[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26684-26687]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09621]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0090; FRL-9763-01-OCSPP]

Trans-Anethole; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of trans-anethole (CAS No. 4180-23-8) when
used as a fragrance inert ingredient in pesticide formulations at a
concentration of 3% of the formulation in pre-harvest applications to
crops. Landis International, Inc., on behalf of Morse Enterprises
Limited, Inc. d/b/a KeyPlex submitted a petition to EPA under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the
need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of trans-
anethole (CAS No. 4180-23-8) on food or feed commodities when used in
accordance with this exemption.

DATES: This regulation is effective May 5, 2022. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 5, 2022, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0090, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room and OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Registration
Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Office of Federal Register's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0090 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
July 5, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0090, by one of
the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of April 11, 2018 (83 FR 15528) (FRL-9975-
57), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11093)
filed by Landis International, Inc., on behalf of Morse Enterprises
Limited, Inc. d/b/a KeyPlex (P.O. Box 2515, Winter Park, FL 32790). The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920 be amended by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of trans-
anethole (CAS No. 4180-23-8) when used as a fragrance inert ingredient
in pesticide formulations at a concentration of 3% of the formulation
when applied pre-harvest to crops. That document included a summary of
the petition prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the
petitioner's request. The Agency did not receive any public comments.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and

hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA
defines ``safe'' to mean that EPA has determined that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but it does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing an exemption and to ``ensure that
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no harm to human health. In order to determine
the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the
Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible
exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking
water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide
use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a
tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert
ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be
established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and
the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of
and to make a determination on aggregate exposure to trans-anethole,
including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this
action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with trans-
anethole follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    Trans-anethole has low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and
inhalation routes, and it is not an eye or dermal irritant, nor a skin
sensitizer. In repeated-dose toxicity studies, the liver was the major
target organ, with non-specific effects such as changes in body weight
and food consumption also observed in multiple studies. There is no
evidence of offspring susceptibility in the available developmental
toxicity study or in the 2-generation reproductive toxicity study. The
offspring effects observed in the developmental toxicity study occurred
at doses higher than those in which maternal toxicity was observed. The
uterine findings described in the 90-day oral study occurred only at
the highest dose tested and have a clear no observed adverse effect
level (NOAEL). No effects on reproductive parameters were observed in
the 2-generation reproductive toxicity study. Concern for
carcinogenicity is low, based on negative results in mutagenicity and
genotoxicity studies and lack of biological significance of the
neoplastic effects observed in females only at the highest dose tested
in the chronic/carcinogenicity study. There is no evidence of
neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity in the available studies.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern (LOCs) to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to
the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is
no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    An acute dietary endpoint was not selected because no effect
attributable to a single dose was identified in the database. The
chronic dietary, incidental oral, dermal and inhalation endpoints are
all selected from the developmental toxicity study in rats, with a
NOAEL of 35 mg/kg/day and a LOAEL of 175 mg/kg/day, based on decreases
in maternal body weight and food consumption.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure. Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) may
occur from the existing (non-food) and proposed uses of trans-anethole
(e.g., eating foods treated with pesticide formulations containing
trans-anethole, and drinking water exposures). There is also potential
for non-pesticide dietary exposure since trans-anethole is a natural
constituent of several food commodities (anise, fennel, thyme,
cinnamon, clove bud, nutmeg, pepper, coriander seed, and dill seed) and
is also used as a food additive (flavoring agent). An acute dietary
assessment was not performed due to the lack of adverse effects
attributed to a single dietary exposure. The chronic dietary exposure
for food and drinking water utilized 14.6% of the chronic PAD (cPAD)
for the U.S. population and 43.4% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years
old, the most highly exposed population. Therefore, chronic dietary
risks are not of concern, because they are less than 100% of the cPAD.
    2. Residential exposure. The proposed pre-harvest use of trans-
anethole in crops is not anticipated to result in residential exposure.
Residential exposure to trans-anethole may occur from existing non-food
pesticide uses as

