[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57732-57741]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20371]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95780; File No. SR-PEARL-2022-39]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Trading
Permit Fees in the MIAX PEARL Options Fee Schedule

September 15, 2022.

    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 September 12, 2022, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'' 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 Pearl Options
Fee Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to amend its monthly Trading Permit
\3\ fees for Members.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Trading Permit'' means a permit issued by the
Exchange that confers the ability to transact on the Exchange. See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \4\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization that
is registered with the Exchange pursuant to Chapter II of Exchange
Rules for purposes of trading on the Exchange as an ``Electronic
Exchange Member'' or ``Market Maker.'' Members are deemed
``members'' under the Exchange Act. See Exchange Rule 100 and the
Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl at MIAX
Pearl'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 amend the amount
and calculation of the monthly Trading Permit fees for Members.
Currently, the Exchange assesses Trading Permit fees based upon the
monthly total volume executed by the Member and its Affiliates \5\ on
the Exchange across all origin types, not including Excluded
Contracts,\6\ as compared to the Total Consolidated Volume (``TCV'')
\7\ in all MIAX Pearl-listed options. This Trading Permit fee structure
has been in place since 2018.\8\ The Exchange adopted a tier-based fee
structure based upon the volume-based tiers detailed in the definition
of ``Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers'' \9\ in the Definitions
section of the Fee Schedule. The Exchange also assesses Trading Permit
fees based upon the type of interface used by the Member to connect to
the Exchange--the FIX Interface \10\ and/or the MEO Interface.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``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, 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 Pearl 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 Pearl
Market Maker) that has been appointed by a MIAX Pearl Market Maker,
pursuant to the following process. A MIAX Pearl Market Maker
appoints an EEM and an EEM appoints a MIAX Pearl 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 the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
    \6\ ``Excluded Contracts'' means any contracts routed to an away
market for execution. See the Definitions Section of the Fee
Schedule.
    \7\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
total national volume in those classes listed on MIAX Pearl for the
month for which the fees apply, excluding consolidated volume
executed during the period of time in which the Exchange experiences
an Exchange System Disruption (solely in the option classes of the
affected Matching Engine). See the Definitions Section of the Fee
Schedule.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82867 (March 13,
2018), 83 FR 12044 (March 19, 2018) (SR-PEARL-2018-07).
    \9\ See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule for the
monthly volume thresholds associated with each Tier.
    \10\ ``FIX Interface'' means the Financial Information Exchange
interface for certain order types as set forth in Exchange Rule 516.
See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule
100.
    \11\ ``MEO Interface'' or ``MEO'' means a binary order interface
for certain order types as set forth in Rule 516 into the MIAX Pearl
System. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule and Exchange
Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend the calculation and amount of
Trading Permit fees for Members by moving away from a volume tier-based
fee structure for Electronic Exchange Members \12\ (``EEMs'') to
harmonize the tier-based structure for Market Maker \13\ with that of
its affiliates, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX'')
and MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald''). Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to adopt a flat monthly Trading Permit fee for EEMs that
connect through either the FIX and/or MEO Interface and to adopt a
tiered Trading Permit fee structure for Market Makers. Each of these
changes are described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The term ``Electronic Exchange Member'' or ``EEM'' means
the holder of a Trading Permit who is a Member representing as agent
Public Customer Orders or Non-Customer Orders on the Exchange and
those non-Market Maker Members conducting proprietary trading.
Electronic Exchange Members are deemed ``members'' under the
Exchange Act. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule and
Exchange Rule 100.
    \13\ The term ``Market Maker'' or ``MM'' means a Member
registered with the Exchange for the purpose of making markets in
options contracts traded on the Exchange and that is vested with the
rights and responsibilities specified in Chapter VI of the Exchange
Rules. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule and Exchange
Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EEM Trading Permit Fees
    First, the Exchange proposes to move away from a volume tier-based
fee structure for EEM Trading Permit fees and charge EEMs (other than
Clearing Firms) a flat monthly Trading Fee for connecting through the
FIX Interface and/or MEO Interface.
    All Members are able to use either interface based on their
business models and needs. The FIX Interface is the industry-wide
uniform message format and provides lower bandwidth, less capacity, and
fewer Exchange resources. EEMs who are primarily order flow providers,
are the only users of the FIX Interface.\14\ The MEO Interface is the
more robust interface offering lower

latency and higher throughput. The Exchange offers three time-in-force
modifiers: \15\ Day Limit (``Day''), Immediate-Or-Cancel (``IOC''), and
Good `Til Cancelled (``GTC'').\16\ While all order types are available
for use on either interface, only the time-in-force modifiers of IOC
and Day are available on the MEO Interface.\17\ The MEO Interface
allows the submission of Cancel-Replacement orders,\18\ which allow for
the immediate cancellation of a previously received order and the
replacement of that order with a new order with new terms and
conditions.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange does not propose to amend the fees for EEM
Clearing Firms, which is set at $250 per month and not based on the
amount of volume conducted on the Exchange. The term ``EEM Clearing
Firm'' means an EEM that solely clears transactions on the Exchange
and does not connect to the Exchange via either the FIX Interface or
MEO Interface. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
    \15\ See MIAX Pearl Options Exchange User Manual, Section 6,
Order Types, available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/exchange-functionality/pearl (last visited June 30, 2022).
    \16\ See, e.g., Exchange Rule 516.
    \17\ See preamble to Exchange Rule 516 (noting that not all
order types and modifiers are available for use on each of the MEO
Interface and the FIX Interface). See also Section <IP_ADDRESS> of the
MEO Interface Specification, available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_Express_Orders_MEO_v2.0.pdf (indicating that the time-in-force
instructions of IOC and Day are available on the MEO interface).
    \18\ See MIAX Pearl Options Exchange User Manual, Section 6,
Interfaces and Liquidity Types, available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/exchange-functionality/pearl (last visited May
16, 2022).
    \19\ See Exchange Rule 516(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to assess a flat monthly fee of
$1,000 for EEMs that connect through the FIX Interface and a flat
monthly fee of $3,000 for EEMs that connect through the MEO Interface.
The Exchange proposes to charge a higher fee for EEMs that elect to use
the MEO Interface due to it being the more robust interface offering
lower latency and higher throughput. The Exchange also proposes to
provide an EEM that chooses the MEO Interface Trading Permit with
access to the FIX Interface at no additional cost. The Exchange does
not propose to amend the Trading Permit fee for EEM Clearing Firms,
which will remain at $250 per month.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The term ``EEM Clearing Firm'' means an EEM that solely
clears transactions on the Exchange and does not connect to the
Exchange via either the FIX Interface or MEO Interface. See the
Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market Makers only use the MEO Interface because it provides
functionality that is necessary for Market Makers in satisfying their
market making obligations.
Market Maker Trading Permit Fees
    The Exchange proposes to amend the calculation and amounts of
monthly Trading Permit fees for Market Makers to harmonize its fee
structure with that of its affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald.\21\ The
Exchange also notes that this proposal is substantially based on the
recent filing by BOX Exchange LLC (``BOX'') to adopt monthly
``Participant'' fees for BOX's market makers based on options classes
assigned, which filing has since passed the 60-day suspension
deadline.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See MIAX Fee Schedule, Section (3)(b) and MIAX Emerald Fee
Schedule, Section (3)(b).
    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94894 (May 11,
2022), 87 FR 29987 (May 17, 2022) (SR-BOX-2022-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amount of the monthly Trading Permit fees for Market Makers
would be based on the lesser of either the per class traded or
percentage of total national average daily volume (``ADV'') measurement
based on classes traded by volume. The amount of monthly Market Maker
Trading Permit fee would be based upon the number of classes in which
the Market Maker was registered to quote on any given day within the
calendar month, or upon the class volume percentages.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt the following Trading
Permit fees for Market Makers: (i) $3,000 for Market Maker
registrations in up to 10 option classes or up to 20% of option classes
by national ADV; (ii) $5,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 40
option classes or up to 35% of option classes by ADV; (iii) $7,000 for
Market Maker registrations in up to 100 option classes or up to 50% of
option classes by ADV; and (iv) $9,000 for Market Maker registrations
in over 100 option classes or over 50% of option classes by ADV up to
all option classes listed on MIAX Pearl. For example, if Market Maker 1
elects to quote the top 40 option classes which consist of 58% of the
total national average daily volume in the prior calendar quarter, the
Exchange would assess $5,000 to Market Maker 1 for the month which is
the lesser of `up to 40 classes' and `over 50% of classes by volume up
to all classes listed on MIAX Pearl'. If Market Maker 2 elects to quote
the bottom 1000 option classes which consist of 10% of the total
national average daily volume in the prior quarter, the Exchange would
assess $3,000 to Market Maker 2 for the month which is the lesser of
`over 100 classes' and `up to 20% of classes by volume.'
    A Market Maker is determined to be registered in a class if that
Market Maker has been registered in one or more series in that class.
The Exchange will assess MIAX Pearl Market Makers the monthly Market
Maker Trading Permit fee based on the greatest number of classes listed
on MIAX Pearl that the MIAX Pearl Market Maker registered to quote in
on any given day within a calendar month. The class volume percentage
is based on the total national ADV in classes listed on MIAX Pearl in
the prior calendar quarter. Newly listed option classes are excluded
from the calculation of the monthly Market Maker Trading Permit fee
until the calendar quarter following their listing, at which time the
newly listed option classes will be included in both the per class
count and the percentage of total national ADV.
    The Exchange also proposes to adopt an alternative lower Trading
Permit fee for Market Makers who fall within the 2nd, 3rd and 4th
levels of the Market Maker Trading Permit fee table: (i) Market Maker
registrations in up to 40 option classes or up to 35% of option classes
by volume; (ii) Market Maker registrations in up to 100 option classes
or up to 50% of option classes by volume; and (iii) Market Maker
registrations in over 100 option classes or over 50% of option classes
by volume up to all option classes listed on MIAX Pearl. In particular,
the Exchange proposes to adopt footnote ``**'' following the Market
Maker Trading Permit fee table for these Monthly Trading Permit tier
levels, if the Market Maker's total monthly executed volume during the
relevant month is less than 0.040% of the total monthly TCV for MIAX
Pearl-listed option classes for that month, then the fee will be $3,500
instead of the fee otherwise applicable to such level.
    The purpose of the alternative lower fee designated in proposed
footnote ``**'' is to provide a lower fixed cost to those Market Makers
who are willing to quote the entire Exchange market (or substantial
amount of the Exchange market), as objectively measured by either
number of classes assigned or national ADV, but who do not otherwise
execute a significant amount of volume on the Exchange. The Exchange
believes that, by offering lower fixed costs to Market Makers that
execute less volume, the Exchange will retain and attract smaller-scale
Market Makers, which are an integral component of the option
marketplace, but have been decreasing in number in recent years, due to
industry consolidation and lower market maker profitability. Since
these smaller-scale Market Makers utilize less Exchange capacity due to
lower overall volume executed, the Exchange believes it is reasonable
and equitable to offer such Market Makers a lower fixed cost. The
Exchange notes that the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald,
provide similar alternative lower Trading Permit fees for Market Makers
who quote the entire MIAX and MIAX Emerald markets (or substantial
amount of those markets), as objectively measured by either number of
classes assigned or national ADV, but who do

not otherwise execute a significant amount of volume on MIAX or MIAX
Emerald.\23\ The Exchange also notes that other options exchanges
assess certain of their membership fees at different rates, based upon
a member's participation on that exchange (as described in the table
below), and, as such, this concept is not new or novel. The proposed
changes to the Trading Permit fees for Market Makers who fall within
the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the fee table are based upon a business
determination of current Market Maker assignments and trading volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See MIAX Fee Schedule, Section (3)(b) and MIAX Emerald Fee
Schedule, Section (3)(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    As illustrated by the table below, the Exchange notes that the
proposed fees for the Exchange's Trading Permits are in line with, or
cheaper than, the similar trading permit and membership fees charged by
other options exchanges. The Exchange believes other exchanges'
membership and trading permit fees are useful examples of alternative
approaches to providing and charging for membership and provides the
table for comparison purposes only to show how the Exchange's proposed
fees compare to fees currently charged by other options exchanges for
similar membership and trading permits.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Monthly membership/trading permit
             Exchange                                fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIAX Pearl Options (as proposed)..  EEM Trading Permit fees:
                                    $1,000 for EEMs that connect via the
                                     FIX Interface.
                                    $3,000 for EEMs that connect via the
                                     MEO Interface.
                                    Market Maker Trading Permit fees:
                                    --$3,000 for Market Maker
                                     Assignments in up to 10 option
                                     classes or up to 20% of option
                                     classes by national ADV.
                                    --$5,000 for Market Maker
                                     Assignments in up to 40 option
                                     classes or up to 35% of option
                                     classes by ADV.
                                    --$7,000 for Market Maker
                                     Assignments in up to 100 option
                                     classes or up to 50% of option
                                     classes by ADV.
                                    --$9,000 for Market Maker
                                     Assignments in over 100 option
                                     classes or over 50% of option
                                     classes by ADV up to all option
                                     classes listed on MIAX Pearl.
BOX Options Exchange LLC (``BOX'')  Participant Fee: $1,500.
 \24\.                              Electronic Market Maker Trading
                                     Permit Fees:
                                    Tier 1 (up to and including 10
                                     classes): $4,000.
                                    Tier 2 (up to and including 40
                                     classes): $6,000.
                                    Tier 3 (up to and including 100
                                     classes): $8,000.
                                    Tier 4 (over 100 classes): $10,000.
NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'')     Options Trading Permits:
 \25\.                              Office and Clearing Firms: $1,000.
                                    Market Makers: 1st OTP--$8,000 for
                                     up to 60 plus the bottom 45% of
                                     option issues.
