83 FR 23312 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7018(a) To Establish a New Fee for Orders With Midpoint Pegging That Execute at a Price Better Than the Midpoint of the NBBO
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 97 (May 18, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 97 (May 18, 2018)
| Page Range | 23312-23313 | |
| FR Document | 2018-10600 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2018)] [Notices] [Pages 23312-23313] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-10600] [[Page 23312]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-83224; File No. SR-BX-2018-018] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7018(a) To Establish a New Fee for Orders With Midpoint Pegging That Execute at a Price Better Than the Midpoint of the NBBO May 14, 2018. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that on April 30, 2018, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to establish a new fee for orders with Midpoint pegging that receive an execution price that is better than the midpoint of the National Best Bid and Offer (``NBBO''), as described further below. While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed amendments to be operative on May 1, 2018. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at Rule 7018 to establish a new fee of $0.0017 per share executed for a buy (sell) order with Midpoint pegging that receives an execution price that is lower (higher) than the midpoint of the NBBO. The Exchange operates on the ``taker-maker'' model, whereby it pays credits to members that take liquidity and charges fees to members that provide liquidity. Among the fees that the Exchange charges to members that submit liquidity-providing orders to the Exchange, the Exchange charges a baseline fee of $0.0030 per share executed for each non- displayed order that adds liquidity. However, for certain types of non- displayed orders that add liquidity, the Exchange charges lower fees relative to the baseline fee as a means of incentivizing additional liquidity. For example, the Exchange charges $0.0015 per share executed for orders with Midpoint pegging \3\ or $0.0005 if the order with Midpoint pegging is entered by a member that adds 0.02% of total Consolidated Volume of non-displayed liquidity. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Pursuant to Rule 4703(d), an order with a ``Midpoint pegging'' attribute is a non-displayed order whose price is determined with reference to midpoint between the Inside Bid and Inside Offer (the ``Midpoint''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The new fee that the Exchange proposes to charge for a Midpoint pegging order that executes at a price which is less aggressive than the midpoint of the NBBO will be higher than the $0.0005 or $0.0015 fees that the Exchange charges for Midpoint pegging orders, generally. This is reasonable because Midpoint pegging orders that execute at prices less aggressive than the Midpoint of the NBBO provide less price improvement to other participants and execute at better prices (from the perspective of the firm having entered the order with Midpoint pegging) than Midpoint pegging orders that execute at the midpoint. However, the Exchange notes that the proposed fee will still be lower than the baseline $0.0030 fee that the Exchange charges for non-display orders as a means of incenting orders that provide price improvement relative to the Midpoint. The Exchange also proposes to add language to existing provisions of the fee schedule that also apply to orders with Midpoint pegging to clarify that these other provisions and their associated fees do not apply to orders with Midpoint pegging that receive price improvement relative to the midpoint of the NBBO. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting Release''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission \7\ (``NetCoalition'') the DC Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based approach.\8\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be made available to investors and at what cost.'' \9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010). \8\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535. \9\ Id. at 537. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in [[Page 23313]] the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \10\ Although the court and the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange believes that these views apply with equal force to the options markets. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Exchange believes that its proposed fee is reasonable because it benefits participants by providing a new way in which members may qualify for a reduced transaction fee, while also incentivizing members to add liquidity to the Exchange. It is also reasonable for the Exchange to charge a higher fee for a Midpoint pegging order that receives price improvement relative to the midpoint of the NBBO than it does for a Midpoint pegging order that executes at the Midpoint because the former order receives a better price than the latter one relative to the midpoint of the NBBO. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will apply the same fee to all similarly situated members. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. In this instance, the proposed fee does not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's execution services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. The proposed fee will apply to all similarly situated members. Moreover, the proposal promotes competition because the Exchange intends for it to incentivize members to add liquidity to the Exchange, potentially attracting additional participants to the Exchange. In sum, if the change proposed herein is unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were either solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic CommentsUse the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-BX-2018-018 on the subject line. Paper Comments Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2018-018. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2018-018 and should be submitted on or before June 8, 2018. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2018-10600 Filed 5-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
![23312 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2018 / Notices
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s associated fees do not apply to orders
COMMISSION Statement of the Purpose of, and with Midpoint pegging that receive
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule price improvement relative to the
[Release No. 34–83224; File No. SR–BX–
Change midpoint of the NBBO.
