[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56498-56501]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22944]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87315; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2019-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Order Approving
a Proposed Rule Change To Modify Rules 967NY and 953.1NY Regarding the
Treatment of Orders Subject To Trade Collar Protection

October 16, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On August 21, 2019, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission''), pursuant to Section

19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \2\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a proposed rule change to modify Exchange
Rules 967NY and 953.1NY regarding the treatment of orders subject to
Trade Collar Protection. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on September 3, 2019.\4\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86789 (August 28, 2019),
84 FR 46062 (September 3, 2019) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange states that it proposes to modify Rule 967NY to
clarify existing functionality and to adopt enhancements to the
operation of the Trading Collars.\5\ The Exchange applies Trade Collar
Protection to incoming orders. As described more fully in the Notice,
the Exchange states that Trading Collars \6\ mitigate the risks
associated with orders sweeping through multiple price points
(including during extreme market volatility) and resulting in
executions at prices that are potentially erroneous.\7\ According to
the Exchange, by applying Trading Collars to incoming orders, the
Exchange provides an opportunity to attract additional liquidity at
tighter spreads and it ``collars'' affected orders at successive price
points until the bid and offer are equal to the bid-ask differential
guideline for that option (i.e., equal to the Trading Collar).\8\
Similarly, by applying Trading Collars to partially executed orders,
the Exchange states that it prevents the balance of such orders from
executing away from the prevailing market after exhausting interest at
or near the top of book on arrival.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 46062.
    \6\ ``Trading Collars'' are determined by the Exchange on a
class-by-class basis and, unless announced otherwise via Trader
Update, are the same value as the bid-ask differential guidelines
established pursuant to Rule 925NY(b)(4). See Rule 967NY(a)(2).
    \7\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 46062.
    \8\ See id.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Rule 967NY(a)(1)(i) states that Trade Collar Protection
prevents the ``immediate execution'' of incoming market orders when the
difference between the National Best Offer (``NBO'') and the National
Best Bid (``NBB'') is greater than one Trading Collar. Rule
967NY(a)(1)(i) currently states that Trade Collar Protection would
apply to any unexecuted portion of a marketable limit order. The
Exchange proposes to modify Rule 967NY(a) to make clear that Trade
Collar Protection may also be applied to marketable limit orders on
arrival. The Exchange asserts that this proposed change would clarify
how Trade Collar Protection currently operates, and that the Exchange
would continue to apply Trade Collar Protection to the balance of
Marketable Orders \10\ consistent with the current rule.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``Marketable Orders'' are defined as incoming market orders
and marketable limit orders under the proposed rule. See proposed
Rule 967NY(a)(1)(A).
    \11\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 46063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to modify the current Rule 967NY(a)(3),
which currently states that order types that have contingencies,
namely, IOC, NOW, AON, and FOK orders, would receive an ``immediate
execution.'' The proposed modifications would clarify that such
incoming orders would ``receive an execution, depending upon the
availability of an execution pursuant to the terms of those orders.''
\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See proposed Rule 967NY(a)(3). The Exchange believes that
removing the word ``immediate'' would more accurately reflect the
Exchange's current functionality in regards to the processing of
these contingent order types, insofar as such orders will only
``immediately'' execute if the contingency is satisfied. See Notice,
supra note 4, at 46063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to modify current Rule
967NY(a)(4) to make clear that when Marketable (as opposed to just
market) Orders are subject to Trade Collar Protection, the Exchange
will limit the ``execution and/or routing'' of such orders.\13\ The
Exchange also proposes to make clear that this provision relates to
``incoming'' Marketable Orders as opposed to the balance thereof.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The current rule states that when a market order is subject
to Trade Collar Protection, the Exchange does not ``immediately
execute or route such orders.''
    \14\ See proposed Rule 967NY(a)(4). See also proposed Rule
967NY(a)(1)(A) (making clear that incoming marketable limit orders
are subject to Trade Collar Protection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 967NY(a)(4)(A) would provide that ``[a] Market Order
to buy (sell) received when there is already a collared order to buy
(sell) will join that collared order and be processed consistent with
paragraphs (a)(4)(C)--(a)(6),'' which the Exchange states reflects
current functionality.\15\ The Exchange also proposes Rule
967NY(a)(4)(B) to specify that collared orders will be assigned a
``collar execution price,'' which price depends upon the order type
(market or limit) and whether (when the order arrives) the Exchange is
already in receipt of another order being collared.\16\ Current Rule
967NY(a)(4)(A) covers collared market orders to buy (sell), which would
not immediately execute or route, but would be ``displayed at a price
equal to the NBB (NBO) plus (minus) one Trading Collar.'' The Exchange
proposes to replace ``displayed'' as used in the current rule with
``assigned a collar execution price'' because, according to the
Exchange, once collared, the order would be eligible to immediately
execute against available interest before its price is displayed.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 46063.
    \16\ See proposed Rule 967NY(a)(4).
    \17\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 46063. The Exchange states
that this is consistent with its current functionality. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes an exception to the processing
of incoming market orders to buy (sell) that arrive when the NBB (NBO)
is zero (``Zero NBBO Collar Exception''). Specifically, as proposed, a
market order to buy entered when the NBB is $0.00 would be assigned a
collar execution price equal to the NBB (i.e., $0.00) plus one Trading
Collar to ensure it is collared to avoid executing at an erroneous
price; whereas, a market order to sell entered when the NBO is $0.00
would be rejected as there would be no market for the incoming
order.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See proposed Rule 967NY(a)(4)(B)(i), (ii). The Exchange
believes the Zero NBBO Collar Exception would improve the operation
of Trading Collars when the prevailing market is zero (indicating
market dislocation) at the time an incoming market order arrives.
See Notice, supra note 4, at 46063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, because Rule 967NY(a)(1)(A) has been updated to
clarify that incoming marketable limit orders may be collared, the
Exchange proposes to further update Rule 967NY(a) to address how such
orders would be collared, depending upon whether the Exchange is
already in receipt of a collared order.\19\ Specifically, as proposed,
modified Rule 967NY(a)(4)(C) would state that when the incoming
collared order is a marketable limit order to buy (sell) and there is
no other order already being collared, the order would be ``assigned a
collar execution price equal to the NBO (NBB).'' If, however, a
marketable limit order arrives when there is already an order being
collared, it would join that collared order and be processed consistent
with proposed Rule 967NY(a)(6)(B).\20\ The Exchange states that this is
consistent with current functionality.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See id.
    \20\ See proposed Rule 967NY(a)(4)(C).
    \21\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 46063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to modify the rule regarding executions
of collared orders. The Exchange proposes to clarify that a collared
order to buy (sell) would ``trade against any contra-side interest

