec.   268.40.     phenylenediamine                                         BIODG or CARBN;
                                                                1,3-PDA.                                                 or BIODG fb
                                                                                CARBN.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A facility may certify compliance with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.7.
* * * * * * *
(13) This treatment standard applies to 1,3-PDA in biosludge from treatment of F039.
Note: NA means Not Applicable.

[FR Doc. 06-1073 Filed 2-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71649-71650]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29075]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68300; File No. SR-ICC-2012-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Correct
One Term in the ICC Rules

November 27, 2012.
    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 November 13, 2012, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been
prepared primarily by ICC. ICC filed the proposal pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) \4\ thereunder, so
that the proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to change the word
``customer'' to ``client'' in the defined term ``Client Omnibus Margin
Account'' in one instance in Section 20-605(d) in order to ensure
consistency of defined terms throughout the ICE Clear Credit Rules.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC 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. ICC 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

    ICC is updating one word in Section 20-605(d) of the Rules to
change the word ``customer'' to ``client'' in the defined term ``Client
Omnibus Margin Account.'' ICC is making this correction in order to
ensure that the defined terms in the ICC Rules are consistent. This
change does not require any changes to the ICC risk management
framework. The only change submitted is the correction of one defined
term in ICC Rule 20-605(d).
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \5\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and,
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions. ICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to ICC, in particular, to Section 17A(b)(3)(F),
because the correction of ``customer'' to ``client'' in the defined
term ``Client Omnibus Margin Account'' in ICC Rule 20-605(d) will
facilitate the prompt and accurate settlement of securities
transactions and contribute to the safeguarding of securities and funds
associated with swap transactions which are in the custody of control
of ICC or for which it is responsible. ICC believes the proposed change
will alleviate any potential confusion with defined terms in the ICC
Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule changes have not
been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by ICC.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) \6\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) \7\
thereunder because it is concerned solely with the administration of
the self-regulatory organization. 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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-ICC-2012-21 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2012-21. 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 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 Web site 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 will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of ICC and on ICC's Web site
(https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/regulatory_filings/ICEClearCredit_111312.pdf).
    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-ICC-2012-21
and should be submitted on or before December 24, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-29075 Filed 11-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41839-41846]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14877]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95211; File No. SR-MEMX-2022-16]

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

July 7, 2022.
    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 June 30, 2022, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'' or the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities

and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change
as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to amend the Exchange's fee schedule applicable to Members \3\ (the
``Fee Schedule'') pursuant to Exchange Rules 15.1(a) and (c). The
Exchange proposes to implement the changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant
to this proposal on July 1, 2022. 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Fee
Schedule to: (i) reduce certain rebates and modify certain required
criteria under the Liquidity Provision Tiers; (ii) modify the required
criteria under the Step-Up Additive Rebate; (iii) increase the fee and
modify the required criteria under Liquidity Removal Tier 1; (iv)
reduce the rebates and modify the required criteria under the Displayed
Liquidity Incentive (``DLI'') Tiers; and (v) eliminate the DLI Additive
Rebate, each as further described below.
    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues, to
which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on
publicly available information, no single registered equities exchange
currently has more than approximately 17% of the total market share of
executed volume of equities trading.\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
the Exchange currently represents approximately 3.5% of the overall
market share.\5\ The Exchange in particular operates a ``Maker-Taker''
model whereby it provides rebates to Members that add liquidity to the
Exchange and charges fees to Members that remove liquidity from the
Exchange. The Fee Schedule sets forth the standard rebates and fees
applied per share for orders that add and remove liquidity,
respectively. Additionally, in response to the competitive environment,
the Exchange also offers tiered pricing, which provides Members with
opportunities to qualify for higher rebates or lower fees where certain
volume criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides an
incremental incentive for Members to strive for higher tier levels,
which provides increasingly higher benefits or discounts for satisfying
increasingly more stringent criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Market share percentage calculated as of June 30, 2022. The
Exchange receives and processes data made available through
consolidated data feeds (i.e., CTS and UTDF).