2018–018]
1. Purpose 2. Statutory Basis
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq
The purpose of the proposed rule The Exchange believes that its
BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and
change is to amend the Exchange’s proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
transaction fees at Rule 7018 to establish of the Act,4 in general, and furthers the
Rule Change To Amend Rule 7018(a)
a new fee of $0.0017 per share executed objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)
To Establish a New Fee for Orders
for a buy (sell) order with Midpoint of the Act,5 in particular, in that it
With Midpoint Pegging That Execute at
pegging that receives an execution price provides for the equitable allocation of
a Price Better Than the Midpoint of the
that is lower (higher) than the midpoint reasonable dues, fees and other charges
NBBO
of the NBBO. among members and issuers and other
May 14, 2018. The Exchange operates on the ‘‘taker- persons using any facility, and is not
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the maker’’ model, whereby it pays credits designed to permit unfair
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to members that take liquidity and discrimination between customers,
(‘‘Act’’) 1, and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 charges fees to members that provide issuers, brokers, or dealers.
notice is hereby given that on April 30, liquidity. Among the fees that the The Commission and the courts have
2018, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (‘‘BX’’ or Exchange charges to members that repeatedly expressed their preference
‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities submit liquidity-providing orders to the for competition over regulatory
and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or Exchange, the Exchange charges a intervention in determining prices,
‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule baseline fee of $0.0030 per share products, and services in the securities
change as described in Items I, II, and executed for each non-displayed order markets. In Regulation NMS, while
III, below, which Items have been that adds liquidity. However, for certain adopting a series of steps to improve the
prepared by the Exchange. The types of non-displayed orders that add current market model, the Commission
Commission is publishing this notice to liquidity, the Exchange charges lower highlighted the importance of market
solicit comments on the proposed rule fees relative to the baseline fee as a forces in determining prices and SRO
change from interested persons. means of incentivizing additional revenues and, also, recognized that
liquidity. For example, the Exchange current regulation of the market system
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s charges $0.0015 per share executed for ‘‘has been remarkably successful in
Statement of the Terms of Substance of orders with Midpoint pegging 3 or promoting market competition in its
the Proposed Rule Change $0.0005 if the order with Midpoint broader forms that are most important to
The Exchange proposes to establish a pegging is entered by a member that investors and listed companies.’’ 6
new fee for orders with Midpoint adds 0.02% of total Consolidated Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities
pegging that receive an execution price Volume of non-displayed liquidity. and Exchange Commission 7
that is better than the midpoint of the The new fee that the Exchange (‘‘NetCoalition’’) the DC Circuit upheld
National Best Bid and Offer (‘‘NBBO’’), proposes to charge for a Midpoint the Commission’s use of a market-based
as described further below. pegging order that executes at a price approach in evaluating the fairness of
While these amendments are effective which is less aggressive than the market data fees against a challenge
upon filing, the Exchange has midpoint of the NBBO will be higher claiming that Congress mandated a cost-
designated the proposed amendments to than the $0.0005 or $0.0015 fees that the based approach.8 As the court
be operative on May 1, 2018. Exchange charges for Midpoint pegging emphasized, the Commission ‘‘intended
The text of the proposed rule change orders, generally. This is reasonable in Regulation NMS that ‘market forces,
is available on the Exchange’s website at because Midpoint pegging orders that rather than regulatory requirements’
http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at execute at prices less aggressive than the play a role in determining the market
the principal office of the Exchange, and Midpoint of the NBBO provide less data . . . to be made available to
at the Commission’s Public Reference price improvement to other participants investors and at what cost.’’ 9
Room. and execute at better prices (from the Further, ‘‘[n]o one disputes that
perspective of the firm having entered competition for order flow is ‘fierce.’
II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s the order with Midpoint pegging) than . . . As the SEC explained, ‘[i]n the U.S.
Statement of the Purpose of, and Midpoint pegging orders that execute at national market system, buyers and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule the midpoint. However, the Exchange sellers of securities, and the broker-
Change notes that the proposed fee will still be dealers that act as their order-routing
In its filing with the Commission, the lower than the baseline $0.0030 fee that agents, have a wide range of choices of
Exchange included statements the Exchange charges for non-display where to route orders for execution’;
concerning the purpose of and basis for orders as a means of incenting orders [and] ‘no exchange can afford to take its
the proposed rule change and discussed that provide price improvement relative market share percentages for granted’
any comments it received on the to the Midpoint. because ‘no exchange possesses a
proposed rule change. The text of these The Exchange also proposes to add monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in
statements may be examined at the language to existing provisions of the
places specified in Item IV below. The fee schedule that also apply to orders 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Exchange has prepared summaries, set with Midpoint pegging to clarify that 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
forth in sections A, B, and C below, of these other provisions and their 6 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808
(June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005)
the most significant aspects of such (‘‘Regulation NMS Adopting Release’’).
3 Pursuant to Rule 4703(d), an order with a
statements. ‘‘Midpoint pegging’’ attribute is a non-displayed
7 NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir.
order whose price is determined with reference to 2010).