priced equal to its collar execution price or at prices within one
Trading Collar above (below) the collar execution price (``Collar
Range'').'' \22\ Consistent with proposed Rule 967NY(a)(4)(B),(C), the
Exchange proposes to refer to the ``collar execution price'' (as
opposed to a display price). In addition, the Exchange believes that
clarifying that the collared order would execute with contra-side
interest priced within a Collar Range (i.e., equal to, and up to one
Trading Collar above (below) the collar execution price), provides more
specificity than the current language, which states only that such
order would execute against interest ``within one Trading Collar'' of
its price.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See proposed Rule 967NY(a)(4)(D).
    \23\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 46064. The Exchange believes
these proposed changes, which describe current functionality, would
add clarity, transparency, and internal consistency to Exchange
rules. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to add new paragraph (a)(4)(E)
to Rule 967NY to codify existing functionality and make clear that the
Exchange would cancel a market order, or the balance thereof, that has
been collared pursuant to proposed Rule 967NY(a)(1)(A) or (B) if, after
exhausting trading opportunities within the Collar Range, the Exchange
determines there are no quotes on the Exchange and/or no interest on
another market (``Available Interest'').\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See id. According to the Exchange, the absence of Available
Interest, such as a market maker quote in the series, means that the
Exchange would have no reliable price framework within which to
evaluate the market order. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to modify the rule language describing
the treatment of the balance of a Marketable Order that is subject to
Trade Collar Protection. Pursuant to new Rule 967NY(a)(5), a market
order that does not trade on arrival will be displayed at its collar
execution price whereas the display price of the balance of a partially
executed Marketable Order collared pursuant to proposed Rule
967NY(a)(1)(B), depends upon eligible contra-side interest.\25\
Specifically, proposed Rule 967NY(a)(5)(A) would provide that if the
collared order has traded against all contra-side interest within the
Collar Range, the order would be displayed at the most recent execution
price. If, however, there is contra-side interest priced within one
Trading Collar of the most recent execution price, proposed Rule
967NY(a)(5)(B) would provide that the order to buy (sell) would be
displayed at the higher (lower) of its assigned collar execution price
or the best execution price of the order that is both within the Collar
Range and at least one Trading Collar away from the best priced contra-
side trading interest (i.e., lowest sell interest for collared buy
orders/highest buy interest for collared sell orders).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See proposed Rule 967NY(a)(5).
    \26\ The Exchange believes adding this information to the rule
would add transparency, clarity and internal consistency to Exchange
rules. See Notice, supra note 4, at 46064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange also proposes to add rule text to Rule
967NY(a)(5) to state that collared orders would be displayed at the
Minimum Price Variation (``MPV'') for the option, pursuant to Rule
960NY (Trading Differentials) which rule sets forth the minimum quoting
increments for options traded on the Exchange.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See proposed Rule 967NY(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Rule 967NY(a)(4)(C) sets forth scenarios that would trigger
the ``redisplay'' of a collared order. The Exchange proposes to state
that the Exchange would ``assign a new collar execution price'' to (as
opposed to redisplay) the collared order under each of the listed
scenarios, as well as make other changes that conform the rule text
with the changes described above.\28\ In addition, the Exchange
proposes to state in Rule 967NY(a)(6)(C) that ``if the collared order
is a Market Order to sell that has reached $0.00, it will not reprice
but will be posted in the Consolidated Book at its MPV (e.g., $0.01 or
$0.05),'' because an order may never be posted for lower than its MPV,
and the alternative to holding the order at the MPV would be to cancel
it.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See proposed Rule 967NY(a)(6).
    \29\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 46067.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to clarify current Rule 967NY(a)(6). The
Exchange states that because the current rule text does not make clear
that collared orders, like non-collared orders, will be processed at
each price in time priority, the Exchange proposes to clarify that such
orders would be ``processed in accordance with Rule 964NY, Display,
Priority and Order Allocation--Trading Systems.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See proposed Rule 967NY(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would also make several non-substantive
technical and organizational changes to proposed Rule 967NY(a), such as
changes to conform the numbering and lettering of the rule, as well as
to update cross-references and terminology in connection with the
changes described above.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 953.1NY (``Limit-Up
and Limit-Down During Extraordinary Market Volatility''), related to
the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule
608 of Regulation NMS (``LULD'' or the ``LULD Rule''). The Exchange
proposes to add rule text to state that the Exchange, under existing
functionality, ``will cancel any Market Order that is a collared order
pursuant to Rule 967NY(a)'' if the underlying NMS stock enters an LULD
State and ``will notify ATP Holders of the reason for such
cancellation.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See proposed Rule 953.1NY(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\32\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\33\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Exchange believes that the proposed
changes that codify existing functionality, including how incoming
marketable limit orders are collared and the cancellation of collared
market orders in the absence of Available Interest or if an NMS stock
enters an LULD state would add clarity, transparency and internal
consistency to Exchange rules regarding the handling of orders accepted
by the Exchange and make such rules easier for market participants to
navigate and comprehend.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 46067.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal to codify that
the Exchange would cancel a market order or the balance thereof that
has been collared once it has exhausted trading opportunities within
its collar execution price plus/minus one Trading Collar if there is no
Available Interest would protect investors from potentially erroneous
executions.\35\ Further, the Exchange believes that the proposal to
codify current functionality regarding a collared order that is a
market order to sell that has reached $0.00 such that the Exchange will
post the order at its MPV

(e.g., $0.01 or $0.05) would promote just and equitable principles of
trade and assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets
because an order may never be posted for lower than its MPV and the
alternative to holding the order at the MPV would be to cancel it.\36\
The Exchange believes the proposed clarification of how such orders are
handled provides the collared order an opportunity for an execution
(rather than being cancelled) and adds transparency and internal
consistency to Exchange rules.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See id.
    \36\ See id.
    \37\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Exchange believes that the Zero NBBO
Collar Exception would improve the operation of the Trading Collar when
the prevailing market is zero (which the Exchange states indicates
market dislocation) at the time an incoming market order arrives.\38\
The Exchange states that absent the proposed Zero NBBO Collar
Exception, a market order to buy (sell) that arrives when the NBB (NBO)
is zero would trade based on the last sale price, if any.\39\ The
Exchange notes that if there is no last sale price, the order would
trade at the contra-side NBBO which may result in a bad execution
price.\40\ In regards to the proposal to reject (as opposed to collar)
incoming sell orders when the NBO is zero, the Exchange believes this
change in functionality is necessary because any attempt to collar such
an order would result in a negative number. In addition, the Exchange
states that it has observed that it is extremely uncommon to have a no
(zero) offer situation and believes it could be indicative of unstable
market conditions.\41\ To avoid such orders receiving bad executions in
times of market dislocation, the Exchange believes it would be
appropriate to reject such orders.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See id.
    \39\ See id.
    \40\ See id.
    \41\ See id.
    \42\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that it is appropriate that the Exchange
cancel a market order that is collared when an NMS stock enters an LULD
state because when the underlying NMS stock enters an LULD state, there
may not be a reliable underlying reference price, there may be a wide
bid/ask quotation differential in the option, and there may be less
liquidity in the options markets.\43\ According to the Exchange,
allowing a collared Market Order to execute (as opposed to cancel) in
such circumstances could lead to executions at unintended prices (i.e.,
inferior to the NBBO), and could add to volatility in the options
markets during times of extraordinary market volatility.\44\ The
Exchange believes that this current treatment of collared market orders
provides certainty to the treatment of Market Orders during these
times, and the proposal to explicitly state this treatment in the rule
text adds clarity and transparency to Exchange rules, thus promoting
just and equitable principles of trade and removing impediments to, and
perfecting the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national
market system.\45\ The Exchange states that the proposed cancellation
of an options order if the underlying NMS security is in an LULD state
is not new or novel and is available on other options exchanges that
offer similar collar functionality.\46\ The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule changes would add transparency and specificity to
Exchange rules.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See id. at 46067-8.
    \44\ See id. at 46068.
    \45\ See id.
    \46\ The Exchange cites CBOE Rule 6.3A(b)(1) (LULD rule citing
Rule 6.2 regarding order handling); CBOE Rule 6.2, Interpretations
and Policies .07 and NASDAQ Options Market Ch. V, Sec. 3(d).
However, the Exchange notes that it believes that the rules of these
other exchanges do not specifically contemplate the underlying
security entering an LULD state while a market order is resting on
the book, because such orders typically execute on arrival. See
Notice, supra note 4, at 46068.
    \47\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the operation of the Trade Collar
Protection mechanism set forth in the proposal is consistent with the
Act. In addition, the Commission believes that the revised description
of this mechanism should increase transparency with respect to how the
mechanism operates and enhance investors' understanding of how the
mechanism may affect their orders in certain market conditions.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposal is reasonably
designed to help prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\48\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEAMER-2019-30) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-22944 Filed 10-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29429-29431]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13333]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0483; Product Identifier 2019-NM-053-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, and A330-300
series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that
new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. This
proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 8, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45
80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0483; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2019-0483;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-053-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The agency specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The agency
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this NPRM because of those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2019-0059, dated March 20, 2019 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter,
A330-200, and A330-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for Airbus A330 aeroplanes, which
are approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in the
A330 [Airworthiness Limitations Section] ALS document. The Damage
Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI) are specified in
the ALS Part 2. These instructions have been identified as mandatory
actions for continued airworthiness.
    Failure to comply with these instructions could result in an
unsafe condition.
    Previously, EASA issued AD 2018-0068 [which corresponds to FAA
AD 2018-24-04, Amendment 39-19508 (83 FR 60756, November 27, 2018)
(``AD 2018-24-04'')] for A330 aeroplanes to require accomplishment
of all maintenance tasks as described in ALS Part 2 Revision 02.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Airbus published Revision 03 of
the ALS Part 2 for A330 aeroplanes, including new and/or more
restrictive items.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2018-0068, which is superseded, and requires
accomplishment of the actions specified in the ALS.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0843.

Relationship Between Proposed AD and Other ADs

    This NPRM does not propose to supersede AD 2018-24-04 or AD 2017-
19-13, Amendment 39-19043 (82 FR 43837, September 20, 2017) (``AD 2017-
19-13''). Rather, the FAA has determined that a stand-alone AD is more
appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This proposed AD would
require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then
terminate all requirements of AD 2018-24-04 and AD 2017-19-13.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS) Part 2--Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),
Revision 03, dated October 15, 2018, as supplemented by Airbus A330
Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 2--Damage Tolerant
Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Variation 3.1, dated January
18, 2019, which describes mandatory maintenance tasks that operators
must perform at specified intervals. This service information describes
airworthiness limitations for certification maintenance requirements
applicable to the DT-ALI. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of

Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition
described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA
is proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information
and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to
exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections).
Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(j)(1) of this proposed AD.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the
airworthiness limitations section (ALS) inspection tasks, corrective
actions must be accomplished in accordance with [Airbus] maintenance
documentation. However, this proposed AD does not include that
requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by
general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform
maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. The FAA
considers those methods to be adequate to address any corrective
actions necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by
this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 107 airplanes of
U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this
proposed AD:
    The agency determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. In the past, the agency has estimated that this action
takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance
or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the agency
has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a
per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the total cost
per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

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.
    The FAA is 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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the
Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2019-0483; Product Identifier 2019-NM-
053-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 8, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2017-19-13, Amendment 39-19043 (82 FR 43837,
September 20, 2017) (``AD 2017-19-13'') and AD 2018-24-04, Amendment
39-19508 (83 FR 60756, November 27, 2018) (``AD 2018-24-04'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes specified in
paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in
any category, with an original airworthiness certificate or original
export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before October 15,
2018.
    (1) Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
    (2) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
    (3) Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342,
and -343 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion
in principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking, damage, and
corrosion could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
existing maintenance or

inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information
specified in Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS)
Part 2--Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),
Revision 03, dated October 15, 2018 (``Airbus A330 ALS Part 2, DT-
ALI, Revision 03''), as supplemented by Airbus A330 Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS) Part 2--Damage Tolerant Airworthiness
Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Variation 3.1, dated January 18, 2019.
The initial compliance time for doing the tasks is at the time
specified in Airbus A330 Airbus A330 ALS Part 2, DT-ALI, Revision
03, including Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS)
Part 2--Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),
Variation 3.1, dated January 18, 2019; or within 90 days after the
effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later. This AD does not
require Section 4, ``Damage Tolerant--Airworthiness Limitations
Items--Tasks Beyond MPPT,'' of Airbus A330 ALS Part 2, DT-ALI,
Revision 03.

(h) No Alternative Actions, Intervals

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals, may be used unless the
actions and intervals are approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

(i) Terminating Action for AD 2017-19-13 and AD 2018-24-04

    Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates all
requirements of AD 2017-19-13 and AD 2018-24-04.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (ii) The AMOC specified in letter AIR-676-19-120, dated March 5,
2019, approved previously for AD 2018-24-04, is approved as an AMOC
for the corresponding provisions of this AD for Model A330-300
series airplanes modified from a passenger to freighter
configuration under the provisions of FAA Supplemental Type
Certificate ST04038NY.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization
Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA 2019-0059, dated March 20, 2019, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2019-0843.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine
No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 18, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-13333 Filed 6-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 232 (Friday, December 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 75543]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31029]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10172-038]

 Missisquoi River Technologies; Missisquoi River Hydro LLC;
Notice of Transfer of Exemption

    1. By letter filed November 16, 2011, Missisquoi River Technologies
informed the Commission that its exemption from licensing for the North
Troy Hydroelectric Project No. 10172, originally issued June 29,
1989,\1\ has been transferred to Missisquoi River Hydro LLC. The
project is located on the Missisquoi River in Orleans County, Vermont.
The transfer of an exemption does not require Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 47 FERC ] 62,284 (1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Missisquoi River Hydro LLC, located at 453 East Hill Rd.,
Middlesex, VT 05602, is now the exemptee of the North Troy
Hydroelectric Project No. 10172.

    Dated: November 28, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-31029 Filed 12-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


minimis fee,'' is inconsistent with Section 11.2(d), which requires the
Operating Committee to provide for ease of billing and other
administrative functions.\351\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \350\ See Data Boiler Letter at 7; FINRA Letter at 5-6.
    \351\ See Data Boiler Letter at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The other commenter believes the proposal lacks justification for
the Minimum Industry CAT Fee, explaining that the fee could increase
for firms with little message traffic due to the redistribution of CAT
fees in excess of the Maximum Industry Member CAT Fee.\352\ The
commenter states this result was not discussed in the Proposed Funding
Model nor was there a discussion of how the result is consistent with
the CAT funding principles.\353\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \352\ See FINRA Letter at 5-6.
    \353\ See FINRA Letter at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the comments,\354\ the Operating Committee
reiterates the arguments it made in support of the proposed Minimum
Industry Member CAT Fee in the Proposed Amendment.\355\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \354\ See Data Boiler Letter at 7; FINRA Letter at 5-6.
    \355\ See CAT Operating Committee July 14th Letter II at 7;
Notice, supra note 4, at 21058-21059.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Maker Discounts

    Five commenters object to the proposed market maker discounts.\356\
One commenter objects to the market maker discounts due to what it
deems the improper discounting of Equity Market Maker message traffic
and the preferential treatment of Options Market Makers at the expense
of equities Industry Members.\357\ The commenter criticizes the trade-
to-quote ratio that is the basis of the proposed market maker
discounts, explaining that it ``ignores the realities of the market.''
\358\ The commenter suggests only including trades executed on-exchange
and not off-exchange in the ratio.\359\ Additionally, the commenter
objects to the use of the SIP best bid and offer information in
deriving the trade-to-quote ratio, explaining that this method
undercounts the ``activity and value contribution of equities market
makers and further underestimates any market maker discount.'' \360\
The commenter also argues that, after the Options Market Maker
discount, equities Industry Members would be required to pay 95% of the
CAT cost when only responsible for 12% of the message traffic, a
``grossly unfair cross-subsidy.'' \361\ The commenter states that at
least 40% of Industry Member costs should be borne by options Industry
Members if message traffic is the key driver of CAT costs.\362\ Another
commenter states that the ``massive discounts'' demonstrate that the
Participants ``have not found a way to perform the core functions
needed for market surveillance, without the cost of it putting at risk
an entire segment of the industry.'' \363\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \356\ See Data Boiler Letter at 7, 8, 9; SIFMA Letter at 9;
Tower Letter at 5-6; Istra Letter at 3-5; Parallax Letter at 3.
    \357\ See Istra Letter at 3-5.
    \358\ Id. at 4-5. See also Parallax Letter at 3 (stating that
the trade-to-quote ratio needs further analysis).
    \359\ See Istra Letter at 4.
    \360\ Id. at 5.
    \361\ Id. at 4.
    \362\ Id.
    \363\ See Parallax Letter at 3. This commenter also suggests
that there should be a process to confirm that Industry Members
accurately identify themselves as market makers to receive the
proposed market maker discounts, and penalties for those who
wrongfully identify themselves or their activities to receive a
discount. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, another commenter states that 89% of all Industry Member
CAT Reportable Events comes from Options Market Makers, but the
proposed Options Market Maker discount reduces 99% of the billable
events for Options Market Makers, with the result being 94% of Industry
Members' share allocated to equities non-market makers.\364\ The
commenter urges the Participants to justify this shift of costs to
Industry Members that are not Options Market Makers and notes that the
Proposed Amendment has not analyzed the effects of the discounts or has
demonstrated that the discounts will be effective.\365\ The commenter
states that the Proposed Amendment is lacking in several other areas
with respect to these discounts; there is no discussion of: (1) How the
proposed market maker discount provides a pricing advantage to market
makers that is unavailable to other market participants; (2) how the
trade-to-quote ratio is the correct metric to use for determining the
market maker discounts; (3) how the discount incentivizes market makers
to quote more without trading more; (4) how/whether the discount
calculation will change if the trade-to-quote ratio significantly
changes; and (5) any impacts on liquidity and market participant
behavior.\366\ The commenter also believes the Proposed Amendment lacks
a discussion of its potential impact on business lines across the
industry, such as, for example, its effect on ATSs, which would not be
considered market makers and thus could incur high costs.\367\ The
commenter attests that the Proposed Amendment lacks the information
necessary to assess the effect of the proposed market maker discounts,
such as the number of transactions resulting from market makers and how
market-makers transactions should be discounted from the total number
of transactions using the trade-to-quote ratio.\368\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \364\ See Tower Letter at 6.
    \365\ Id. at 5-6. See also Parallax Letter at 4 (stating that it
is important to understand the extent to which Industry Members
would benefit from the discounts).
    \366\ See Tower Letter at 5.
    \367\ Id. at 6.
    \368\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the comment on the proposal's potential effects on
business lines across the industry,\369\ the Operating Committee states
that it sought to limit any negative effects on certain CAT Reporters
resulting from the use of message traffic to calculate fees, such as
through the proposed market maker discounts and the proposed Maximum
Industry Member CAT Fee.\370\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \369\ Id. at 6.
    \370\ See CAT Operating Committee July 14th Letter II at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter opposes any market maker discounts, but notes that
smaller market makers that do not pay or receive rebates deserve
subsidies to encourage their participation.\371\ Another commenter
believes the impact of market maker discounts, as well as the Maximum
Industry Member CAT Fee, adds complexity and makes it difficult for
Industry Members to calculate their costs.\372\ In response to comments
on the market maker discounts,\373\ the Operating Committee reiterates
its rationale for proposing the discounts from the Proposed
Amendment.\374\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \371\ See Data Boiler Letter at 9.
    \372\ See SIFMA Letter at 9.
    \373\ See FIA PTG May 12th Letter at 4; IMC Letter at 2; Data
Boiler Letter at 7; SIFMA Letter at 9; Istra Letter at 2-4; Parallax
Letter at 3; Tower Letter at 5-6.
    \374\ See CAT Operating Committee July 14th Letter II at 9;
Notice, supra note 4, at 21057-21058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters endorse the proposed market maker discounts.\375\
One commenter believes any funding plan should include these discounts
and that additional product-specific