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liquidity Provision Tiers
    The Exchange currently provides a standard rebate of $0.0020 per
share for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00
per share that add displayed liquidity to the Exchange (such orders,
``Added Displayed Volume''). The Exchange also currently offers
Liquidity Provision Tiers 1, 2, 3 and 4, under which a Member may
receive an enhanced rebate for executions of Added Displayed Volume by
achieving the corresponding required volume criteria for each tier. The
Exchange now proposes to reduce certain of the rebates for executions
of Added Displayed Volume and modify certain required criteria under
the Liquidity Provision Tiers, as further described below.
    First, with respect to Liquidity Provision Tier 1, the Exchange
currently provides an enhanced rebate of $0.00335 per share for
executions of Added Displayed Volume for Members that qualify for such
tier by achieving a Displayed ADAV \6\ that is equal to or greater than
0.40% of the TCV.\7\ The Exchange now proposes to reduce the rebate for
executions of Added Displayed Volume under Liquidity Provision Tier 1
to $0.0033 per share,\8\ and to modify the required criteria such that
a Member would now qualify for such tier by achieving: (1) a Displayed
ADAV that is equal to or greater than 0.40% of the TCV; or (2) a Remove
ADV \9\ that is equal to or greater than 0.25% of the TCV and a Step-Up
ADAV \10\ from June 2022 that is equal to or greater than 0.05% of the
TCV. Thus, such proposed change would keep the existing criteria intact
and add an alternative criteria that includes a Remove ADV threshold
and a Step-Up ADAV threshold, which are designed to encourage the
submission of additional order flow to the Exchange in the forms of
both liquidity-removing volume and liquidity-adding volume. While the
Exchange's overall pricing philosophy generally encourages adding
liquidity over removing liquidity, the Exchange believes that providing
alternative criteria that are based on different types of volume that
Members may choose to achieve, such as the proposed new criteria which
includes a Remove ADV threshold, contributes to a more robust

and well-balanced market ecosystem on the Exchange to the benefit of
all Members. The Exchange notes that, as the proposed change to the
required criteria under Liquidity Provision Tier 1 merely provides an
alternative criteria and does not change the existing criteria, the
Exchange believes that such change would make the tier easier for
Members to achieve, and, in turn, while the Exchange has no way of
predicting with certainty how the proposed new criteria will impact
Member activity, the Exchange expects that more Members will strive to
qualify for such tier than currently do, resulting in the submission of
additional order flow to the Exchange. The purpose of reducing the
rebate for executions of Added Displayed Volume under such tier as
proposed (i.e., by $0.00005 per share), which the Exchange believes is
a modest reduction and remains commensurate with the required criteria,
is for business and competitive reasons, as the Exchange believes that
such reduction would decrease the Exchange's expenditures with respect
to its transaction pricing in a manner that is still consistent with
the Exchange's overall pricing philosophy of encouraging added
liquidity. The Exchange is not proposing to change the rebate for
executions of orders in securities priced below $1.00 per share under
such tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ``ADAV'' means the average
daily added volume calculated as the number of shares added per day,
which is calculated on a monthly basis, and ``Displayed ADAV'' means
ADAV with respect to displayed orders.
    \7\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ``TCV'' means total
consolidated volume calculated as the volume reported by all
exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a consolidated
transaction reporting plan for the month for which the fees apply.
    \8\ The proposed pricing for Liquidity Provision Tier 1 is
referred to by the Exchange on the Fee Schedule under the existing
description ``Added displayed volume, Liquidity Provision Tier 1''
with a Fee Code of ``B1'', ``D1'' or ``J1'', as applicable, to be
provided by the Exchange on the monthly invoices provided to
Members. The Exchange notes that because the determination of
whether a Member qualifies for a certain pricing tier for a
particular month will not be made until after the month-end, the
Exchange will provide the Fee Codes otherwise applicable to such
transactions on the execution reports provided to Members during the
month and will only designate the Fee Codes applicable to the
achieved pricing tier on the monthly invoices, which are provided
after such determination has been made, as the Exchange does for its
tier-based pricing today.
    \9\ As proposed, the term ``Remove ADV'' means ADV with respect
to orders that remove liquidity. As set forth on the Fee Schedule,
``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number of
shares added or removed, combined, per day, which is calculated on a
monthly basis. The Exchange proposes to add the definition of Remove
ADV under the ``Definitions'' section of the Fee Schedule.