well as from non-pesticide products that may be used in and around the
home, such as toiletries. For residential handler short-term exposure
scenarios, MOEs ranged from 540 to 4,900,000, which are greater than
the LOC of 100 and therefore are not of concern. Residential handler
intermediate-term and long-term exposures are not expected because
applications are not expected to occur daily or for more than 30 days.
For residential post-application exposure scenarios (short- and
intermediate-term), MOEs ranged from 1,100 to 16,000,000, which are
greater than the LOC of 100 and therefore are not of concern.
    3. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Unlike pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to trans-anethole and any
other substances, and trans-anethole does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
action, therefore, EPA has assumed that trans-anethole does not have a
common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database unless EPA concludes that
a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children.
Based on the evaluation of available toxicity studies, there is low
concern for pre- and postnatal susceptibility for infants and children
from exposure to trans-anethole. The FQPA safety factor has been
reduced to 1X because: (1) The toxicity database is adequate to
characterize potential pre- and postnatal risk for infants and
children; (2) no effects on reproductive organs or reproductive
parameters were observed in the available reproduction toxicity study;
(3) the developmental effects observed occurred at doses above which
maternal effects were seen, with clear NOAELs; (4) no evidence of
neurotoxicity was observed in the database; and (5) the assumptions for
the exposure assessment are unlikely to underestimate risk.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and cPAD. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the
lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate
exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated
by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential
exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute aggregate risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes
into account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption of food
and drinking water. However, there was no hazard attributable to a
single exposure seen in the toxicity database for trans-anethole.
Therefore, trans-anethole is not expected to pose an acute aggregate
risk.
    2. Short-term aggregate risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes
into account short-term residential (dermal and inhalation) exposure
plus chronic dietary exposure (food and drinking water). The short-term
aggregate MOE is 490 for adults and 190 for children, which are greater
than the LOC of 100 and therefore are not of concern.
    3. Intermediate-term aggregate risk. Intermediate-term aggregate
exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential (dermal and
inhalation) exposure plus chronic dietary exposure (food and drinking
water). The intermediate-term aggregate MOE is 710 for adults and 190
for children, which are greater than the LOC of 100 and therefore are
not of concern.
    4. Chronic aggregate risk. A chronic aggregate risk assessment
takes into account exposure estimates from chronic dietary consumption
of food and drinking water. The chronic aggregate risk is equal to the
chronic dietary risk and is not of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. EPA has not
identified any concerns for carcinogenicity relating to trans-anethole.
Therefore, a cancer aggregate assessment was not conducted.
    6. Determination of safety. Taking into consideration all available
information on trans-anethole, EPA has determined that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm to the general population or any
population subgroup, including infants and children, will result from
aggregate exposure to trans-anethole residues. Therefore, the
establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under
40 CFR 180.920 for residues of trans-anethole when used as a fragrance
inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied pre-harvest to crops
at a concentration of 3% of the formulation can be considered assessed
as safe under section 408 of the FFDCA.

VII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of
trans-anethole in or on any food commodities. EPA is establishing a
limitation on the amount of trans-anethole that may be used in
pesticide formulations applied pre-harvest. This limitation will be
enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (``FIFRA''), 7 U.S.C. 136
et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide formulation for food use
that exceeds 3% trans-anethole in the final pesticide formulation.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). Codex is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it
is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting
organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party.
EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL;
however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons
for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for trans-anethole.

VIII. Conclusion

    Taking into consideration all available information on trans-
anethole, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm to the general population or any population subgroup, including
infants and children, will result from aggregate exposure to trans-
anethole residues. Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.920 for trans-anethole when
used as an inert ingredient at no more than 3% of the total pesticide
formulation.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance

under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the
Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these
types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order
12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive
Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This
action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive
Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance
exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed
rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

X. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 29, 2022.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.920, amend Table 1 to 180.920 by adding in alphabetical
order an entry for ``Trans-anethole (CAS Reg. No. 4180-23-8)'' to read
as follows:

Sec.  180.920  Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

                           Table 1 to 180.920
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Inert ingredients              Limits                 Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Trans-anethole (CAS Reg. No.  Not to exceed 3% in   Fragrance.
 4180-23-8).                   pesticide
                               formulations.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-09621 Filed 5-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57869-57874]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22689]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93306; File No. SR-MIAX-2021-42]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule

 October 13, 2021.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 September 30, 2021, Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's principal
office, 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 Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to modify (i) the
MIAX Price Improvement Mechanism (``PRIME'') Fees table and
accompanying notes; and (ii) the MIAX Complex Price Improvement
Mechanism (``cPRIME'') Fees table. The Exchange proposes to implement
the fee changes effective October 1, 2021.
Background
    PRIME is a process by which a Member \3\ may electronically submit
for execution an order it represents as agent (an ``Agency Order'')
against principal interest and/or solicited interest. The Member that
submits the Agency Order (``Initiating Member'') agrees to guarantee
the execution of the Agency Order by submitting a contra-side order
representing principal interest or solicited interest (``Contra-Side
Order''). When the Exchange receives a properly designated Agency Order
for Auction processing, a request for response (``RFR'') detailing the
option, side, size and initiating price is broadcasted to MIAX
participants up to an optional designated limit price. Members may
submit responses to the RFR, which can be either an Auction or Cancel
(``AOC'') order \4\ or an AOC eQuote.\5\ The PRIME mechanism is used
for orders on the Exchange's Simple Order Book.\6\ The Exchange notes
that for Complex Orders \7\ on the Strategy Book,\8\ the Exchange's
cPRIME \9\ mechanism operates in the same manner for processing and
execution of cPRIME Orders that is used for PRIME Orders on the Simple
Order Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \4\ An Auction-or-Cancel or ``AOC'' order is a limit order used
to provide liquidity during a specific Exchange process (such as the
Opening Imbalance process described in Rule 503) with a time in
force that corresponds with that event. AOC orders are not displayed
to any market participant, are not included in the MBBO and
therefore are not eligible for trading outside of the event, may not
be routed, and may not trade at a price inferior to the away
markets. See Exchange Rule 516(b)(4).
    \5\ AOC eQuote An Auction or Cancel or ``AOC'' eQuote is a quote
submitted by a Market Maker to provide liquidity in a specific
Exchange process (such as the Opening Imbalance Process described in
Rule 503) with a time in force that corresponds with the duration of
that event and will automatically expire at the end of that event.
AOC eQuotes are not displayed to any market participant, are not
included in the MBBO and therefore are not eligible for trading
outside of the event. An AOC eQuote does not automatically cancel or
replace the Market Maker's previous Standard quote or eQuote. See
Exchange Rule 517(a)(2)(ii).
    \6\ The ``Simple Order Book'' is the Exchange's regular
electronic book of orders and quotes. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(15).
    \7\ A ``complex order'' is any order involving the concurrent
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options in the same
underlying security (the ``legs'' or ``components'' of the complex
order), for the same account, in a ratio that is equal to or greater
than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one
(3.00) and for the purposes of executing a particular investment
strategy. Mini-options may only be part of a complex order that
includes other mini-options. Only those complex orders in the
classes designated by the Exchange and communicated to Members via
Regulatory Circular with no more than the applicable number of legs,
as determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis and
communicated to Members via Regulatory Circular, are eligible for
processing. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(5).
    \8\ The ``Strategy Book'' is the Exchange's electronic book of
complex orders and complex quotes. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(17).
    \9\ ``cPRIME'' is the process by which a Member may
electronically submit a ``cPRIME Order'' (as defined in Rule
518(b)(7)) it represents as agent (a ``cPRIME Agency Order'')
against principal or solicited interest for execution (a ``cPRIME
Auction''), subject to the restrictions set forth in Exchange Rule
515A, Interpretation and Policy .12. See Exchange Rule 515A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Rule 518(b)(7) defines a cPRIME Order as a type of complex
order that is submitted for participation in a cPRIME Auction and
trading of cPRIME Orders is governed by Rule 515A, Interpretation and
Policies.12.\10\ cPRIME Orders are processed and executed in the
Exchange's PRIME [sic] mechanism, the same mechanism that the Exchange
uses to process and execute simple PRIME orders, pursuant to Exchange
Rule 515A.\11\ A cPRIME Auction is the price-improvement mechanism of
the Exchange's System pursuant to which an Initiating Member
electronically submits a complex Agency Order into a cPRIME Auction.
The Initiating Member, in submitting an Agency Order, must be willing
to either (i) cross the Agency Order at a single price against
principal or solicited interest, or (ii) automatically match against
principal or solicited interest, the price and size of a RFR that is
broadcast to MIAX participants up to an optional designated limit
price. Such responses are defined as cPRIME AOC Responses or cPRIME
eQuotes. The PRIME mechanism is used for orders on the Exchange's
Simple Order Book. The cPRIME mechanism is used for Complex Orders on
the Exchange's Strategy Book, with the cPRIME mechanism operating in
the same manner for processing and execution of cPRIME Orders that is
used for PRIME Orders on the Simple Order Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81131 (July 12,
2017), 82 FR 32900 (July 18, 2017) (SR-MIAX-2017-19) (Order Granting
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change to Amend MIAX Options Rules 515,
Execution of Orders and Quotes; 515A, MIAX Price Improvement
Mechanism (``PRIME'') and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism; and 518,
Complex Orders).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Responder to PRIME Auction Fee
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to modify the
transaction fees for Members that participate in the PRIME Auction.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the Responder to PRIME
Auction Fee, Per Contract Fee for Non-Penny Classes, in the PRIME Fees
table. Currently, the Exchange charges a fee of $0.99 for all Origins
(Priority Customer,\12\ Public Customer \13\ that is not a Priority
Customer, MIAX Market Maker,\14\ Non-MIAX Market Maker, Non-Member
Broker-Dealer, and Firm). The Exchange now proposes to increase the
Responder fee for Non-Penny Classes from $0.99 to $1.10 per contract
for all Origins in the PRIME Fees table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity
that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not
place more than 290 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \13\ The term ``Public Customer'' means a person that is not a
broker or dealer in securities. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \14\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Lead Market
Makers'', ``Primary Lead Market Makers'' and ``Registered Market
Makers'' collectively. See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of adjusting the per contract Responder fee for Non-
Penny Classes in the PRIME Fees table for all Origins is for business
and competitive reasons. In order to attract order flow the Exchange
initially set its PRIME rebates and fees so that they were meaningfully
higher/lower than other options exchanges that provide a comparable
price improvement mechanism. The Exchange now believes that it is
appropriate to further adjust these fees so that they are more in line
with other exchanges,\15\ but remain competitive such that it should
enable the Exchange to continue to attract order

flow to PRIME Auctions and to also maintain market share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange notes that BOX Options has a $1.15 responder
fee in Non-Penny classes. See BOX Options Fee Schedule as of
September 1, 2021, Section I. Electronic Transaction Fees, B. PIP
and COPIP Transactions at https://boxoptions.com/regulatory/fee-schedule/. The Exchange also notes that Nasdaq MRX has a responder
fee of $1.10 in Non-Penny classes. See Nasdaq MRX Options 7 Pricing
Schedule, Section 3. Regular Order Fees and Rebates, A. PIM Pricing
for Regular and Complex Orders at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/mrx/rules/mrx-options-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Priority Customer PRIME Break-Up Credit
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to modify the PRIME
Break-up Credit per contract credit for Non-Penny Classes for the
Priority Customer Origin in PRIME. Currently, the Exchange provides
Priority Customers a PRIME break-up credit of $0.60 per contract for
Non-Penny Classes in a PRIME Auction. The Exchange now proposes to
adopt an alternative Priority Customer PRIME break-up credit of $0.69,
instead of $0.60, per contract for Non-Penny Classes when the order
breakup percentage is greater than 40%. Orders in this segment with
order break-up percentages of 40% or less will continue to receive the
$0.60 per contract break-up credit. The Exchange proposes to add new
footnote ``*'' after the PRIME Fee table that will provide the
following: MIAX will apply an enhanced PRIME Break-up credit of $0.69
per contract to the EEM that submitted a PRIME Order in Non-Penny
Classes that is submitted to the PRIME Auction that trades with PRIME
AOC Responses and/or PRIME Participating Quotes or Orders, if the PRIME
Order experiences a break-up of greater than forty percent (40%).
    The decision to offer an alternative enhanced Priority Customer
Break-up credit is based on an analysis of current revenue and volume
levels and is designed to encourage Priority Customer order flow to
PRIME Auctions.
Remove Discounted PRIME Response Fee for PCRP Tier 3 or Higher
    Next, the Exchange proposes to remove the discounted PRIME Response
fee for standard options in Penny Classes and discounted PRIME Response
fee for standard options in Non-Penny Classes for Members or their
Affiliates that qualifies for Priority Customer Rebate Program
(``PCRP'') volume tier 3 or higher.
    Currently MIAX will assess the Responder to PRIME Auction Fee to:
(i) A PRIME AOC Response that executes against a PRIME Order, and (ii)
a PRIME Participating Quote or Order that executes against a PRIME
Order. MIAX will apply the PRIME Break-up credit to the EEM that
submitted the PRIME Order for agency contracts that are submitted to
the PRIME Auction that trade with a PRIME AOC Response or a PRIME
Participating Quote or Order that trades with the PRIME Order.
Transaction fees in mini-options will be 1/10th of the standard per
contract fee or rebate described in the table above for the PRIME
Auction. MIAX will assess the standard transaction fees to a PRIME AOC
Response if it executes against unrelated orders. Any Member or its
Affiliate \16\ that qualifies for Priority Customer Rebate Program
volume tiers 3 or higher and submits a PRIME AOC Response that is
received during the Response Time Interval and executed against the
PRIME Order, or a PRIME Participating Quote or Order that is received
during the Response Time Interval and executed against the PRIME Order,
will be assessed a Discounted PRIME Response Fee of $0.46 per contract
for standard options in Penny Program classes. Any Member or its
Affiliate that qualifies for Priority Customer Rebate Program
(``PCRP'') volume tiers 3 or higher and submits a PRIME AOC Response
that is received during the Response Time Interval and executed against
the PRIME Order, or a PRIME Participating Quote or Order that is
received during the Response Time Interval and executed against the
PRIME Order, will be assessed a Discounted PRIME Response Fee of $0.95
per contract for standard options in non-Penny Program classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The term ``Affiliate'' means (i) an affiliate of a Member
of at least 75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on
each firm's Form BD, Schedule A, (``Affiliate''), or (ii) the
Appointed Market Maker of an Appointed EEM (or, conversely, the
Appointed EEM of an Appointed Market Maker). An ``Appointed Market
Maker'' is a MIAX Market Maker (who does not otherwise have a
corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with an EEM) that
has been appointed by an EEM and an ``Appointed EEM'' is an EEM (who
does not otherwise have a corporate affiliation based upon common
ownership with a MIAX Market Maker) that has been appointed by a
MIAX Market Maker, pursuant to the following process. A MIAX Market
Maker appoints an EEM and an EEM appoints a MIAX Market Maker, for
the purposes of the Fee Schedule, by each completing and sending an
executed Volume Aggregation Request Form by email to
[email protected] no later than 2 business days prior to
the first business day of the month in which the designation is to
become effective. Transmittal of a validly completed and executed
form to the Exchange along with the Exchange's acknowledgement of
the effective designation to each of the Market Maker and EEM will
be viewed as acceptance of the appointment. The Exchange will only
recognize one designation per Member. A Member may make a
designation not more than once every 12 months (from the date of its
most recent designation), which designation shall remain in effect
unless or until the Exchange receives written notice submitted 2
business days prior to the first business day of the month from
either Member indicating that the appointment has been terminated.
Designations will become operative on the first business day of the
effective month and may not be terminated prior to the end of the
month. Execution data and reports will be provided to both parties.
See Fee Schedule, note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to remove both the Discounted PRIME
Response Fee of $0.46 per contract for standard options in Penny
Classes and the Discounted PRIME Response Fee of $0.95 per contract for
standard options in Non-Penny Classes, and will remove the portion that
describes the discounted fees from the accompanying footnotes. The
purpose of this change is for business and competitive reasons.
Responder to cPRIME Auction Fee
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to modify the
transaction fees for Members that participate in the cPRIME Auction.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the per contract Responder
fee for Non-Penny Classes in a cPRIME Auction for all Origins in the
cPRIME Fees table. Currently, the Exchange charges a Responder fee of
$0.99 per contract for Non-Penny Classes in all Origins for a cPRIME
Auction. The Exchange now proposes to increase the Responder fee to
$1.10 per contract for Non-Penny Classes for all Origins in a cPRIME
Auction.
    The purpose of adjusting the per contract Responder fee for Non-
Penny Classes for all Origins is for business and competitive reasons.
In order to attract order flow the Exchange initially set its cPRIME
rebates and fees so that they were meaningfully higher/lower than other
options exchanges that provide a comparable complex order price
improvement mechanism. The Exchange now believes that it is appropriate
to further adjust these fees so that they are more in line with other
exchanges,\17\ but will remain competitive such that it should enable
the Exchange to continue to attract complex order flow to cPRIME
Auctions and also maintain market share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \18\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \19\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using
its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest and is not designed to permit unfair

discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues and fees and is not unfairly
discriminatory for the following reasons. The Exchange operates in a
highly competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \20\ There are currently
16 registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on
publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, for
the month of September 2021, no single exchange has more than
approximately 12%-13% of the market share of executed volume of
multiply-listed equity and exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') options
trades as of September 21, 2021.\21\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed equity
and ETF options order flow. More specifically, as of September 21,
2021, the Exchange had a market share of approximately 5.47% of
executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options for the month
of September 2021.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).
    \21\ See MIAX's ``The Market at a Glance'', available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/ (last visited September 21, 2021).
    \22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market shares among
the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants
can shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain
categories of products, in response to transaction and/or non-
transaction fee changes. For example, on February 28, 2019, the
Exchange's affiliate, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl''), filed with the
Commission a proposal to increase Taker fees in certain Tiers for
options transactions in certain Penny classes for Priority Customers
and decrease Maker rebates in certain Tiers for options transactions in
Penny classes for Priority Customers (which fee was to be effective
March 1, 2019).\23\ MIAX Pearl experienced a decrease in total market
share between the months of February and March of 2019, after the fees
were in effect. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the MIAX Pearl
March 1, 2019, fee change may have contributed to the decrease in the
MIAX Pearl's market share and, as such, the Exchange believes
competitive forces constrain options exchange transaction fees and
market participants can shift order flow based on fee changes
instituted by the exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85304 (March 13,
2019), 84 FR 10144 (March 19, 2019) (SR-PEARL-2019-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's
transaction fees, and market participants can readily trade on
competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to
be more favorable. In response to the competitive environment, the
Exchange offers specific rates and credits in its fee schedule, like
those of other options exchanges', which the Exchange believes provides
incentives to Members to increase order flow of certain qualifying
orders.
    The Exchange believes its proposal to amend its Responder fees for
Non-Penny Classes for all Origins in PRIME and cPRIME Auctions is
reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because
these changes are for business and competitive reasons. In order to
attract order flow the Exchange initially set its rebates and fees for
its PRIME and cPRIME Auctions so that they were meaningfully higher/
lower than other options exchanges that provide a comparable price
improvement mechanisms. The Exchange now believes that it is
appropriate to further adjust these fees so that they are more in line
with those of other exchanges,\24\ but will remain competitive and
should enable the Exchange to continue to attract order flow to PRIME
and cPRIME Auctions and also maintain market share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that its proposal to amend the Responder
fees for Non-Penny Classes for all Origins in PRIME and cPRIME Auctions
is not unfairly discriminatory as all Origins that respond to a PRIME
or cPRIME Auction will be assessed an identical fee and access to the
Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. The
Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
increase the Responder fee as certain other option exchanges that offer
similar price improvement functionality charge similar fees.\25\ The
Exchange believes that it is appropriate to increase the fees so that
they are more in line with other exchanges,\26\ and will still remain
competitive such that they should enable the Exchange to continue to
attract order flow to its PRIME and cPRIME Auctions and maintain market
share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See id.
    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal to offer an enhanced PRIME
Break-up Credit for Non-Penny Classes for Priority Customers is
reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because
this change is for business and competitive reasons. The Exchange
believes that its proposal will encourage Priority Customer order flow
to PRIME Auctions. Increased Priority Customer order flow benefits all
market participants because it continues to attract liquidity to the
Exchange by providing more trading opportunities. This attracts Market
Makers and other liquidity providers, thus, facilitating price
improvement in the auction process, signaling additional corresponding
increase in order flow from other market participants, and, as a
result, increasing liquidity on the Exchange.
    As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market. The Exchange is only one of several options venues to which
market participants may direct their order flow, and it represents a
small percentage of the overall market. The Exchange believes that the
proposed fees are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory in that at least one competing options exchange offers
similar fees and credits in connection with similar price improvement
auctions.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The Cboe Exchange provides for a $0.60 per contract credit
in Non-Penny classes. See Cboe Fee Schedule, ``Break-Up Credits,''
available at https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/membership/Cboe_FeeSchedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal to remove the discounted PRIME
Response fees for Penny and Non-Penny Classes for Members who achieve
Tier 3 or higher in the PCRP is reasonable, equitably allocated and not
unfairly discriminatory because these changes are for business and
competitive reasons. In order to attract order flow, the Exchange
initially set its rebates and fees so that they were meaningfully
higher/lower than other options exchanges that provide a comparable
price improvement mechanism. The Exchange conducted an internal review
and analysis of fees and rebates and determined that it was appropriate
to

remove the discounted PRIME Response fees so that all PRIME response
fees are more line with other exchanges,\28\ but will still remain
highly competitive such that it should enable the Exchange to continue
to attract order flow to PRIME Auctions and also maintain market share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \29\ because it perfects the mechanisms
of a free and open market and a national market system and protects
investors and the public interest because an increase in Priority
Customer order flow will bring greater volume and liquidity to the
Exchange, which benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities and tighter spreads. To the extent Priority
Customer order flow is increased by this proposal, market participants
will increasingly compete for the opportunity to trade on the Exchange
including sending more orders and provided narrower and larger-sized
quotations in the effort to trade with such Priority Customer order
flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that increasing the Responder fees for PRIME
and cPRIME Auctions is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the proposed fees will apply equally to all Origins that
respond to PRIME and cPRIME Auctions. The Exchange believes that the
application of this fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the fee is identical for all market participants that respond
to PRIME and cPRIME Auctions.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\30\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intra-market or intra-market competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
does not believe that its proposal will impose any burden on intra-
market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act because its proposal to amend its Responder
fees for PRIME and cPRIME Auctions is uniform and will be applied
equally to all Origins that respond to PRIME and cPRIME Auctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believes its proposal to remove the
discounted PRIME Response fees for Penny and Non-Penny Classes for
Members who achieve Tier 3 or higher in the PCRP will impose any burden
to intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange conducted an
internal review and analysis of fees and rebates and determined that it
was appropriate to remove the discounted PRIME Response fees so that
all PRIME response fees are more line with other exchanges,\31\ but
will still remain highly competitive such that it should enable the
Exchange to continue to attract order flow to PRIME Auctions and also
maintain market share. The removal of these fees will impact all
Priority Customers equally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal to offer an enhanced PRIME
Break-up Credit for Non-Penny Classes for Priority Customers is
reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because
this change is for business and competitive reasons. The Exchange
believes that its proposal will encourage additional Priority Customer
order flow to PRIME Auctions. Increased Priority Customer order flow
benefits all market participants because it continues to attract
liquidity to the Exchange by providing more trading opportunities and
tighter spreads.
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will impose any
burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, as noted above,
other competing options exchanges currently have similar rebates in
place in connection with similar price improvement auctions.\32\
Additionally, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market.
Members have numerous alternative venues that they participate on and
direct their order flow to, including 15 other options exchanges, many
of which offer substantially similar price improvement auctions. Based
on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more
than 12-13% of the market share.\33\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of option order flow.
Participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchanges
if they deem fee levels at those other exchanges to be more favorable.
Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in
Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \34\ The fact
that this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the
courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C.
Circuit states as follows: ``[N]o one disputes that competition for
order flow is 'fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, '[i]n the U.S.
national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the
broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide
range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no
exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted'
because 'no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in
the execution of order flow from broker dealers' . . .'' \35\
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee changes
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See supra note 15.
    \33\ See supra note 21.
    \34\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \35\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor 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,\36\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \37\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine

whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \37\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2021-42 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-MIAX-2021-42. 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-MIAX-2021-42, and should be submitted on
or before November 9, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-22689 Filed 10-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 67 (Monday, April 10, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17117-17119]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06771]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31125; Amdt. No. 3739]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective April 10, 2017. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of April 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected
airport is located; 3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products,
6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or, 4. The National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part Sec.  97.20. The
applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A,
and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their
applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport
and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 10, 2017.
John S. Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113,
40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 27 April 2017

Bakersfield, CA, Meadows Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12R, Orig
Bakersfield, CA, Meadows Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30L, Orig
Los Angeles, CA, Los Angeles Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 24L, Amdt 2
Ontario, CA, Ontario Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 26L, Amdt 2
Ontario, CA, Ontario Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 26R, Amdt 2
Alamosa, CO, San Luis Valley Rgnl/Bergman Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 2,
Amdt 2
Alamosa, CO, San Luis Valley Rgnl/Bergman Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2,
Amdt 1
Pahokee, FL, Palm Beach Co Glades, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig-A
Pahokee, FL, Palm Beach Co Glades, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig-A
Pahokee, FL, Palm Beach Co Glades, VOR/DME-A, Orig-A
Stuart, FL, Witham Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Amdt 1B
West Palm Beach, FL, North Palm Beach County General Aviation, ILS
OR LOC RWY 8R, Amdt 1B
West Palm Beach, FL, North Palm Beach County General Aviation, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 13, Orig-B
West Palm Beach, FL, North Palm Beach County General Aviation, VOR
RWY 8R, Amdt 1C
West Palm Beach, FL, Palm Beach County Park, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig-A
Dalton, GA, Dalton Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 14, Amdt 1
Dalton, GA, Dalton Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1
Dalton, GA, Dalton Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1
Dalton, GA, Dalton Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5
Honolulu, HI, Daniel K. Inouye Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 8A
Ottumwa, IA, Ottumwa Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 31, Amdt 5E