discounts should be considered.\376\ Another commenter believes the
discounts prevent market makers from incurring ``a disproportionate
percentage of CAT costs, which could impact their provision of
liquidity.'' \377\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \375\ See IMC Letter at 2; FIA PTG May 12th Letter at 4.
    \376\ See IMC Letter at 2.
    \377\ See FIA PTG May 12th Letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter requests clarification on the proposed market maker
discounts, specifying ``cost allocation data and projections on market
maker vs. non-market maker liquidity providers.'' \378\ The commenter
also asks for further transparency and discussion on the application of
the discounts on Industry Members with the most message traffic, at the
expense of other Industry Members.\379\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \378\ See MMI Letter at 5.
    \379\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Alternative Funding Models

    Several commenters suggest alternatives to the Proposed Funding
Model.\380\ One commenter believes that fines and settlements should
fund the CAT and that market participants that pose higher risks should
pay higher CAT fees due to regulators' ``extra efforts in deciphering
their complex business activities.'' \381\ The commenter also suggests
the Suspicious Activity Report (``SAR'') \382\ as a basis for
determining Industry Member CAT fees, stating that Industry Members
that underreport on the SAR should have increased fines.\383\ The
commenter believes that dark pools should pay higher CAT fees than SROs
because they pose higher potential risks due to lack of transparency
and ``vulnerability to conflicts of interest,'' \384\ and also notes
that internalizers or market makers may pose more of a risk than dark
pools due to greater vulnerability to conflicts of interest.\385\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \380\ See NYSE Letter at 2-5; Data Boiler Letter at 7-8; STA
Letter at 4; FIA PTG May 12th Letter at 4; Istra Letter at 5-6; IMC
Letter at 3; MMI Letter at 5.
    \381\ See Data Boiler Letter at 8.
    \382\ 12 CFR 21.11.
    \383\ See Data Boiler Letter at 7-8.
    \384\ Id.
    \385\ Id. In response to this comment, the Operating Committee
states that the Proposed Funding Model would treat ATSs as Industry
Members, requiring all Industry Members to pay a fee based on
message traffic rather than requiring some ATSs to pay a fee based
on market share and some ATSs to pay a fee based on message traffic,
and would also address concerns that treating Execution Venue ATSs
as Participants could create a barrier to entry for smaller ATSs.
See CAT Operating Committee July 14th Letter II at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters recommend a funding model administered similar to
the Commission's Section 31 fees.\386\ Two commenters explain that the
Participants could be assigned all of the CAT costs and then they would
decide how to reallocate those costs to their market participants, like
Section 31 fees.\387\ One of the commenters believes that this method
would incentivize Participants into better managing CAT costs and
possibly incentivize them into competing over how to allocate costs
their market participants.\388\ Another commenter also suggests that
the Commission could instead increase the rate of Section 31 fees to
fund the CAT.\389\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \386\ See MMI Letter at 5; Istra Letter at 5-6; FIA PTG May 12th
Letter at 4; IMC Letter at 2-3; STA Letter at 4; NYSE Letter at 2-5.
    \387\ See MMI Letter at 5; FIA PTG May 12th Letter at 4.
    \388\ See FIA PTG May 12th Letter at 4.
    \389\ See MMI Letter at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter believes that a 50%-50% cost allocation among
Industry Members and Participants would be preferable to the proposed
75%-25% cost allocation,\390\ but notes a simpler and direct way of
allocating costs through derived value, which the commenter believes
would not deter the provision of liquidity.\391\ The commenter suggests
using a methodology similar to the Section 31 fee or the Section 31 fee
methodology itself.\392\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \390\ See Istra Letter at 5.
    \391\ Id. at 5-6.
    \392\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter, a national securities exchange, provides a
detailed alternative funding model administered similarly to Section 31
fees.\393\ According to the alternative model, CAT costs would be
allocated based on executed share volume, which is already tracked by
market participants.\394\ A per share or per contract fee would be
calculated by dividing the annual budget cost base by projected total
industry volume.\395\ One-third of the fee would be allocated to the
purchasing broker-dealer, one-third to the selling broker-dealer, and
one-third to the exchange or trade reporting facility reporting the
transaction.\396\ The commenter believes that this allocation would
align funding responsibility with the receipt of economic benefits from
the marketplace and would result in transparent and predicable CAT
funding costs.\397\ The commenter notes that OTC equities would be
treated differently due to their significantly higher share volumes,
and suggests that they receive a small portion of the CAT budget that
would be allocated among the buyer, seller and the Over-the-Counter
Reporting Facility on a per share basis.\398\ The commenter believes
that requiring all parties active in each transaction to evenly fund
the CAT would allocate costs transparently, and that billing in
accordance with Section 31 fee billing processes would be ``an
efficient method to administer funding program and provide clarity to
market participants of their trading expenses.'' \399\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \393\ See NYSE Letter at 2-5.
    \394\ Id. at 3.
    \395\ Id.
    \396\ Id.
    \397\ Id.
    \398\ Id.
    \399\ See NYSE Letter at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters believe the national securities exchange's suggested
alternative funding model deserves review.\400\ Both commenters support
the alternative's suggestion to base funding on executed volume rather
than message traffic via a structure administered like Section 31 fees
volume rather than message traffic.\401\ However, one commenter
expresses concern about the alternative's suggested allocation of the
per share cost, explaining that FINRA's costs would be passed to
Industry Members through the TAF.\402\ Additionally, one commenter
warns that this alternative, and the suggestions to use Section 31 fees
as a model, could result in costs assessed against investors and urges
the Commission to consider the possibility of increased costs and
whether investors should be responsible for these costs.\403\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \400\ See IMC Letter at 3; STA Letter at 4.
    \401\ See IMC Letter at 2-3; STA Letter at 4.
    \402\ See STA Letter at 4.
    \403\ See Parallax Letter at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Amendment