    \10\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ``Step-Up ADAV'' means
ADAV in the relevant baseline month subtracted from current ADAV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, with respect to Liquidity Provision Tier 2, the Exchange
currently provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0032 per share for
executions of Added Displayed Volume for Members that qualify for such
tier by achieving: (1) an ADAV that is equal to or greater than 0.25%
of the TCV; or (2) an ADAV that is equal to or greater than 0.15% of
the TCV and a Step-Up ADAV from May 2022 that is equal to or greater
than 0.05% of the TCV. The Exchange now proposes to modify the required
criteria under Liquidity Provision Tier 2 such that a Member would
qualify for such tier only by achieving an ADAV that is equal to or
greater than 0.25% of the TCV. Thus, such proposed change would keep
the first of such two alternative criteria intact and eliminate the
second of such criteria. The Exchange notes that no Members are
presently achieving the second of such criteria, and as such, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed elimination of such
criteria will have a significant impact on any Member's trading
behavior on the Exchange. The Exchange therefore no longer wishes to,
nor is it required to, maintain such criteria. The Exchange is not
proposing to change the rebates provided under such tier.
    Third, with respect to Liquidity Provision Tier 3, the Exchange
currently provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0031 per share for
executions of Added Displayed Volume for Members that qualify for such
tier by achieving: (1) an ADAV that is equal to or greater than 0.20%
of the TCV; or (2) a Step-Up ADAV from December 2021 that is equal to
or greater than 0.05% of the TCV. The Exchange now proposes to reduce
the rebate for executions of Added Displayed Volume under Liquidity
Provision Tier 3 to $0.0029 per share,\11\ and to modify the required
criteria such that a Member would now qualify for such tier by
achieving: (1) an ADAV that is equal to or greater than 0.12% of the
TCV; or (2) a Step-Up ADAV from April 2022 that is equal to or greater
than 0.04% of the TCV; or (3) a Step-Up Non-Displayed ADAV \12\ from
April 2022 that is equal to or greater than 2,000,000 shares. Thus,
such proposed change would lower the ADAV threshold in the first of
such alternative criteria, slightly lower the Step-Up ADAV threshold
but reference a more recent baseline month in the second of such
alternative criteria, and add a third alternative criteria that is
based on a Step-Up Non-Displayed ADAV. Such changes are designed to
encourage the submission of additional order flow to the Exchange,
including in the form of non-displayed liquidity-adding volume. While
the Exchange's overall pricing philosophy generally encourages
displayed liquidity over non-displayed liquidity, the Exchange believes
that providing alternative criteria that are based on different types
of volume that Members may choose to achieve, such as the proposed new
criteria based on a Step-Up Non-Displayed ADAV threshold, contributes
to a more robust and well-balanced market ecosystem on the Exchange to
the benefit of all Members. The purpose of reducing the rebate for
executions of Added Displayed Volume under such tier as proposed (i.e.,
by $0.0002 per share), which the Exchange believes remains commensurate
with the proposed new required criteria, is for business and
competitive reasons, as the Exchange believes that such reduction would
decrease the Exchange's expenditures with respect to its transaction
pricing in a manner that is still consistent with the Exchange's
overall pricing philosophy of encouraging added liquidity. The Exchange
is not proposing to change the rebate for executions of orders in
securities priced below $1.00 per share under such tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The proposed pricing for Liquidity Provision Tier 3 is
referred to by the Exchange on the Fee Schedule under the existing
description ``Added displayed volume, Liquidity Provision Tier 3''
with a Fee Code of ``B3'', ``D3'' or ``J3'', as applicable, to be
provided by the Exchange on the monthly invoices provided to
Members.