1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 8 See NetCoalition, at 534–535.
midpoint between the Inside Bid and Inside Offer
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. (the ‘‘Midpoint’’). 9 Id. at 537.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 May 17, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18MYN1.SGM 18MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_23409/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2018 / Notices 23313
the execution of order flow from broker from other exchanges and from off- Commission, 100 F Street NE,
dealers’. . . .’’ 10 Although the court exchange venues. The proposed fee will Washington, DC 20549–1090.
and the SEC were discussing the cash apply to all similarly situated members. All submissions should refer to File
equities markets, the Exchange believes Moreover, the proposal promotes Number SR–BX–2018–018. This file
that these views apply with equal force competition because the Exchange number should be included on the
to the options markets. intends for it to incentivize members to subject line if email is used. To help the
The Exchange believes that its add liquidity to the Exchange, Commission process and review your
proposed fee is reasonable because it potentially attracting additional comments more efficiently, please use
benefits participants by providing a new participants to the Exchange. only one method. The Commission will
way in which members may qualify for In sum, if the change proposed herein post all comments on the Commission’s
a reduced transaction fee, while also is unattractive to market participants, it internet website (http://www.sec.gov/
incentivizing members to add liquidity is likely that the Exchange will lose rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
to the Exchange. It is also reasonable for market share as a result. Accordingly, submission, all subsequent
the Exchange to charge a higher fee for the Exchange does not believe that the amendments, all written statements
a Midpoint pegging order that receives proposed change will impair the ability with respect to the proposed rule
price improvement relative to the of members or competing order change that are filed with the
midpoint of the NBBO than it does for execution venues to maintain their Commission, and all written
a Midpoint pegging order that executes competitive standing in the financial communications relating to the
at the Midpoint because the former markets. proposed rule change between the
order receives a better price than the C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Commission and any person, other than
latter one relative to the midpoint of the Statement on Comments on the those that may be withheld from the
NBBO. Proposed Rule Change Received From public in accordance with the
The Exchange believes that the Members, Participants, or Others provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
proposed fee is an equitable allocation available for website viewing and
and is not unfairly discriminatory No written comments were either printing in the Commission’s Public
because the Exchange will apply the solicited or received. Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
same fee to all similarly situated III. Date of Effectiveness of the Washington, DC 20549, on official
members. Proposed Rule Change and Timing for business days between the hours of
B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Commission Action 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the
Statement on Burden on Competition filing also will be available for
The foregoing rule change has become
inspection and copying at the principal
The Exchange does not believe that effective pursuant to Section
office of the Exchange. All comments
the proposed rule change will impose 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.11
received will be posted without change.
any burden on competition not At any time within 60 days of the
Persons submitting comments are
necessary or appropriate in furtherance filing of the proposed rule change, the
cautioned that we do not redact or edit
of the purposes of the Act. In terms of Commission summarily may
personal identifying information from
inter-market competition, the Exchange temporarily suspend such rule change if
comment submissions. You should
notes that it operates in a highly it appears to the Commission that such
submit only information that you wish
competitive market in which market action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in
to make available publicly. All
participants can readily favor competing the public interest; (ii) for the protection
submissions should refer to File
venues if they deem fee levels at a of investors; or (iii) otherwise in
Number SR–BX–2018–018 and should
particular venue to be excessive, or furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
be submitted on or before June 8, 2018.
rebate opportunities available at other If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings For the Commission, by the Division of
venues to be more favorable. In such an
to determine whether the proposed rule Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
environment, the Exchange must authority.12
continually adjust its fees to remain should be approved or disapproved.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
competitive with other exchanges and IV. Solicitation of Comments Assistant Secretary.
with alternative trading systems that
have been exempted from compliance Interested persons are invited to [FR Doc. 2018–10600 Filed 5–17–18; 8:45 am]
with the statutory standards applicable submit written data, views, and BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
to exchanges. Because competitors are arguments concerning the foregoing,
free to modify their own fees in including whether the proposed rule
response, and because market change is consistent with the Act. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
participants may readily adjust their Comments may be submitted by any of COMMISSION
order routing practices, the Exchange the following methods: [Release No. 34–83230; File No. SR–NYSE–
believes that the degree to which fee Electronic Comments 2018–21]
changes in this market may impose any
• Use the Commission’s internet Self-Regulatory Organizations; New
burden on competition is extremely
comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of
limited.
rules/sro.shtml); or Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
In this instance, the proposed fee does
• Send an email to rule-comments@ Proposed Rule Change To Amend its
not impose a burden on competition
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
because the Exchange’s execution Price List
BX–2018–018 on the subject line.
services are completely voluntary and May 14, 2018.
subject to extensive competition both Paper Comments
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the
10 Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act
• Send paper comments in triplicate Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
74770, 74782–83 (December 9, 2008) (SR–
NYSEArca–2006–21)). 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 1 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 May 17, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18MYN1.SGM 18MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_23409/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2018-05-18 02:16:14
Document Modified: 2018-05-18 02:16:14
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 23312 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR