[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3218-3220]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00898]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76887; File No. SR-DTC-2015-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Regarding the Acknowledgment of
End-of-Day Net-Net Settlement Balances by Settling Banks

January 13, 2016.
    On November 16, 2015, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') proposed
rule change SR-DTC-2015-011 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ to amend DTC's Settlement Service Guide (``Guide'') \3\
in order to establish a new practice whereby any Settling Bank \4\ that
(i) fails to affirmatively acknowledge its end-of-day net-net
settlement balance,\5\ or (ii) does not notify DTC of its refusal to
settle on behalf of a Participant or Participants for which it is the
designated Settling Bank will be deemed to have acknowledged its end-
of-day net-net settlement balance and to make related technical changes
and corrections to the Rules, as more fully described below. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on November 30, 2015.\6\ The Commission did not receive any comment
letters on the proposed rule change. For the reasons discussed below,
the Commission is granting approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/
legal/service-guides/Settlement.pdf for an overview of the end-of-
day net settlement process.
    \4\ A ``Settling Bank'' is a DTC participant (``Participant'')
that is a bank and that settles for itself and may settle for other
Participants, including other bank Participants.
    \5\ The end-of-day net-net figure is the net of all
Participants' net balances after cross-endorsement with the National
Securities Clearing Corporation for which a Settling Bank settles,
including its own accounts.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76510 (November 23,
2015), 80 FR 74819 (November 30, 2015) (SR-DTC-2015-011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The following is a description of the proposed rule change, as
provided by DTC:
    Background. The DTC \7\ end-of-day net settlement structure depends
upon the use of Settling Banks.\8\ Each Participant must designate a
Settling Bank to settle on its behalf. Any Participant that is a bank
may settle for itself.\9\ Today, a Settling Bank that settles for other
Participants must acknowledge its end-of-day net-net settlement balance
for the group of Participants for which it settles, or notify DTC if it
refuses to settle for any Participant for which it is the designated
Settling Bank, by the later of 4:15 p.m. and the time that is 30
minutes after the Settling Bank end-of-day net-net settlement balances
are first made available by DTC (``Acknowledgment Cutoff Time'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Terms not otherwise defined herein have the meaning set
forth in the DTC Rules (the ``Rules''), available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.aspx.
    \8\ See the Guide, supra note 3, pp. 17-18.
    \9\ See Rule 9(B), supra note 7.
    \10\ Currently, a Settling Bank that settles only for itself may
opt out of the requirement to acknowledge its balance, but it cannot
refuse to settle for itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a Settling Bank notifies DTC that it refuses to settle for a
Participant, DTC would recalculate the Settling Bank's net-net
settlement balance by excluding the net settlement balance of the
Participant for which the Settling Bank refused to settle.\11\ DTC
would then provide the Settling Bank with its adjusted net-net
settlement balance (``Post-Refusal Adjusted Balance''). The Settling
Bank may not refuse to settle for any other Participant on that day and
must immediately respond to DTC to

acknowledge its Post-Refusal Adjusted Balance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Any Participant for which its designated Settling Bank has
refused to settle on its behalf remains obligated to DTC for the
payment of any net debit balance and must make another arrangement
to timely pay that amount by Fedwire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the Acknowledgment Cutoff Time and any adjustments, DTC will
prepare and submit to the National Settlement Service (``NSS'')
provided by the Federal Reserve Banks (individually and collectively,
the ``Fed'') a file (``NSS File'') reflecting the net debits or credits
from and to all Settling Banks. NSS will process a debit or credit of
each Settling Bank's Fed account (``Fed Account''), as applicable.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Guide currently provides that if NSS is unavailable
then, if instructed by DTC, Settling Banks in a net-net debit
balance must remit payments to DTC via Fedwire by the later of 5:00
p.m. or 1 hour after net settlement balances are first made
available. This provision will be clarified to note an operational
detail that all such payments must be remitted prior to the close of
Fedwire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, failure of a Settling Bank to timely respond to DTC after
posting of final settlement figures creates uncertainty with respect to
timely completion of settlement at DTC. The proposed rule change will
address this issue as discussed below.
    Proposal. To promote settlement certainty, DTC has proposed to
treat a Settling Bank that fails to timely provide its affirmative
acknowledgement of its end-of-day net-net settlement balance or notify
DTC of its refusal to settle for one or more Participants for which it
is the designated Settling Bank, as having been deemed to acknowledge
its end-of-day net-net settlement balance.
    DTC has proposed to modify the Guide to provide that a Settling
Bank that (i) fails to affirmatively acknowledge its end-of-day net-net
settlement balance, or (ii) does not notify DTC of its refusal to
settle on behalf of a Participant or Participants for which it is the
designated Settling Bank, by the Acknowledgement Cutoff Time, will be
deemed to have acknowledged its end-of-day net-net settlement
balance.\13\ The Settling Bank's balance will then, in the ordinary
course of settlement processing, be debited from or credited to its Fed
Account through the NSS process. Likewise, DTC has proposed that the
Guide provide that a Settling Bank that fails to acknowledge
immediately upon receipt its Post-Refusal Adjusted Balance, if any,
will be deemed to have acknowledged its Post-Refusal Adjusted Balance
and the Post-Refusal Adjusted Balance will then, in the ordinary course
of settlement processing, be debited from or credited to its designated
Fed Account through the NSS process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ DTC will provide reminders to Settling Banks when they have
not affirmatively acknowledged their settlement balance.
Notwithstanding delivery of reminders, once a Settling Bank is
deemed to have acknowledged its balance, it may not notify DTC of a
refusal to settle for a Participant for which it is the designated
Settling Bank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC will continue to maintain flexibility and allow for a Settling
Bank to request extra time if the Settling Bank has a reason that it
cannot affirmatively acknowledge or refuse its net-net settlement
balance so long as the Settling Bank notifies DTC accordingly at or
before the Acknowledgement Cutoff Time, or, in the case of a Post-
Refusal Adjusted Balance, it notifies DTC immediately where it is
unable to affirmatively acknowledge its Post-Refusal Adjusted Balance.
In this regard, the Guide will be updated to clarify that the Settling
Bank is required to notify DTC of its request for extra time via a
dedicated DTC Settlement phone ``hotline'' prior to the Acknowledgment
Cutoff Time. In the event that DTC provides the Settling Bank with a
Post-Refusal Adjusted Balance, the Settling Bank will be required to
notify DTC of its request for extra time immediately via the hotline.
Any Settling Bank that timely complies with this notification
requirement will not be deemed to have acknowledged its net-net
Settlement Balance or its Post-Refusal Adjusted Balance.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ If the problem is due to a connectivity issue with DTC, DTC
may then direct the Settling Bank to submit its acknowledgement/
refusal instruction via email or as otherwise specified by DTC at
that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If, after the initial release of final settlement figures, a
Settling Bank's net-net settlement balance is adjusted for any reason,
other than as a result of the Settling Bank's refusal to settle, then
the Acknowledgment Cutoff Time for that Settling Bank will be extended
to 30 minutes after DTC advises the Settling Bank of the adjusted net-
net settlement balance.
    DTC will attempt to contact the Settling Bank if DTC does not
receive a response in the form of (i) an acknowledgment or refusal
prior to the Acknowledgment Cutoff Time, (ii) an immediate
acknowledgment of a Post-Refusal Adjusted Balance, or (iii) a
notification from the Settling Bank that it cannot acknowledge or
refuse, as described in the preceding paragraph.\15\ If DTC is able to
contact the Settling Bank and the Settling Bank notifies DTC that it
cannot, at that time, acknowledge or refuse its net-net settlement
balance, or Post-Refusal Adjusted Balance, as applicable, then the
Settling Bank will not be deemed to have acknowledged its net-net
settlement balance. However, if the Settling Bank cannot be reached,
the Settling Bank will be deemed to have acknowledged its net-net
settlement balance or Post-Refusal Adjusted Balance, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ DTC uses the most recent contact information provided by
the Settling Bank to its DTC Relationship Manager for this purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC will update the Guide to clarify that each Settling Bank must
ensure that it maintains accurate contact details with DTC so that DTC
may contact the Settling Bank regarding settlement issues. Settling
Banks must update any contact details by contacting their DTC
Relationship Manager.
    The Fed's cutoff for NSS processing, unless extended, is 5:30 p.m.
In order to facilitate timely processing of the NSS File, DTC will
maintain discretion to exclude a Settling Bank's balance from the NSS
File if the Settling Bank (i)(A) does not acknowledge its net-net
settlement balance by the Acknowledgment Cutoff Time, or (B) does not
immediately acknowledge its Post-Refusal Adjusted Balance; and (ii) is
not deemed to have acknowledged its net-net settlement balance or Post-
Refusal Adjusted Balance because it has notified DTC that it is unable
to affirmatively acknowledge its net-net settlement balance or to
refuse to settle on behalf of a Participant. If DTC proceeds to process
the NSS File excluding the Settling Bank's debit balance, then the
Settling Bank must pay the debit balance via Fedwire. If DTC proceeds
to process the NSS File excluding the Settling Bank's credit balance,
then DTC will pay the credit balance via Fedwire after the Settling
Bank acknowledges its settlement balance.
    The text of the Guide will also state that a Settling Bank which
settles on behalf of others that timely notifies DTC that it cannot
acknowledge or refuse its end-of-day net-net settlement balance will
not be assessed a flat fee for failure to acknowledge or notify DTC of
its refusal to settle. However, such a Settling Bank will be charged
interest with respect to any borrowing DTC is required to make to
complete settlement that day for any Participant that the Settling Bank
settles on behalf of, if the Settling Bank has not timely refused to
settle for that Participant.
    Additionally, DTC will revise the Guide to:
    (i) Clarify that it is DTC's Settlement Operations group that
controls and coordinates the settling of Participant and Settling Bank
accounts on DTC's systems;
    (ii) define the Federal Reserve Banks individually and collectively
within the Guide's text as the ``Fed'' unless indicated otherwise;
    (iii) clarify text for descriptive purposes, and consistent with
the Rules, that Participants make formal arrangements for a Settling
Bank to be

designated as the Settling Bank to settle with DTC on the Participant's
behalf;
    (iv) clarify that certain online reports DTC provides Participants
and Settling Banks through the processing day reflect ``intraday''
gross debits and credits, and net debit and credit balances;
    (v) clarify that a Settling Bank's end-of-day net-net settlement
balance includes the Settling Bank's own settlement obligations as a
Participant if it settles for itself;
    (vi) add text for the purpose of context, consistent with the
Rules, that each Participant is obligated to settle timely with DTC and
if its Settling Bank refuses to settle for it then it must make
alternative arrangements to make payment to DTC via Fedwire;
    (vii) add text for the purpose of context, consistent with the
Rules, that a Participant that acts as its own Settling Bank may not
refuse to settle for itself and that it will be in default if it does
not fund its settlement obligation;
    (viii) for clarity, change the heading to an existing example of
how a Settling Bank's settlement balance is calculated from
``Settlement Example'' to ``Example of the Calculation of a DTC
Settling Bank's Net-Net Settlement Balance'';
    (ix) remove the provision from the Guide indicating that that a
Settling Bank that settles only for itself will need to affirmatively
opt out in order to not be required to affirmatively acknowledge its
settlement balance, and add text simply stating that a Settling Bank
that settles only for itself will not be required to acknowledge its
settlement balance;
    (x) clarify the interest charged to Participants for a failure to
settle;
    (xi) delete references to a Settling Bank's failure to timely
settle its settlement balance from being referred to as a ``failure to
settle'' and remove references to related procedures as being
``failure-to-settle'' procedures, as the terminology could be confused
with an individual Participant's failure to meet its settlement
obligation;
    (xii) rewrite text in the Guide in light of the proposed changes,
as applicable, including Addendum A of the Guide, to incorporate
proposed changes, consolidate text, clarify text for readability and
eliminate duplication;
    (xiii) clarify certain Settling Bank and settlement processing
timeframes;
    (xiv) apply initial capitalization as appropriate for the terms
``Participant'' and ``Settling Bank'' where they are used as defined
terms;
    (xv) remove references to Participant Terminal System (PTS)
functions, which are no longer used for DTC settlement processing; and
    (xvi) insert the title of the Guide on the Guide's front page.
    Implementation. The effective date of the proposed rule change will
be announced via a DTC Important Notice.