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Rule
608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,\404\ and Rules 700 and 701 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice,\405\ to determine whether to disapprove
the Proposed Amendment or to approve the Proposed Amendment with any
changes or subject to any conditions the Commission deems necessary or
appropriate after considering public comment. Institution of
proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any
conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide
additional comment on the Proposed Amendment to inform the Commission's
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \404\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \405\ 17 CFR 201.700; 17 CFR 201.701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 608(b)(2) of Regulation NMS provides that the Commission
``shall approve a national market system plan or proposed amendment to
an effective

national market system plan, with such changes or subject to such
conditions as the Commission may deem necessary or appropriate, if it
finds that such plan or amendment is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of
fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanisms of, a national market system, or otherwise in furtherance of
the purposes of the Exchange Act.'' \406\ Rule 608(b)(2) further
provides that the Commission shall disapprove a national market system
plan or proposed amendment if it does not make such a finding.\407\ In
the Notice, the Commission sought comment on the Proposed Amendment,
including whether the Proposed Amendment is consistent with the
Exchange Act.\408\ In this order, pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of
Regulation NMS,\409\ the Commission is providing notice of the grounds
for disapproval under consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \406\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
    \407\ Id.
    \408\ See Notice, supra note 4.
    \409\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether, consistent with Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, the
Participants have demonstrated how the Proposed Amendment is necessary
or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors
and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a national market system, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act; \410\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \410\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Participants have demonstrated how the
Proposed Amendment is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) \411\ and Section
15A(b)(5),\412\ of the Exchange Act, which require that the rules of a
national securities exchange ``provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers
and other persons using its facilities'' and that the rules of a
national securities association ``provide for the equitable allocation
of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among members and issuers
and other persons using any facility or system which the association
operates or controls;''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \411\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \412\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Participants have demonstrated how the
Proposed Amendment is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) \413\ and Section
15A(b)(6),\414\ of the Exchange Act, which require that the rules of a
national securities exchange or national securities association
``promote just and equitable principles of trade . . . protect
investors and the public interest; and [to be] not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers;''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \413\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \414\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Participants have demonstrated how the
Proposed Amendment is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) \415\ and Section
15A(b)(9) \416\ of the Exchange Act, which require that the rules of a
national securities exchange or national securities association ``do
not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of [the Exchange Act];''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \415\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \416\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Participants have demonstrated how the
Proposed Amendment is consistent with the funding principles of the CAT
NMS Plan, which state that the Operating Committee shall seek, among
other things, ``to create transparent, predictable revenue streams for
the Company that are aligned with the anticipated costs to build,
operate and administer the CAT and the other costs of the Company,''
\417\ ``to establish an allocation of the Company's related costs among
Participants and Industry Members that is consistent with the Exchange
Act taking into account . . . distinctions in the securities trading
operations of Participants and Industry Members and their relative
impact upon the Company resources and operations,'' \418\ ``to provide
for ease of billing and other administrative functions,'' \419\ and
``to avoid any disincentives such as placing an inappropriate burden on
competition and a reduction in market quality;'' \420\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \417\ Section 11.2(a) of the CAT NMS Plan.
    \418\ Section 11.2(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.
    \419\ Section 11.2(d) of the CAT NMS Plan.
    \420\ Section 11.2(e) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether, and if so how, the Proposed Amendment would
affect efficiency, competition or capital formation; and
     Whether modifications to the Proposed Amendment, or
conditions to its approval, would be necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of
fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanisms of, a national market system, or otherwise in furtherance of
the purposes of the Exchange Act.\421\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \421\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section IV., above, the Participants made various
arguments in support of the Proposed Amendment and the Commission
received comment letters that expressed concerns about the Proposed
Amendment, including that the Participants did not provide sufficient
information to establish that the Proposed Amendment is consistent with
the Exchange Act and the rules thereunder.
    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a NMS plan filing is consistent with the Exchange Act
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the plan
participants that filed the NMS plan filing.'' \422\ The description of
the NMS plan filing, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal
analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission
finding.\423\ Any failure of the plan participants that filed the NMS
plan filing to provide such detail and specificity may result in the
Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding
that the NMS plan filing is consistent with the Exchange Act and the
applicable rules and regulations thereunder.\424\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \422\ 17 CFR 201.701(b)(3)(ii).
    \423\ Id.
    \424\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the Proposed Amendment. In particular, the Commission invites the
written views of interested persons concerning whether the Proposed
Amendment is consistent with Section 11A 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 608(b)(2)(i)
of Regulation NMS,\425\ any request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.\426\ The Commission asks that commenters address the
sufficiency and merit of the Participants' statements in support of the
Proposed Amendment,\427\ in addition to any other comments they

may wish to submit about the proposed rule changes. In particular, the
Commission seeks comment on the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \425\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(i).
    \426\ Rule 700(c)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice
provides that ``[t]he Commission, in its sole discretion, may
determine whether any issues relevant to approval or disapproval
would be facilitated by the opportunity for an oral presentation of
views.'' 17 CFR 201.700(c)(ii).
    \427\ See Notice, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Requests for Comment on the Proposed Funding Model