    \12\ As proposed, the term ``Step-Up Non-Displayed ADAV'' means
Non-Displayed ADAV in the relevant baseline month subtracted from
current Non-Displayed ADAV. As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ``Non-
Displayed ADAV'' means ADAV with respect to non-displayed orders
(including Midpoint Peg orders). The Exchange proposes to add the
definition of Step-Up Non-Displayed ADAV under the ``Definitions''
section of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, with respect to Liquidity Provision Tier 4, the Exchange
currently provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0027 per share for
executions of Added Displayed Volume for Members that qualify for such
tier by achieving: (1) an ADAV that is equal to or greater than 0.05%
of the TCV; or (2) a Step-Up Displayed ADAV from February 2022 that is
equal to or greater than 0.02% of the TCV; or (3) a Midpoint ADAV that
is equal to or greater than 1,000,000 shares. The Exchange now proposes
to reduce the rebate for executions of Added Displayed Volume under
Liquidity Provision Tier 4 to $0.0026 per share,\13\ and to modify the
required criteria such that a Member would now qualify for such tier by
achieving: (1) an ADAV that is equal to or greater than 0.075% of the
TCV; or (2) a Step-Up Displayed ADAV from April 2022 that is equal to
or greater than 0.02% of the TCV; or (3) a Midpoint ADAV that is equal
to or greater than 1,000,000 shares. Thus, such proposed change would
slightly increase the ADAV threshold in the first of such alternative
criteria, keep the same Step-Up Displayed ADAV threshold but reference
a more recent baseline month in the second of such alternative
criteria, and keep the third of such alternative criteria intact. Such
changes are designed to encourage the submission of additional
liquidity-adding order flow to the Exchange. The purpose of reducing
the rebate for executions of Added Displayed Volume under such tier as
proposed (i.e., by $0.0001 per share), which the Exchange believes is a
modest reduction and remains commensurate with the required criteria,
is for business and competitive reasons, as the Exchange believes that
such reduction would decrease the Exchange's expenditures with respect
to its transaction pricing in

a manner that is still consistent with the Exchange's overall pricing
philosophy of encouraging added liquidity. The Exchange is not
proposing to change the rebate for executions of orders in securities
priced below $1.00 per share under such tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The proposed pricing for Liquidity Provision Tier 4 is
referred to by the Exchange on the Fee Schedule under the existing
description ``Added displayed volume, Liquidity Provision Tier 4''
with a Fee Code of ``B4'', ``D4'' or ``J4'', as applicable, to be
provided by the Exchange on the monthly invoices provided to
Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step-Up Additive Rebate
    The Exchange currently offers the Step-Up Additive Rebate under
which the Exchange provides an additive rebate of $0.0002 per share
that is in addition to the otherwise applicable rebate for a qualifying
Member's executions of orders that constitute Added Displayed Volume,
except: (i) orders that establish the national best bid or offer
(``NBBO'') if such Member qualifies for the Exchange's NBBO Setter
Tier; and (ii) Retail Orders.\14\ Currently, a Member qualifies for the
Step-Up Additive Rebate by achieving a Step-Up ADAV (excluding Retail
Orders) from April 2022 that is equal to or greater than 0.07% of the
TCV. Now, the Exchange proposes to modify the required criteria under
the Step-Up Additive Rebate such that a Member would now qualify for
such tier by achieving: (1) a Step-Up ADAV (excluding Retail Orders)
from April 2022 that is equal to or greater than 0.07% of the TCV; or
(2) an ADAV>=0.70% of the TCV. Thus, such proposed change would keep
the existing criteria intact and add an alternative criteria that is
based on an ADAV threshold that is higher than the ADAV threshold under
any other of the Exchange's pricing tiers and that no Member is
currently achieving on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that this
proposed alternative criteria provides an incremental incentive for
Members to strive for higher ADAV on the Exchange to receive the
additive rebate for qualifying executions of Added Displayed Volume
under such tier, and thus, it is designed to encourage Members that do
not currently qualify for such tier to increase their overall orders
that add liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the
tier, as proposed, would further incentivize increased order flow to
the Exchange, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market
to the benefit of all Members. The Exchange notes that, as the proposed
change to the required criteria under the Step-Up Additive Rebate
merely provides an alternative criteria and does not change the
existing criteria, the Exchange believes that such change would make
the tier easier for Members to achieve, and, in turn, while the
Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how the proposed new
criteria will impact Member activity, the Exchange expects that more
Members will strive to qualify for such tier than currently do,
resulting in the submission of additional order flow to the Exchange.