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \16\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to such organization. The Commission believes the proposal is
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \17\ and Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(5),\18\ as described in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistency with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act. Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 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.\19\ As described
above, the change will reduce delays in the settlement process by
allowing DTC to collect net debits and release net credits within
scheduled timeframes despite the failure of a Settling Bank to
affirmatively acknowledge its end-of-day net-net settlement balance or
notify DTC of its refusal to settle for a Participant for which it is
the designated Settling Bank on a timely basis. This requirement will
reduce uncertainty and associated risks that may currently arise from
Failure to Acknowledge, thus facilitating the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistency with Rule 17Ad-22(d)(5). Rule 17Ad-22(d)(5) under the
Act requires a clearing agency, such as DTC, to establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to employ money settlement arrangements that eliminate or
strictly limit the clearing agency's settlement bank risks and require
funds transfers to the clearing agency to be final when effected.\20\
As described above, the change should reduce DTC's credit and liquidity
risk by mitigating the risk that end-of-day net-net debit settlement
balances would not be paid due to the failure of a Settling Bank to
respond to DTC after posting of final settlement figures. The change
also should create an arrangement that reduces delays in the settlement
process by allowing DTC to collect net debits and release net credits
within scheduled timeframes, which will limit the settlement risk to
DTC. As such, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent
with Rule 17Ad-22(d)(5).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(5).
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \22\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that proposed rule change SR-DTC-2015-011 be, and hereby is,
approved.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-00898 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 68768]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27957]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-343-000]

CPV Maryland, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of CPV Maryland, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application
includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is November 29, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 9, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27957 Filed 11-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 216)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65975-65977]
[DOCID:fr06no08-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0830; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-285-AD;
Amendment 39-15711; AD 2008-22-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Falcon 2000EX Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    Investigations after a CAS (crew alerting system) message ``ENG
1 FIRE DETECT FAIL'' that occurred on an in-service aircraft
revealed that the detector threshold tolerances could not permit to
identify the failure of one single engine fire detector loop out of
the two present on each engine. The fire detection system integrity
is therefore not correctly monitored.
* * * * *

    We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 11, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 11,
2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-137, Revision 1, dated
December 7, 2006, listed in this AD as of February 2, 2007 (72 FR 2177,
January 18, 2007).

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 4, 2008 (73
FR 45176) and proposed to supersede AD 2007-02-01, Amendment 39-14888
(72 FR 2177, January 18, 2007). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Investigations after a CAS (crew alerting system) message ``ENG
1 FIRE DETECT FAIL'' that occurred on an in-service aircraft
revealed that the detector threshold tolerances could not permit to
identify the failure of one single engine fire detector loop out of
the two present on each engine. The fire detection system integrity
is therefore not correctly monitored.
    Airworthiness Directive (AD) No 2006-0356-E [which corresponds
to FAA AD 2007-02-01] was initially issued to mandate the
verification of the fire detection system integrity by a one time
inspection.
    The current AD mandates installation of two new fire monitoring
units of an improved design, each one of them is capable of
monitoring the integrity of both detectors on the associated engine.

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

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 42 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average
labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per
product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that
are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the
U.S. operators to be $10,080, or $240 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-14888 (72 FR
2177, January 18, 2007) and adding the following new AD:

2008-22-15 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-15711. Docket No. FAA-
2008-0830; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-285-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December
11, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2007-02-01, Amendment 39-14888.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Dassault Model Falcon 2000EX airplanes,
certificated in any category, serial number (S/N) 06 and from S/N 28
to 107 inclusive, without modification M2958 implemented.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26: Fire
Protection.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    ``Investigations after a CAS (crew alerting system) message
``ENG 1 FIRE DETECT FAIL'' that occurred on an in-service aircraft
revealed that the detector threshold tolerances could not permit to
identify the failure of one single engine fire detector loop out of
the two present on each engine. The fire detection system integrity
is therefore not correctly monitored.
    ``Airworthiness Directive (AD) No 2006-0356-E [which corresponds
to FAA AD 2007-02-01] was initially issued to mandate the
verification of the fire detection system integrity by a one time
inspection.
    ``The current AD mandates installation of two new fire
monitoring units of an improved design, each one of them is capable
of monitoring the integrity of both detectors on the associated
engine.''

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2007-02-01

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions. Within 35
days after February 2, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-02-01),
perform an engine fire detection integrity check as required by
paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) of this AD in accordance with
Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-137, Revision 1, dated December 7,
2006. Doing the replacement required by paragraph (g) of this AD
terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
    (1) First, in the baggage compartment, on each mobile connector
of the monitoring units (L320WG) and (R320WG), the equivalent
resistance of the two engine detectors at the LH (left-hand) and the
RH (right-hand) sides must be verified. According to findings, the
corresponding system is either considered correct or incorrect.
    (2) As a second step, if either one or both the LH and the RH
system is (are) found to be incorrect, it is required to check the
actual resistance of both detectors of the incorrect system(s) on
the affected engine(s).
    (3) Any faulty detector must be replaced prior to further
flight.
    (4) Actions done before February 2, 2007, in accordance with
Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-137, dated November 23, 2006, are
acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (f) of
this AD.