    1. Commenters' views on the proposed inclusion of ATSs as Industry
Members for purposes of allocating CAT costs;
    2. Commenters' views on the exclusion of reported OTC Equity
Securities share volume from the calculation of market share for
national securities associations;
    3. Commenters' views on the proposed elimination of tiered fees in
favor of CAT fees that may vary based on message traffic or market
share, as applicable;
    4. Commenters' views on the proposed elimination from Section
11.2(c) of the CAT NMS Plan of the requirement that the fees charged to
CAT Reporters with the most CAT-related activity be generally
comparable;
    5. Commenters' views on the proposed Minimum Industry Member CAT
Fee and the requirement that all Industry Members pay such fee, even if
they have not yet started reporting to the CAT, and any views on
whether the Proposed Funding Model has provided sufficient information
on the operation of the fee and on whether the Proposed Funding Model
has sufficiently explained the operation of the Minimum Industry Member
CAT Fee Re-Allocation;
    6. Commenters' views on the proposed Maximum Industry Member CAT
Fee; any views on whether the Proposed Amendment contains sufficient
justification for the 8% cap chosen for the fee; and any views on
whether a maximum fee is consistent with the funding principles
expressed in the CAT NMS Plan that states that the Operating Committee
shall seek, among other things, ``to create transparent, predictable
revenue streams for the Company that are aligned with the anticipated
costs to build, operate and administer the CAT and the other costs of
the Company,'' \428\ ``to establish an allocation of the Company's
related costs among Participants and Industry Members that is
consistent with the Exchange Act taking into account . . . distinctions
in the securities trading operations of Participants and Industry
Members and their relative impact upon the Company resources and
operations,'' \429\ and ``to avoid any disincentives such as placing an
inappropriate burden on competition and a reduction in market
quality;'' \430\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \428\ Section 11.2(a) of the CAT NMS Plan.
    \429\ Section 11.2(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.
    \430\ Section 11.2(e) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Commenters' views on why Industry Member CAT fees should be
capped; views on how such a cap would benefit or harm efficiency,
competition, and capital formation; and any views on whether there are
other benefits or costs of adopting such an approach;
    8. Commenters' views on the proposed Minimum Participant Fee and
the Maximum Equities Participant Fee, including views on the
calculation of the proposed fees and any views on whether the proposed
fees raise any competitive issues among the Participants; and any views
on whether the proposed fees are consistent with the funding principles
expressed in the CAT NMS Plan, which state that the Operating Committee
shall seek, among other things, ``to create transparent, predictable
revenue streams for the Company that are aligned with the anticipated
costs to build, operate and administer the CAT and the other costs of
the Company;'' \431\ ``to establish an allocation of the Company's
related costs among Participants and Industry Members that is
consistent with the Exchange Act taking into account . . . distinctions
in the securities trading operations of Participants and Industry
Members and their relative impact upon the Company resources and
operations;'' \432\ and ``to avoid any disincentives such as placing an
inappropriate burden on competition and a reduction in market
quality;'' \433\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \431\ Section 11.2(a) of the CAT NMS Plan.
    \432\ Section 11.2(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.
    \433\ Section 11.2(e) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Commenters' views on whether FINRA's CAT fee should be capped;
any views on how such a cap benefits or harms efficiency, competition,
and capital formation; and any views on whether there are other
benefits or costs of adopting such an approach;
    10. Commenters' views on why Participants should be charged the
Minimum Participant Fee; views on how such a minimum would benefit or
harm efficiency, competition, and capital formation; and any views on
whether there are other benefits or costs of adopting such an approach;
    11. Commenters' views on the proposed market maker discounts, any
views on the potential impact of the discounts on market participant
behavior, including the provision of liquidity; and any views on
whether the proposed market maker discounts are consistent with the
funding principles expressed in the CAT NMS Plan, which state that the
Operating Committee shall seek, among other things, ``to create
transparent, predictable revenue streams for the Company that are
aligned with the anticipated costs to build, operate and administer the
CAT and the other costs of the Company,'' \434\ ``to establish an
allocation of the Company's related costs among Participants and
Industry Members that is consistent with the Exchange Act taking into
account . . . distinctions in the securities trading operations of
Participants and Industry Members and their relative impact upon the
Company resources and operations,'' \435\ and ``to avoid any
disincentives such as placing an inappropriate burden on competition
and a reduction in market quality;'' \436\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \434\ Section 11.2(a) of the CAT NMS Plan.
    \435\ Section 11.2(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.
    \436\ Section 11.2(e) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Commenters' views on how market-making activity should be
defined for purposes of the proposed market maker discounts; views on
whether there is activity included in the definition of market making
that should not be included for purposes of allocation of CAT fees; and
any views on whether such a discount should apply to market-making
activities in all types of securities without regard to security
characteristics;
    13. Commenters' views on whether other Industry Members (including
those that do not transact in options) would subsidize the activity of
Options Market Makers under the proposal; any views on whether Section
6.4(d)(iii) \437\ of the CAT NMS Plan effectively reduces the message
traffic of Options Market Makers relative to what it would be
otherwise, and thus ultimately reduce the CAT fees they would be
assigned under the Participants' proposal; views on how this
subsidization would benefit or harm efficiency, competition, and
capital formation; views on whether there are other benefits or costs
of adopting such an approach; views (in detail) on whether there is an
alternative approach

that would be more beneficial to efficiency, competition, or capital
formation; and any views on whether the discount to fees allocated to
Industry Members for market making activity described in the
Participants' proposal provide a similar magnitude of benefit to Equity
Market Makers;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \437\ Section 6.4(d)(iii) of the CAT NMS Plan states, ``With
respect to the reporting obligations of an Options Market Maker with
regard to its quotes in Listed Options, Reportable Events required
pursuant to Section 6.3(d)(ii) and (iv) shall be reported to the
Central Repository by an Options Exchange in lieu of the reporting
of such information by the Options Market Maker. Each Participant
that is an Options Exchange shall, through its Compliance Rule,
require its Industry Members that are Options Market Makers to
report to the Options Exchange the time at which a quote in a Listed
Option is sent to the Options Exchange (and, if applicable, any
subsequent quote modifications and/or cancellation time when such
modification or cancellation is originated by the Options Market
Maker). Such time information also shall be reported to the Central
Repository by the Options Exchange in lieu of reporting by the
Options Market Maker.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requests for Comment on the Proposed Fee Schedule

    1. Commenters' views on the determination to allocate 75% of the
Total CAT Costs to Industry Members and 25% of the Total CAT Costs to
Participants; and any views on whether this proposed allocation is
consistent with the funding principles expressed in the CAT NMS Plan,
which state that the Operating Committee shall seek, among other
things, ``to establish an allocation of the Company's related costs
among Participants and Industry Members that is consistent with the
Exchange Act taking into account . . . distinctions in the securities
trading operations of Participants and Industry Members and their
relative impact upon the Company resources and operations,'' \438\ and
``to avoid any disincentives such as placing an inappropriate burden on
competition and a reduction in market quality;'' \439\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \438\ Section 11.2(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.
    \439\ Section 11.2(e) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Commenters' views on the rationale provided that the proposed
75%-25% allocation ensures that Industry Members with the most message
traffic pay comparable fees to Participant complexes with the most
market share, considering the proposed deletion from Section 11.2(c) of
the CAT NMS Plan of the requirement that the fees charged to CAT
Reporters with the most CAT-related activity be generally comparable;
    3. Commenters' views on whether allocating Participant fees by
market share while allocating Industry Member fees by message traffic,
when combined with the proposed 75%-25% split between Participants and
Industry Member aggregate fees, introduces frictions (such as
effectively double counting the message traffic sent and received by
Industry Members, into the CAT fee model due to FINRA's allocation of
fees from trade volume reported to trade reporting facilities); views
on how frictions would result; any views on how this would benefit or
harm efficiency, competition, and capital formation; any views on
whether there are other benefits or costs of adopting such an approach;
and any views on whether capping FINRA's contribution to CAT fees as
described in the Participants' proposal mitigate any benefits or costs
and to what extent;
    4. Commenters' views on potential alternative allocations of Total
CAT Costs to Industry Members and Participants, including the
allocations considered, but rejected, by the Participants, and the
alternative allocations suggested by commenters as discussed in this
order;
    5. Commenters' views on how fees would be passed on to Industry
Members and investors if all CAT costs were allocated to Participants;
views on how this outcome would be different than under the
Participants' proposal; views on whether such an approach would benefit
or harm efficiency, competition, and capital formation; and any views
on whether there are other benefits or costs of adopting such an
approach;
    6. Commenters' views on whether Industry Members have sufficient
information to estimate and budget for their expected allocation of CAT
fees each quarter; if not, any views on what additional information
would Industry Members need to develop an estimate of these fees;
    7. Commenters' views on whether a Section 31 fee-like cost
allocation framework (i.e., a transaction-based fee framework) would
benefit or harm efficiency, competition, and capital formation, and any
views on whether there are other benefits or costs of adopting such an
approach;
    8. Commenters' views on the calculation of the Participant
Allocation and the Adjusted Participant Allocation;
    9. Commenters' views on the determination to allocate 60% of the
Adjusted Participant Allocation to Equities Participants and 40% to
Options Participants, including views on whether the proposed
allocation is consistent with the funding principles expressed in the
CAT NMS Plan that state that the Operating Committee shall seek, among
other things, ``to establish an allocation of the Company's related
costs among Participants and Industry Members that is consistent with
the Exchange Act taking into account . . . distinctions in the
securities trading operations of Participants and Industry Members and
their relative impact upon the Company resources and operations,''
\440\ and ``to avoid any disincentives such as placing an inappropriate
burden on competition and a reduction in market quality;'' \441\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \440\ Section 11.2(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.
    \441\ Section 11.2(e) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Commenters' views on an alternative approach that would split
costs between Participants and Industry Members by proportion of
aggregate message traffic, then allocate the Participants' portion of
fees across Participants by market share, with or without the proposed
60%-40% split between Equities and Options Participants; any views on
whether this would benefit or harm efficiency, competition and capital
formation when compared to the Participants' proposal; and any views on
whether there are other benefits or costs of adopting such an approach;
    11. Commenters' views on whether elements of the Participants'
proposal entail cross-subsidization of activities (for example:
Allocating 60% of Participants' fees to Equities Participants and 40%
to Options Participants is unlikely to reflect these groups' relative
message traffic; and discounting fees associated with message traffic
for market-making activities based on quote/trade ratios reduces fees
paid by Industry Members who are market makers); any views on how these
cross-subsidizations benefit or harm efficiency, competition, and
capital formation; and any views on whether there are other benefits or
costs of adopting such an approach;
    12. Commenters' views on whether the lack of Industry Member
participation on the Operating Committee prevents the Participants from
arriving at an equitable allocation of CAT fees between Participants
and Industry Members, and across members of those groups;
    13. Commenters' views on how any inherent conflicts of interest may
be addressed in the proposal;
    14. Commenters' views on how allowing the Operating Committee to
determine by vote how Participant fees are allocated across
Participants would benefit or harm efficiency, competition, and capital
formation, assuming that some proportion of CAT fees are to be
allocated to Participants as a group; and any views on whether there
are other benefits or costs of adopting such an approach;
    15. Commenters' views on the proposed quarterly Participant CAT
fee, including views on its calculation; any views on whether the
proposed fee raises any competitive issues; and any views on whether
the proposed fee is consistent with the funding principles expressed in
the CAT NMS Plan, which state that the Operating Committee shall seek,
among other things, ``to create transparent, predictable revenue
streams for the Company that are aligned with the anticipated costs to
build, operate and administer the CAT and the other

costs of the Company;'' \442\ ``to establish an allocation of the
Company's related costs among Participants and Industry Members that is
consistent with the Exchange Act taking into account . . . distinctions
in the securities trading operations of Participants and Industry
Members and their relative impact upon the Company resources and
operations;'' \443\ and ``to avoid any disincentives such as placing an
inappropriate burden on competition and a reduction in market
quality;'' \444\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \442\ Section 11.2(a) of the CAT NMS Plan.
    \443\ Section 11.2(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.
    \444\ Section 11.2(e) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. Commenters' views on the decision to use total budgeted costs
for the CAT for the relevant year as the Total CAT Costs for
calculating fees for Participants and Industry Members, rather than
costs already incurred; views on the statement that the total budgeted
costs for the CAT may be adjusted on a quarterly basis by the Operating
Committee; and views on the treatment of any surpluses.

The Commission also requests that commenters provide analysis to
support their views, if possible.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposals should be approved or
disapproved by August 16, 2021. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
August 30, 2021. 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 4-698 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 4-698. 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 Participants' principal offices. 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 4-698 and should be submitted on or before
August 16, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\445\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \445\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(85).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15810 Filed 7-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P