Cairo, IL, Cairo Rgnl, NDB RWY 14, Amdt 2B
Cairo, IL, Cairo Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-B
Chicago/Prospect Heights/Wheeling, IL, Chicago Executive, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 16, Amdt 1E
Anderson, IN, Anderson Muni-Darlington Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 30,
Amdt 2
Anderson, IN, Anderson Muni-Darlington Field, NDB RWY 30, Amdt 7
Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Orig-C
Logansport, IN, Logansport/Cass County, VOR-A, Amdt 7A
Marion, IN, Marion Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 4, Amdt 7D
Peru, IN, Peru Muni, VOR RWY 1, Amdt 8C
Wabash, IN, Wabash Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 11A
Houma, LA, Houma-Terrebonne, ILS OR LOC RWY 18, Amdt 5
New Iberia, LA, Acadiana Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 35, Amdt 1
New Iberia, LA, Acadiana Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1
New Iberia, LA, Acadiana Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1
New Iberia, LA, Acadiana Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
New Iberia, LA, Acadiana Rgnl, VOR OR TACAN RWY 17, Amdt 2
New Iberia, LA, Acadiana Rgnl, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 2
Cape Girardeau, MO, Cape Girardeau Rgnl, LOC/DME BC RWY 28, Amdt 8C
Charleston, MO, Mississippi County, NDB RWY 36, Amdt 4B
Gordon, NE, Gordon Muni, NDB RWY 22, Amdt 4B
Gordon, NE, Gordon Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1B
Gordon, NE, Gordon Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 1A
Burns Flat, OK, Clinton-Sherman, ILS OR LOC RWY 17R, Amdt 8
Burns Flat, OK, Clinton-Sherman, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Orig-A
Burns Flat, OK, Clinton-Sherman, VOR RWY 35L, Amdt 12
Clinton, OK, Clinton Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 3
Clinton, OK, Clinton Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 4
Clinton, OK, Clinton Rgnl, VOR/DME-A, Orig, CANCELED
Elk City, OK, Elk City Rgnl Business, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 2
Elk City, OK, Elk City Rgnl Business, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 2
Weatherford, OK, Thomas P Stafford, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 3
Latrobe, PA, Arnold Palmer Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 23, Amdt 17
Latrobe, PA, Arnold Palmer Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1
Latrobe, PA, Arnold Palmer Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1
Latrobe, PA, Arnold Palmer Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 6
Majuro Atoll, RM, Marshall Islands Intl, NDB RWY 7, Amdt 1A
Majuro Atoll, RM, Marshall Islands Intl, NDB RWY 25, Amdt 1A
Majuro Atoll, RM, Marshall Islands Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Orig-D
Majuro Atoll, RM, Marshall Islands Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Orig-D
Millington, TN, Millington Rgnl Jetport, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Orig-A
Canadian, TX, Hemphill County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 2
Kerrville, TX, Kerrville Muni/Louis Schreiner Fld, NDB RWY 30, Amdt
4, CANCELED
Terrell, TX, Terrell Muni, NDB RWY 17, Amdt 4
Wheeler, TX, Wheeler Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig-A, CANCELED
Wheeler, TX, Wheeler Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig-A, CANCELED
Wheeler, TX, Wheeler Muni, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
Wheeler, TX, Wheeler Muni, RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig
Wheeler, TX, Wheeler Muni, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 2, CANCELED

[FR Doc. 2017-06771 Filed 4-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 183 (Friday, September 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 53097]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20675]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4488-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

New Jersey; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-4488-DR), dated March 25, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 5, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
dated March 25, 2020 for the State of New Jersey is hereby amended to
include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    All areas within the State of New Jersey are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-20675 Filed 9-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 24 (Monday, February 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5155-5156]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02257]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange

Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 35d-1, SEC File No. 270-491, OMB Control No. 3235-0548

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 35d-1 (17 CFR 270.35d-1) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) defines as ``materially deceptive and
misleading'' for purposes of Section 35(d), among other things, a name
suggesting that a registered investment company or series thereof (a
``fund'') focuses its investments in a particular type of investment or
investments, in investments in a particular industry or group of
industries, or in investments in a particular country or geographic
region, unless, among other things, the fund adopts a certain
investment policy. Rule 35d-1 further requires either that the
investment policy is fundamental or that the fund has adopted a policy
to provide its shareholders with at least 60 days prior notice of any
change in the investment policy (``notice to shareholders''). The
rule's notice to shareholders provision is intended to ensure that when
shareholders purchase shares in a fund based, at least in part, on its
name, and with the expectation that it will follow the investment
policy suggested by that name, they will have sufficient time to decide
whether to redeem their shares in the event that the fund decides to
pursue a different investment policy.
    The Commission estimates that there are approximately 9,939 open-
end and closed-end funds that have names that are covered by the rule.
The Commission estimates that of these 9,939 funds, approximately 33
will provide prior notice to shareholders pursuant to a policy adopted
in accordance with this rule per year. The Commission estimates that
the annual burden associated with the notice to shareholders
requirement of the rule is 20 hours per response, for annual total of
660 hours per year.
    Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes
of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive
or even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules
and forms. The collection of information under rule 35d-1 is mandatory.
The information provided under rule 35d-1 will not be kept
confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to: [email protected].

    Dated: January 31, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-02257 Filed 2-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P