New Requirements of This AD: Actions and Compliance

    (g) Unless already done, within the next 12 months after the
effective date of this AD, remove the two fire monitoring units
having part number (P/N) 6342-01 and replace them with new ones
having P/N 6342-02 in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F2000EX-138,
dated March 5, 2007. Doing the replacement terminates the
requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2007-0119, dated May 2, 2007; Dassault Service Bulletin
F2000EX-137, Revision 1, dated December 7, 2006; and Dassault
Mandatory Service Bulletin F2000EX-138, dated March 5, 2007; for
related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-137, Revision
1, dated December 7, 2006; and Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin
F2000EX-138, dated March 5, 2007; to do the actions required by this
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin
F2000EX-138, dated March 5, 2007, under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51.
    (2) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the
incorporation by reference of Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-137,
Revision 1, dated December 7, 2006, on February 2, 2007 (72 FR 2177,
January 18, 2007).
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey
07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://
www.dassaultfalcon.com.
    (4) You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-
locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 9, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-25754 Filed 11-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48577-48579]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17453]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89485; File No. 4-764]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Minor Rule Violation Plan

August 5, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(d)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19d-l(c)(2) thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on August 5, 2020, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a
proposed minor rule violation plan (``MRVP'') with sanctions not
exceeding $2,500 which would not be subject to the provisions of Rule
19d-1(c)(1) of the Act \3\ requiring that a self-regulatory
organization (``SRO'') promptly file notice with the Commission of any
final disciplinary action taken with respect to any person or
organization.\4\ In

accordance with Rule 19d-l(c)(2) under the Act, the Exchange proposes
to designate certain specified rule violations as minor rule violations
and requests that it be relieved of the prompt reporting requirements
regarding such violations, provided it gives notice of such violations
to the Commission on a quarterly basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(d)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(1).
    \4\ The Commission adopted amendments to paragraph (c) of Rule
19d-l to allow SROs to submit for Commission approval plans for the
abbreviated reporting of minor disciplinary infractions. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 21013 (June 1, 1984), 49 FR
23828 (June 8, 1984). Any disciplinary action taken by an SRO
against any person for violation of a rule of the SRO which has been
designated as a minor rule violation pursuant to such a plan filed
with and declared effective by the Commission is not considered
``final'' for purposes of Section 19(d)(1) of the Act if the
sanction imposed consists of a fine not exceeding $2,500 and the
sanctioned person has not sought an adjudication, including a
hearing, or otherwise exhausted his administrative remedies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to include in its MRVP the procedures
included in Exchange Rule 8.15 (``Imposition of Fines for Minor
Violation(s) of Rules'') and the violations included in Rule 8.15.01
(``List of Exchange Rule Violations and Recommended Fine Schedule
Pursuant to Rule 8.15'').\5\ According to the Exchange's MRVP, under
Rule 8.15(a), the Exchange may impose a fine (not to exceed $2,500) on
any Member, associated person of a Member, or registered or non-
registered employee of a Member, for any violation of a Rule of the
Exchange which violation the Exchange shall have determined is minor in
nature, as set forth in Rule 8.15.01. The Exchange may aggregate
similar violations generally if the conduct was unintentional, there
was no injury to public investors, or the violations resulted from a
single systemic problem or cause that has been corrected. In any action
taken by the Exchange pursuant to Rule 8.15, the person against whom a
fine is imposed shall be served with a written statement, signed by an
authorized officer of the Exchange, setting forth (i) the Rule or Rules
alleged to have been violated; (ii) the act or omission constituting
each such violation; (iii) the fine imposed for each such violation;
and (iv) the date by which such determination becomes final and such
fine becomes due and payable to the Exchange. Pursuant to paragraph (c)
of Rule 8.15, if the person against whom a fine is imposed pursuant to
Rule 8.15 pays such fine, that payment shall be deemed to be a waiver
by of such person's right to a disciplinary proceeding under Rules 8.1
through 8.13 and any review of the matter by the Appeals Committee or
by the Board. Any person against whom a fine is imposed pursuant to
Rule 8.15 may contest such a finding pursuant to paragraph (d) of Rule
8.15 by filing with the Exchange not later than the date by which such
determination must be contested (such date to be not less than 15
business days after the date of service of the written statement by the
Exchange) a written response meeting the requirements provided in Rule
8.5 at which point the matter shall become a disciplinary proceeding
subject to the provisions of Rules 8.1 through 8.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange received its grant of registration on May 4,
2020, which included approving the rules that govern the Exchange.
Exhibit A includes the entirety of Rules 8.15 and 8.15.01. Terms not
otherwise defined herein are defined in the Exchange Rules.
Contemporaneous with this filing, the Exchange filed with the
Commission a rule filing that proposes a minor amendment to Rule
8.15(a) and a proposed change to Rule 8.15.01 to add Rules 4.5
through 4.16 (Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rules). This
submission proposes the Exchange's MRVP, including those proposed
changes to Rules 8.15 and 8.15.01. See SR-MEMX-2020-03, filed July
31, 2020, available at: https://info.memxtrading.com/category/rule-filings/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that, as set forth in Exchange Rule 8.15.01,
violations of the following rules would be appropriate for disposition
under the MRVP: Rule 4.2 and Interpretations thereunder (requiring the
submission of responses to Exchange requests for trading data within
specified time period); Rule 11.10(a)(5) (requirement to identify short
sale orders as such); Rule 11.10(f) (requirement to comply with locked
and crossed market rules); Rule 3.5 (Advertising Practices); Rule 12.11
Interpretations and Policy .01 and Exchange Act Rule 604 (failure to
properly display limit orders); Rule 4.2 and Interpretations thereunder
(related to the requirement to furnish Exchange-related order, market
and transaction data, as well as financial or regulatory records and
information); Rule 11.20(a)(1) (requirement for Market Makers to
maintain continuous two-sided quotations); and Rules 4.5 through 4.16
(Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rules).
    Upon the Commission's declaration of effectiveness of the MRVP, the
Exchange will provide to the Commission a quarterly report for any
actions taken on minor rule violations under the MRVP. The quarterly
report will include: The Exchange's internal file number for the case,
the name of the individual and/or organization, the nature of the
violation, the specific rule provision violated, the fine imposed, the
number of times the rule violation occurred, and the date of the
disposition.
    Based on compliance with the above, the Exchange requests that the
rule violations designated in Exchange Rule 8.15.01 be designated as
minor rule violations subject to a minor rule violation reporting plan
and that the Exchange be relieved of the current reporting requirements
regarding such violations. In addition, going forward, to the extent
that there are any changes to the rules applicable to the Exchange's
MRVP, the Exchange requests that the Commission deem such changes to be
modifications to the Exchange's MRVP.

I. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the Exchange's proposed MRVP, including whether
the proposed MRVP 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 4-764 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 4-764. 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 MRVP that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
MRVP 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 proposed MRVP 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 4-764, and should be submitted
on or before August 26, 2020.

II. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Minor Rule Violation Plan and
Timing for Commission Action

    Pursuant to Section 19(d)(l) of the Act and Rule 19d-l(c)(2)
thereunder,\6\ after

August 26, 2020, the Commission may, by order, declare the Exchange
proposed MRVP effective if the plan is consistent with the public
interest, the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The Commission in its order may restrict the
categories of violations to be designated as minor rule violations and
may impose any other terms or conditions to the proposed MRVP, File No.
4-764, and to the period of its effectiveness, which the Commission
deems necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(d)(1); 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17453 Filed 8-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 32281]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12957]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0322; FRL-9909-04-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Beryllium Rocket Motor Fuel
Firing (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NESHAP for Beryllium Rocket
Motor Fuel Firing (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1125.07, OMB Control No.
2060-0394), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently
approved through June 30, 2014. Public comments were previously
requested via the Federal Register (78 FR 35023) on June 11, 2013
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given
below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. 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.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 7, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0322, to: (1) EPA online, using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, subpart A), and any changes
or additions to the Provisions are further specified at 40 CFR part 61,
subpart D. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit a
onetime-only report of any physical or operational changes, initial
performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or
operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and
duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of
an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system
is inoperative.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of beryllium
rocket motor fuel firing facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 61,
subpart D).
    Estimated number of respondents: 1 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially and occasionally.
    Total estimated burden: 8 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $817 (per year), which includes no annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in calculating the
burden for either Industry or the EPA in this ICR. The change in the
cost estimates is a result of using updated labor rates to facilitate
the calculation of burden costs.

    Dated: May 27, 2014.
Erin Collard,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-12957 Filed 6-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6669-6673]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01152]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79781; File No. SR-CHX-2016-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or
Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change in Connection With the Proposed
Transaction Involving CHX Holdings, Inc. and North America Casin
Holdings, Inc.

January 12, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On December 2, 2016, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change in connection with the proposed transaction
(``Transaction'') involving CHX Holdings, Inc. (``CHX Holdings'') and
North America Casin Holdings, Inc. (``N.A. Casin Holdings''). The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on December 12, 2016.\3\ The Commission received five comment letters
on the proposed rule change \4\ and two letters from the

Exchange in response to certain comments.\5\ This order institutes
proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act \6\ to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79474 (December 12,
2016), 81 FR 89543 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letters from: Representative Robert Pittenger,
Representative Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter, Representative Peter
DeFazio, Representative Collin Peterson, and Representative David
Joyce, dated December 22, 2016 (``Pittenger Letter''); James N.
Hill, dated December 23, 2016 (``Hill Letter''); John Ciccarelli,
dated January 2, 2017 (``Ciccarelli Letter''); Anonymous, dated
January 3, 2017 (``Anonymous Letter''); and David E. Kaplan,
Executive Director, Global Investigative Journalism Network, dated
January 4, 2017 (``GIJN Letter''). All of the comments are available
at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-chx-2016-20/chx201620.shtml.
    \5\ See letters from John K. Kerin, President and Chief
Executive Officer, CHX, dated January 5, 2016 (``CHX Response Letter
1'') and Albert J. Kim, Vice President and Associate General
Counsel, CHX, dated January 6, 2016 (``CHX Response Letter 2'')
(responding specifically to the Ciccarelli Letter). Both of these
letters are available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-chx-2016-20/chx201620.shtml.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of the Proposal

    The Exchange is a wholly-owned subsidiary of CHX Holdings.
According to the Exchange, CHX Holdings is currently beneficially owned
by 193 firms or individuals, including Exchange Participants or
affiliates of Exchange Participants.\7\ Under the terms of the
Transaction, CHX Holdings would become a wholly-owned subsidiary of
N.A. Casin Holdings. According to the Exchange, current CHX Holdings
stockholders would receive the right to receive cash in exchange for
their shares under the terms of the Transaction.\8\ The Exchange states
that consummation of the Transaction is subject to the satisfaction of
certain conditions precedent, which include approval of the proposed
rule change by the Commission.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 89544. See also CHX Article 1,
Rule 1(s) defining ``Participant.''
    \8\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 89544.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon the closing of the Transaction, the Exchange represents that
all of the outstanding and issued shares of N.A. Casin Holdings would
be held by the following firms and individuals (the ``upstream
owners'') in the following percentages:
     Non-U.S. Upstream Owners:

[cir] N.A. Casin Group, Inc. (``N.A. Casin Group''), a corporation
incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware and wholly-owned
by Chongqing Casin Enterprise Group (``Chongqing Casin'')--20%
[cir] Chongqing Jintian Industrial Co., Ltd., a corporation
incorporated under the laws of the People's Republic of China--15%
[cir] Chongqing Longshang Decoration Co., Ltd., a corporation
incorporated under the laws of the People's Republic of China--14.5%

     U.S. Upstream Owners:
[cir] Castle YAC Enterprises, LLC (``Castle YAC''), a limited liability
company organized under the laws of the State of New York, the sole
member of which is Jay Lu,\10\ a U.S. citizen and Vice President of
N.A. Casin Group--19%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ According to the Exchange, Jay Lu, the sole member of
Castle YAC, is associated with an affiliate of Chongqing Casin and
is also the son of Shengju Lu, the Chairman of Chongqing Casin. See
Notice, supra note 3 at 89545 n.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[cir] Raptor Holdco LLC (``Raptor''), a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware--11.75%
[cir] Saliba Ventures Holdings, LLC (``Saliba''), a limited liability
company organized under the laws of the State of Illinois--11.75%
[cir] Xian Tong Enterprises, Inc., a corporation incorporated under the
laws of the State of New York--6.94%
[cir] Equity incentive shares to five members of the CHX Holdings
management team, all U.S. citizens--0.88%
[cir] Cheevers & Co., Inc., a corporation incorporated under the laws
of the State of Illinois--0.18%\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See id. at 89544-55.