The Exchange is not proposing to change the amount of the additive
rebate provided under such tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As set forth in Exchange Rule 11.21(a), a ``Retail Order''
means an agency or riskless principal order that meets the criteria
of FINRA Rule 5320.03 that originates from a natural person and is
submitted to the Exchange by a Retail Member Organization, provided
that no change is made to the terms of the order with respect to
price or side of market and the order does not originate from a
trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liquidity Removal Tier 1
    The Exchange currently charges a standard fee of $0.0030 per share
for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per
share that remove liquidity from the Exchange (such orders, ``Removed
Volume''). The Exchange also currently offers Liquidity Removal Tier 1
under which qualifying Members are charged a discounted fee of $0.00285
per share for executions of Removed Volume by achieving: (1) an ADAV
that is equal to or greater than 0.30% of the TCV; or (2) an ADV that
is equal to or greater than 0.60% of the TCV. Now, the Exchange
proposes to increase the fee charged for executions of Removed Volume
under Liquidity Removal Tier 1 to $0.0029 per share,\15\ and to modify
the required criteria such that a Member would now qualify for such
tier by achieving: (1) a Remove ADV that is equal to or greater than
0.30% of the TCV and a Step-Up ADAV from April 2022 that is equal to or
greater than 0.10% of the TCV; or (2) an ADV that is equal to or
greater than 1.00% of the TCV. Thus, such proposed changes to the
required criteria would replace the ADAV threshold with a Remove ADV
threshold and a Step-Up ADAV threshold in the first of such alternative
criteria and increase the ADV threshold in the second of such
alternative criteria. Such changes are designed to encourage the
submission of additional order flow to the Exchange, including in the
forms of both liquidity-removing volume and liquidity-adding volume.
While the Exchange's overall pricing philosophy generally encourages
adding liquidity over removing liquidity, the Exchange believes that
providing alternative criteria that are based on different types of
volume that Members may choose to achieve, such as the proposed new
criteria which includes a Remove ADV threshold, contributes to a more
robust and well-balanced market ecosystem on the Exchange to the
benefit of all Members. The purpose of increasing the fee charged for
executions of Removed Volume under such tier as proposed (i.e., by
$0.00005 per share), which the Exchange believes is a modest increase
and remains commensurate with the proposed new required criteria, is
for business and competitive reasons, as the Exchange believes that
increasing such fee would generate additional revenue to offset some of
the costs associated with the Exchange's current transaction pricing
structure, which provides various rebates for liquidity-adding orders,
and the Exchange's operations generally, in a manner that is still
consistent with the Exchange's overall pricing philosophy of
encouraging added liquidity. The Exchange is not proposing to change
the fee charged under such tier for executions of orders in securities
priced below $1.00 per share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The proposed pricing for Liquidity Removal Tier 1 is
referred to by the Exchange on the Fee Schedule under the existing
description ``Removed volume from MEMX Book, Liquidity Removal Tier
1'' with a Fee Code of ``R1'' to be provided by the Exchange on the
monthly invoices provided to Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DLI Tiers
    The Exchange currently offers DLI Tiers 1 and 2 under which
qualifying Members are provided an enhanced rebate for executions of
Added Displayed Volume. The DLI Tiers are designed to encourage
Members, through the provision of such enhanced rebates for executions
of Added Displayed Volume, to promote price discovery and market
quality by quoting at the NBBO for a significant portion of each day
(i.e., through the applicable quoting requirement \16\) in a large
number of securities, generally, and in the DLI Target Securities,\17\
in particular (i.e., through the applicable securities requirements
\18\), thereby benefitting the

Exchange and investors by providing improved trading conditions for all
market participants through narrower bid-ask spreads and increased
depth of liquidity available at the NBBO in a broad base of securities,
including the DLI Target Securities specifically, and committing
capital to support the execution of orders.\19\ Now, the Exchange
proposes to modify DLI Tiers 1 and 2 by modifying the required criteria
and reducing the rebates for executions of Added Displayed Volume under
such tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, the term ``quoting
requirement'' means the requirement that a Member's NBBO Time be at
least 25%, and the term ``NBBO Time'' means the aggregate of the
percentage of time during regular trading hours during which one of
a Member's market participant identifiers (``MPIDs'') has a
displayed order of at least one round lot at the national best bid
or the national best offer.
    \17\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, the term ``DLI Target
Securities'' refers to a list of securities designated as such, the
universe of which will be determined by the Exchange and published
on the Exchange's website.
    \18\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, the term ``securities
requirement'' means the requirement that a Member meets the quoting
requirement in the applicable number of securities per day.
Currently, each of DLI Tiers 1 and 2 has a securities requirement
that may be achieved by a Member meeting the quoting requirement in
a specified number of any securities traded on the Exchange (the
``general securities requirement'') as well as a securities
requirement that must be achieved by a Member meeting the quoting
requirement in a specified number of DLI Target Securities (the
``DLI Target Securities requirement'').
    \19\ See the Exchange's Fee Schedule (available at https://info.memxtrading.com/fee-schedule/) for additional details regarding
the Exchange's DLI Tiers and the DLI Target Securities. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92150 (June 10, 2021), 86 FR
32090 (June 16, 2021) (SR-MEMX-2021-07) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of fee changes adopted by the Exchange,
including the adoption of DLI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, a Member qualifies for DLI Tier 1 by achieving an NBBO
Time of at least 25% in an average of at least 1,000 securities, at
least 125 of which must be DLI Target Securities, per trading day
during the month; and a Member qualifies for DLI Tier 2 by achieving an
NBBO Time of at least 25% in an average of 250 securities, at least 75
of which must be DLI Target Securities, per trading day during the
month. First, the Exchange proposes to modify the required criteria
under DLI Tiers 1 and 2 by deleting the requirement for a Member to
meet the quoting requirement in a specified number of DLI Target
Securities (i.e., the DLI Target Securities requirement) in each of
such tiers. Thus, the Exchange is proposing to delete the DLI Target
Securities requirements and the concept of DLI Target Securities
altogether, and the required criteria under each of DLI Tiers 1 and 2
would now only be based on a Member meeting the quoting requirement in
the applicable number of securities, which may be comprised of any
securities traded on the Exchange (i.e., the general securities
requirement).\20\ The existing DLI Target Securities requirements under
DLI Tiers 1 and 2 were initially designed to incentivize additional
quoting competition with respect to a designated list of securities
(i.e., the DLI Target Securities) in which the Exchange specifically
sought to enhance market quality. Since the initial adoption of the DLI
program, each of the DLI Tiers have included a DLI Target Securities
requirement, and the Exchange has seen significant improvement in
market quality with respect to the DLI Target Securities. The Exchange
now believes the DLI Target Securities requirements are no longer
needed to maintain the desired level of market quality with respect to
the DLI Target Securities, and the Exchange therefore no longer wishes
to, nor is it required to, maintain such requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In connection with this proposed change, the Exchange is
proposing to delete the definition of ``DLI Target Securities'' from
the Fee Schedule as it will no longer be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the proposed deletion of the DLI Target Securities
requirements under DLI Tiers 1 and 2, the Exchange also proposes to
increase the general securities requirement under DLI Tier 2 such that
a Member would now qualify for DLI Tier 2 by achieving an NBBO Time of
at least 25% in an average of 400 (i.e., increased from 250) securities
per trading day during the month. While the Exchange is proposing to
delete the DLI Target Securities requirement, this proposed increase in
the general securities requirement under DLI Tier 2 is designed to
achieve the DLI's market quality benefits described above in a broader
base of securities under such tier.
    In addition to the proposed changes to the required criteria under
DLI Tiers 1 and 2 described above, the Exchange is also proposing to
reduce the rebates for executions of Added Displayed Volume under such
tiers. Currently, the Exchange provides enhanced rebates of $0.0033 per
share under DLI Tier 1 and $0.0030 per share under DLI Tier 2 for
executions of Added Displayed Volume for Members that qualify for such
tiers. Now, the Exchange proposes to reduce the rebate provided under
DLI Tier 1 to $0.0032 per share and the rebate provided under DLI Tier
2 to $0.0029 per share.\21\ The purpose of reducing the enhanced
rebates for executions of Added Displayed Volume provided under DLI
Tiers 1 and 2 as proposed (i.e., by $0.0001 per share in each case),
which the Exchange believes is a modest decrease and remains
commensurate with the proposed new required criteria in each case, is
for business and competitive reasons, as the Exchange believes the
reduction of such rebates would decrease the Exchange's expenditures
with respect to the Exchange's transaction pricing in a manner that is
still consistent with the Exchange's overall pricing philosophy of
encouraging added liquidity and promoting the price discovery and
market quality objectives of the DLI Tiers described above. The
Exchange is not proposing to change the rebates provided under such
tiers for executions of orders in securities priced below $1.00 per
share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The proposed pricing for DLI Tier 1 is referred to by the
Exchange on the Fee Schedule under the existing description ``Added
displayed volume, DLI Tier 1'' with a Fee Code of ``Bq1'', ``Bq1''
or ``Jq1'', as applicable, and the proposed pricing for DLI Tier 2
is referred to by the Exchange on the Fee Schedule under the
existing description ``Added displayed volume, DLI Tier 2'' with a
Fee Code of ``Bq2'', ``Dq2'' or ``Jq2'', as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DLI Additive Rebate
    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the DLI Additive Rebate.
Currently, the Exchange offers a DLI Additive Rebate incentive that is
applicable to DLI Tier 1, which provides an additive rebate of $0.0001
per share for executions of Added Displayed Volume where, for a Member
that qualifies for DLI Tier 1, such Member has an ADAV that is equal to
or greater than 0.30% of the TCV. The Exchange now proposes to
eliminate such DLI Additive Rebate. The purpose of eliminating the DLI
Additive Rebate is for business and competitive reasons, as the
Exchange believes the elimination of such additive rebate would
decrease the Exchange's expenditures with respect to the Exchange's
transaction pricing, which would enable the Exchange to redirect future
resources and funding into other incentives and tiers intended to
incentivize increased order flow. For these reasons, the Exchange no
longer wishes to, nor is it required to, maintain such tier.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\22\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\23\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular
venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient, and the
Exchange represents only a small percentage of the overall market. The
Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference
for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS,

the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and also recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to new or different pricing structures being
introduced into the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain
the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates, and market participants
can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at
those other venues to be more favorable. The Exchange believes the
proposal reflects a reasonable and competitive pricing structure
designed to incentivize market participants to direct additional order
flow, including through more diverse types of orders, to the Exchange,
which the Exchange believes would enhance liquidity and market quality
on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members, as well as to decrease
the Exchange's expenditures and generate additional revenue with
respect to its transaction pricing, through the proposed reduced
rebates and increased fees under certain pricing tiers, in a manner
that is still consistent with the Exchange's overall pricing philosophy
of encouraging added displayed liquidity.
    The Exchange notes that volume-based incentives and discounts have
been widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange, and are
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are
open to all members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits
or discounts that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's
market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such
as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and the
introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume
discovery process. The Exchange believes that the Liquidity Provision
Tiers, the Step-Up Additive Rebate, Liquidity Removal Tier 1 and the
DLI Tiers, as modified by the proposed changes to the rebates and fees,
as well as the required criteria, as applicable, are reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for these same reasons, as
such tiers would continue to provide Members with incremental
incentives to achieve certain volume thresholds on the Exchange, are
available to all Members on an equal basis, and, as described above,
are designed to encourage Members to maintain or increase their order
flow, including through various forms of diverse order types, to the
Exchange in order to qualify for an enhanced rebate for executions of
Added Displayed Volume or a discounted fee for executions of Removed
Volume, thereby deepening liquidity, promoting price discovery and
contributing to a more robust and well-balanced market ecosystem to the
benefit of all Members. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
changes to such tiers reflect a reasonable and equitable allocation of
fees and rebates because, as noted above, the Exchange believes in each
case that the proposed new fee or rebate represents a modest increase
or reduction, as applicable, and/or remains commensurate with the
corresponding required criteria under such tier, and in each case is
reasonably related to the market quality benefits that the applicable
tier is designed to achieve while decreasing expenditures or generating
additional revenue with respect to the Exchange's transaction pricing.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to the delete the
DLI Target Securities requirements from the required criteria under DLI
Tiers 1 and 2 is reasonable because, as noted above, the Exchange
believes the DLI Target Securities requirements are no longer needed to
maintain the desired level of market quality with respect to the DLI
Target Securities on the Exchange, and the Exchange therefore no longer
wishes to, nor is it required to, maintain such requirements. The
Exchange also believes that such change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will apply to all Members equally and make
the required criteria under such tiers less restrictive, in that
Members seeking to qualify for such tiers will no longer be required to
meet the quoting requirement in a certain designated list of
securities, but rather, would have the flexibility to choose which
securities to quote in to meet the applicable general securities
requirement under such tiers.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed change to increase the
general securities requirement under DLI Tier 2 from 250 securities to
400 securities is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it will apply to all Members equally, in that all Members will
continue to have the opportunity to achieve the required criteria under
such tier, and this proposed increase is intended to enhance market
quality in a broader range of securities on the Exchange to the benefit
of all Members.
    The Exchange believes the proposed change to eliminate the DLI
Additive Rebate is reasonable because, as noted above, it would enable
the Exchange to redirect the associated resources and funding into
other incentives and tiers, and the Exchange is not required to
maintain such incentive or provide Members any opportunities to receive
additive rebates. The Exchange believes the proposal to eliminate such
incentive is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it
applies equally to all Members, in that the incentive would no longer
be available for any Member.
    For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange submits that the
proposal satisfies the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of
the Act \25\ in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other
persons using its facilities and is not designed to unfairly
discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. As
described more fully below in the Exchange's statement regarding the
burden on competition, the Exchange believes that its transaction
pricing is subject to significant competitive forces, and that the
proposed fees and rebates described herein are appropriate to address
such forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will result in any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above,
the proposal is intended to incentivize market participants to direct
additional order flow, including through more diverse types of orders,
to the Exchange, thereby enhancing liquidity and market quality on the
Exchange to the benefit of all Members, as well as to decrease the
Exchange's expenditures and generate additional revenue with respect to
its transaction pricing in a manner that is still consistent with the
Exchange's overall pricing philosophy of encouraging added displayed
liquidity. As a result, the Exchange believes the proposal would
enhance its competitiveness as a market that attracts actionable
orders, thereby making it a

more desirable destination venue for its customers. For these reasons,
the Exchange believes that the proposal 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.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intramarket Competition
    As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposal would
incentivize Members to submit additional order flow, including through
more diverse types of orders, to the Exchange, thereby contributing to
a more robust and well-balanced market ecosystem on the Exchange to the
benefit of all Members as well as enhancing the attractiveness of the
Exchange as a trading venue, which the Exchange believes, in turn,
would continue to encourage market participants to direct additional
order flow to the Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all Members by
providing more trading opportunities and encourages Members to send
additional orders to the Exchange, thereby contributing to robust
levels of liquidity, which benefits all market participants. The
opportunity to qualify for the modified Liquidity Provision Tiers,
Step-Up Additive Rebate, Liquidity Removal Tier 1 and DLI Tiers, and
thus receive the corresponding enhanced rebate for executions of Added
Displayed Volume or pay the discounted fee for Removed Volume, as
applicable, would be available to all Members that meet the associated
volume requirements in any month. As described above, the Exchange
believes that the proposed new required criteria under each such tier
are commensurate with the corresponding fee or rebate under such tier
and are reasonably related to the enhanced liquidity and market quality
that such tier is designed to promote. Additionally, as noted above,
the elimination of the DLI Additive Rebate and the DLI Target
Securities requirements under the DLI Tiers will apply to all Members
equally, in that the DLI Additive Rebate will no longer be available
for any Member, and no Member will be required to meet a DLI Target
Securities requirement to qualify for either of the DLI Tiers. For the
foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed changes would not
impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intermarket Competition
    As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. Members have numerous
alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order
flow to, including 15 other equities exchanges and numerous alternative
trading systems and other off-exchange venues. As noted above, no
single registered equities exchange currently has more than
approximately 17% of the total market share of executed volume of
equities trading. Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly
competitive market, no single equities exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of order flow. Moreover, the Exchange
believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from
month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order
flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of products, in
response to new or different pricing structures being introduced into
the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's
transaction fees and rebates, including with respect to executions of
Added Displayed Volume and Removed Volume, and market participants can
readily choose to send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange
venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more
favorable. As described above, the proposed changes represent a
competitive proposal through which the Exchange is seeking to decrease
the Exchange's expenditures and generate additional revenue with
respect to its transaction pricing and to encourage additional order
flow to the Exchange through volume-based tiers, which have been widely
adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes the proposal would not burden, but rather promote, intermarket
competition by enabling it to better compete with other exchanges that
offer similar pricing incentives to market participants that achieve
certain volume criteria and thresholds.
    Additionally, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \27\ The fact
that this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the
courts. In NetCoalition v. SEC, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows:
``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . .
As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and
sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-
routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders
for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .''.\28\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed pricing changes impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See supra note 24.
    \28\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \29\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \30\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \30\ 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 change 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MEMX-2022-16 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-2022-16. 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-2022-16 and should be submitted on
or before August 3, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-14877 Filed 7-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P