    Following the closing of the Transaction, CHX would remain
registered as a national securities exchange under Section 6 of the Act
\12\ and a self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') as defined in Section
3(a)(26) of the Act.\13\ According to the Exchange, CHX rules would
remain in full force and effect as of the date of the proposed rule
filing, would continue to govern the activities of CHX up to and after
the closing of the Transaction, and CHX would continue to discharge its
SRO responsibilities pursuant to CHX's registration under Section 6 of
the Act.\14\ In addition, the Exchange states that following the
closing, CHX's affiliated routing broker, CHXBD, would remain a
Delaware limited liability corporation of which CHX Holdings would
remain the sole member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(26).
    \14\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 89545-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to facilitate the Transaction, the Exchange is proposing
to amend its certificate of incorporation and bylaws,\15\ the
certificate of incorporation and bylaws of CHX Holdings,\16\ and its
rules.\17\ CHX has also filed the following documents in connection
with the Transaction: (i) The certificate of incorporation and bylaws
of N.A. Casin Holdings; \18\ (ii) text of a proposed resolution of the
CHX Holdings Board of Directors to waive certain ownership and voting
limitations to permit the Transaction; \19\ (iii) the proposed N.A.
Casin Holdings Stockholders Agreement,\20\ which includes transfer-of-
share provisions for the upstream owners that provide a right of first
offer, a right to acquire interest upon change of control, and a right
to purchase new securities; (iv) proposed put agreements between
Saliba, N.A. Casin Group, and N.A. Casin Holdings,\21\ and Raptor, N.A.
Casin Group, and N.A. Casin Holdings,\22\ respectively, which would
grant Saliba and Raptor the right to compel N.A. Casin Holdings to
purchase or arrange for an unspecified third-party to purchase a
specified amount of Saliba's or Raptors's equity interest in N.A. Casin
Holdings, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Exhibits 5C and 5D.
    \16\ See Exhibits 5A and 5B.
    \17\ See Exhibit 5E.
    \18\ See Exhibits 5F and 5G.
    \19\ See Exhibit 5H. See infra note 23.
    \20\ See Exhibit 5I.
    \21\ See Exhibit 5J.
    \22\ See Exhibit 5K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes several substantive and technical amendments
to its corporate governance documents, rules, and the governing
documents of CHX Holdings. The amendments include revised provisions
addressing, among other items, board and committee composition and
procedures, procedures regarding stockholder meetings, consent to U.S.
and Commission jurisdiction, and Commission access to corporate books
and records.
    The proposed amendments also would revise provisions in the
certificate of incorporation of CHX Holdings relating to ownership and
voting limitations. Additionally, the proposed certificate of
incorporation of N.A. Casin Holdings would contain identical ownership
concentration and voting limitations and other provisions substantially
similar to those contained in the CHX Holdings documents, which would
apply directly to the upstream owners.\23\ These provisions specify
that no person, either alone or with its Related Persons,\24\ shall be
permitted at

any time to own beneficially shares of stock of CHX Holdings or N.A.
Casin Holdings representing in the aggregate more than 40% of the then
outstanding votes entitled to be cast on any matter unless specific
procedures are followed prior to acquiring shares in excess of the
ownership limitation.\25\ Furthermore, as proposed, no Exchange
Participant, either alone or with its Related Persons, shall be
permitted at any time to own beneficially shares of stock of CHX
Holdings or N.A. Casin Holdings representing in the aggregate more than
20% of the then outstanding votes entitled to be cast on any
matter.\26\ In addition, no person that is subject to any statutory
disqualification as defined in Section 3(a)(39) of the Exchange Act
shall be permitted at any time to own beneficially, either alone or
with its Related Persons, shares of stock of CHX Holdings or N.A. Casin
Holdings representing in the aggregate more than 20% of the then
outstanding votes entitled to be cast on any matter.\27\ CHX also
proposes cure provisions that would require CHX Holdings or N.A. Casin
Holdings, as applicable, to call shares held in excess of these
ownership limitations and to not register any shares transferred in
violation of these ownership limitations.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The current CHX Holdings Certificate contains ownership
concentration and voting concentration limitations that are similar
to those being proposed by the Exchange. In order to effect the
Transaction, the CHX Holdings Board of Directors has waived the
applicability of those limitations so that CHX Holdings can become a
wholly owned subsidiary of N.A. Casin Holdings. See Exhibit 5H.
    \24\ As set forth in the proposed certificates of incorporation
of N.A. Casin Holdings and CHX Holdings, the term ``Related
Persons'' shall mean: ``(1) with respect to any Person, any
executive officer (as such term is defined in Rule 3b-7 under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'')) director,
general partner, manager or managing member, as applicable, and all
``affiliates'' and ``associates'' of such Person (as those terms are
defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act), and other Person(s)
whose beneficial ownership of shares of stock of the Corporation
with the power to vote on any matter would be aggregated with such
first Person's beneficial ownership of such stock or deemed to be
beneficially owned by such first Person pursuant to Rules 13d-3 and
13d-5 under the Exchange Act; and (2) in the case of any Person
constituting a member (as that term is defined in Section 3(a)(3)(A)
of the Exchange Act) of CHX (defined in the Rules of the Chicago
Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX Rules''), as such rules may be amended
from time to time, as a ``Participant'') for so long as CHX remains
a registered national securities exchange, such Person and any
broker or dealer with which such Person is associated; and (3) any
other Person(s) with which such Person has any agreement, an
arrangement or understanding (whether or not in writing) to act
together for the purpose of acquiring, voting, holding or disposing
of shares of the stock of the Corporation; and (4) in the case of a
Person that is a natural person, any relative or spouse of such
Person, or any relative of such spouse, who has the same home as
such Person or who is a director or officer of the Corporation or
any of its parents or subsidiaries.''
    \25\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 89552.
    \26\ See id. at 89552-53.
    \27\ See id. at 89553.
    \28\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, both the certificates of incorporation of CHX
Holdings and N.A. Casin Holdings would preclude any stockholder, either
alone or with its Related Persons, from voting more than 20% of the
then outstanding shares entitled to be cast on any matter unless
specific procedures are followed prior to voting in excess of the
limitation.\29\ Similarly, no person, either alone or with its Related
Persons, would be permitted to enter into an agreement, plan, or other
arrangement that would result in an aggregate of more than 20% of the
then outstanding votes entitled to be cast on a matter to not be voted
unless specific procedures are followed prior to entering into such an
agreement, plan, or arrangement in violation.\30\ The certificates of
incorporation would require that CHX Holdings or N.A. Casin Holdings,
as applicable, disregard any votes cast in excess of the voting
limitations.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See id.
    \30\ See id.
    \31\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of the Comments

    The Commission received four comments regarding the proposed rule
change.\32\ The Commission also received one comment letter stating
that, contrary to what the Ciccarelli Letter stated, the Ciccarelli
Letter was not submitted by or on behalf of the Global Investigative
Journalism Network.\33\ The Exchange submitted a letter responding to
the comments generally and a letter responding to the Ciccarelli
Letter.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See supra note 4.
    \33\ See GIJN Letter, supra note 4; see also CHX Response Letter
2, supra note 5.
    \34\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, three of the commenters express concern over the
proposed upstream ownership of CHX.\35\ One commenter questions whether
the Chinese government may influence Chongqing Casin, stating that
Chongqing Casin is involved in a number of Chinese market sectors that
require close ties to the state, particularly in state-sensitive
environmental protection areas, that its financial assets were
originally state-controlled, and that its chairman sits on an industry
council overseen directly by the mayor of the Chongqing
Municipality.\36\ The commenter states that, in particular, Chinese
ownership or involvement presents risks as Chinese government-sponsored
cyber-attacks have been conducted to devalue foreign businesses and
steal intellectual property and proprietary data.\37\ This commenter
asserts that the United States government has been unable to adequately
address transparency concerns with regard to the operations of Chinese
businesses.\38\ In its first response to comments, CHX affirms that no
prospective investor controls, or is controlled by, or is under common
control with, a governmental entity or any political subdivision
thereof, including the Chinese government.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See generally Pittinger Letter, supra note 4; Ciccarelli
Letter, supra note 4; Anonymous Letter, supra note 4.
    \36\ See Pittinger Letter, supra note 4, at 1.
    \37\ See id.
    \38\ See id. at 2.
    \39\ See CHX Response Letter 1, supra note 5, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter argues that due to jurisdiction limitations and
transparency concerns, the Commission cannot exercise proper regulatory
oversight under the current proposal.\40\ In response, CHX states that
it believes that its rules are consistent with the requirements of the
Exchange Act, and that the CHX rules and Exchange Act contain various
provisions that would facilitate the ability of U.S. regulators,
including the Commission, to monitor, compel and enforce compliance by
each of the upstream owners, particularly in that upstream owners would
be required to adhere to the ownership and voting limitations; submit
to U.S. regulatory jurisdiction and maintain agents in the U.S. for the
service of process; maintain open books and records related to their
ownership of CHX and keep such books and records in the U.S.; and
refrain from interfering with, and give due consideration to, the SRO
function of CHX.\41\ CHX also asserts that, pursuant to the Exchange
Act, the Exchange is subject to direct and rigorous oversight by the
Commission, which includes, among other things, frequent examinations
of various aspects of CHX operations by Commission staff, including
security and trading protocols, as well as Commission approval of
certain regulatory, operational, and strategic initiatives prior to
implementation by CHX.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Ciccarelli Letter, supra note 4, at 1-2.
    \41\ See CHX Response Letter 1, supra note 5, at 4; CHX Response
Letter 2, supra note 5, at 3.
    \42\ See CHX Response Letter 2, supra note 5, at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This commenter also questions the identity of the proposed upstream
owners and the validity of CHX's representation that there are no
Related Persons among the proposed upstream owners other than Castle
YAC and N.A. Casin Group.\43\ The commenter asserts that contrary to
CHX's representations in the Notice, several of the proposed upstream
owners may be affiliated.\44\ In addition, the commenter argues that
Chongqing Casin has virtual control over Raptor and Saliba due to the
put agreements.\45\ The commenter therefore concludes that after the
proposed transaction, approximately 99% of the voting stock in CHX
would be controlled by Chinese entities or affiliated shell
nominees.\46\ In response, CHX asserts that 50.5% of CHX will be
indirectly owned by U.S. citizens, and

that it has not misrepresented any facts regarding the Transaction.\47\
CHX reaffirms the representations that it made in the Notice that the
only Related Persons among the prospective owners are Castle YAC and
N.A. Casin Group, there are no other Related Persons among the
prospective owners, and that none of the prospective owners directly,
or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls, or is
controlled by, or is under common control with, a governmental entity
or subdivision thereof.\48\ CHX notes that each of these
representations is supported by an opinion of counsel provided to the
Commission by outside counsel for CHX.\49\ CHX asserts that, as
described in the Notice, Xian Tong Enterprises, Inc. and Castle YAC are
controlled by U.S. citizens, Quiling Luo and Jay Lu, respectively.\50\
CHX also states that under the terms of the Saliba and Raptor put
agreements, N.A. Casin Holdings could not compel Saliba or Raptor to
exercise their put options, and that in the event that either the
Saliba or Raptor put agreement is exercised, the CHX rules would
require the resulting ownership structure to comport with the ownership
and voting limitations.\51\ In addition, CHX states that it ``provided
[the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States (``CFIUS'')]
with detailed information regarding the [p]rospective [o]wners, which
recently concluded its investigation into the [p]roposed Transaction
and found no unresolved national security concerns.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See generally Ciccarelli Letter, supra note 4.
    \44\ See id. at 2-3.
    \45\ See id. at 3.
    \46\ See id. at 2.
    \47\ See CHX Response Letter 2, supra note 5, at 2.
    \48\ See id. at 5.
    \49\ See id.
    \50\ See id. at 5-6.
    \51\ See id. at 6.
    \52\ See id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This commenter also asserts that there are few or no controls in
place at the upstream corporate ownership level that would prevent the
upstream owners from transferring their voting power in CHX to what the
commenter opines could be more opaque owners, including those that
involve the Chinese government.\53\ In response, CHX represents that no
prospective owner and its Related Persons would maintain an equity
interest in N.A. Casin Holdings in excess of the 40% ownership
limitation, and that no prospective owner and its Related Persons would
be permitted to exercise voting power in excess of the 20% voting
limitation.\54\ CHX also responds that the proposed governance
documents for N.A. Casin Holdings and CHX Holdings provide robust
enforcement mechanisms for the ownership and voting limitations, and
that the CHX board's composition would be required to meet certain
independence requirements.\55\ As described above, CHX notes that the
CHX rules and Exchange Act contain various provisions that would
facilitate the ability of U.S. regulators, including the Commission, to
monitor, compel and enforce compliance by each of the upstream
owners.\56\ CHX states that in the event that a prospective owner does
not comply with the ownership or voting limitations, the proposed
governance documents enable the relevant holding companies to cure non-
compliance.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See Ciccarelli Letter, supra note 4, at 2.
    \54\ See CHX Response Letter 1, supra note 5, at 3; CHX Response
Letter 2, supra note 5, at 2.
    \55\ See CHX Response Letter 1, supra note 5, at 3; CHX Response
Letter 2, supra note 5, at 3.
    \56\ See supra note 41 and accompanying text.
    \57\ See CHX Response Letter 2, supra note 5, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters assert that the proposed acquisition may present
financial security risks to investors and the U.S. marketplace.\58\ One
of these commenters raises concerns that a bad actor with access to a
national stock exchange's data could use information available through
brokerage records and the Consolidated Audit Trail to engage in spear
phishing, blackmail attempts, and other similar attacks.\59\ In its
response, CHX states that CFIUS investigated the Transaction and
``CFIUS determined that there were no unresolved national security
concerns with respect to the [p]roposed Transaction. . . .'' \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See Pittinger Letter, supra note 4, at 1; Anonymous Letter,
supra note 4.
    \59\ See Anonymous Letter, supra note 4.
    \60\ See CHX Response Letter 1, supra note 5, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, three commenters express concern regarding the length of
the comment period and the timing of the filing over the holiday
season.\61\ Two of the commenters request that the Commission extend
the comment period.\62\ In response, CHX states that it has been in
regular contact with the Commission's staff since the merger agreement
was executed, and that the timing of the filing was not intended to
circumvent thorough Commission review of the proposed rule change.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See Pittinger Letter, supra note 4, at 1; Hill Letter,
supra note 4; Ciccarelli Letter, supra note 4, at 4.
    \62\ See Pittinger Letter, supra note 4, at 1; Hill Letter,
supra note 4.
    \63\ See CHX Response Letter 1, supra note 5, at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-CHX-
2016-20 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act \64\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change. Institution of proceedings
does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as stated below, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide comments
on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act,\65\ the
Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under
consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for
additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with
Section 6(b)(1) of the Exchange Act, which requires that a national
securities exchange is so organized and has the capacity to be able to
carry out the purposes of the Exchange Act and to comply, and to
enforce compliance by its members and persons associated with its
members, with the provisions of the Exchange Act, the rules and
regulations thereunder, and the rules of the exchange. In addition, the
Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis
of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Exchange Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange are designed to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Sections 6(b)(1), 6(b)(5), or any other provision of
the Exchange Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although
there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of

views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to
Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, as amended by the
Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975),
grants the Commission flexibility to determine what type of
proceeding--either oral or notice and opportunity for written
comments--is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal
by a self-regulatory organization. See Securities Act Amendments of
1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No.
75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by February 21, 2017. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
March 6, 2017. The Commission asks that commenters address the
sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule change.
    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-CHX-2016-20 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 Numbers SR-CHX-2016-20. 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 these filings also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2016-20 and should be
submitted on or before February 21, 2017. Rebuttal comments should be
submitted by March 6, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01152 Filed 1-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 67 (Monday, April 8, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13796]
[FR Doc No: C1-2019-05695]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 229, 230, 232, 239, 240, 249, 270, 274, and 275

[Release No. 33-10618; 34-85381; IA-5206; IC-33426; File No. S7-08-17]
RIN 3235-AM00

FAST Act Modernization and Simplification of Regulation S-K

Correction

    In rule document 2019-05695, appearing on pages 12674 through
12738, in the issue of Tuesday, April 2, 2019, make the following
corrections:
    1. On page 12675, in the table, in the second column, in the tenth
line from the top of the page, the text entry that reads ``Sec.
249.218'' should read ``Sec.  249.220f''.

PART 249--FORMS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 [Corrected]

0
2. On page 12729, in the second column, five asterisks (* * * * *)
indicating the existence of text not listed and unchanged should appear
above the text reading ``INSTRUCTIONS AS TO EXHIBITS''.
[FR Doc. C1-2019-05695 Filed 4-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1301-00-D