                                    2nd OTP--Additional $6,000 for up to
                                     150 plus the bottom 45% of option
                                     issues.
                                    3rd OTP--Additional $5,000 for up to
                                     500 plus the bottom 45% of option
                                     issues.
                                    4th OTP--Additional $4,000 for up to
                                     1,100 plus the bottom 45% of option
                                     issues.
                                    5th OTP--Additional $3,000 for all
                                     option issues.
                                    6th-9th OTP--Additional $2,000.
                                    10th or more OTPs--$500 for all
                                     options issues.
NYSE American, LLC (``NYSE          ATP Trading Permits:
 American'') \26\.                  Clearing Member: $1,000.
                                    Order Flow Provider: $1,000.
                                    Market Makers: $8,000 for up to 60
                                     plus the bottom 45% of option
                                     issues.
                                    Additional $6,000 for up to 150 plus
                                     the bottom 45% of option issues.
                                    Additional $5,000 for up to 500 plus
                                     the bottom 45% of option issues.
                                    Additional $4,000 for up to 1,100
                                     plus the bottom 45% of option
                                     issues.
                                    Additional $3,000 for all option
                                     issues.
                                    Additional $2,000 for 6th to 9th
                                     ATPs (plus additional fee for
                                     premium products).
                                    Additional $500 for the 10th or more
                                     ATPs.
Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Nasdaq PHLX'')   Streaming Quote Trader (``SQT'')
 \27\.                               permit fees:
                                    Tier 1 (up to 200 option classes):
                                     $0.00.
                                    Tier 2 (up to 400 option classes):
                                     $2,200.
                                    Tier 3 (up to 600 option classes):
                                     $3,200.
                                    Tier 4 (up to 800 option classes):
                                     $4,200.
                                    Tier 5 (up to 1,000 option classes):
                                     $5,200.
                                    Tier 6 (up to 1,200 option classes):
                                     $6,200.
                                    Tier 7 (all option classes): $7,200.
                                    Remote Market Maker Organization
                                     (``RMMO'') permit fees:
                                    Tier 1 (less than 100 option
                                     classes): $5,000.
                                    Tier 2 (more than 100 and less than
                                     999 option classes): $8,000.
                                    Tier 3 (1,000 or more option
                                     classes): $11,000.
Nasdaq ISE LLC (``Nasdaq ISE'')     Access Fees:
 \28\.                              Electronic Access Members
                                     (``EAMs''): $500.
                                    Primary Market Maker: $5,000 per
                                     membership.
                                    Competitive Market Maker: $2,500 per
                                     membership.
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'')      Electronic Trading Permit Fees:
 \29\.                              Market Maker: $5,000.
                                    Electronic Access Permit: $3,000.
                                    Clearing TPH Permit: $2,000.

Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe      Access Permit Fees for Market
 C2'') \30\.                         Makers: $5,000.
                                    Electronic Access Permits: $1,000.
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe     $500 where member has an ADV < 5,000
 BZX Options'') \31\.                contracts traded \32\.
                                    $1,000 where member has an ADV >=
                                     5,000 contracts traded.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is immediately effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See BOX fee schedule, Section 1, available at https://boxexchange.com/assets/BOX-Fee-Schedule-as-of-June-1-2022-1.pdf
(last visited June 29, 2022). BOX's Participant Fee is the analog to
the Exchange's Trading Permit fee for Members who use the FIX
interface. BOX's Electronic Market Maker Trading Permit fee is the
analog for the Exchange's Trading Permit fee for Members who use the
MEO interface. BOX had an average daily market share of 7.36% for
the month of August 2022, as of August 31, 2022. See Market at a
Glance, available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/ (last visited
August 31, 2022).
    \25\ See NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, OTP Trading
Participant Rights, p.1, available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf (last visited July 12, 2022).
NYSE Arca recently increased this Options Trading Permit Fees
approximately 45%. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95142
(June 23, 2022), 87 FR 38786 (June 29, 2022) (SR-NYSEArca-2022-36).
Under the new fee structure, it effectively costs a Market Maker
$26,000 per month to trade all options issues on NYSE Arca. NYSE
Arca's Options Trading Permit fee is the analog to the Exchange's
Trading Permit fee for Members who use the FIX interface. NYSE
Arca's Options Trading Permit fee for Market Makers is the analog
for the Exchange's Trading Permit fee for Members who use the MEO
interface.
    \26\ See NYSE American Options Fee Schedule, Section III,
Monthly Trading Permit, Rights, Floor Access and Premium Product
Fees, p. 23-24, available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/american-options/NYSE_American_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf
(last visited August 31, 2022). Under this fee structure, it
effectively costs a Market Maker $26,000 per month to trade all
options issues on NYSE American. NYSE American's ATP Trading Permit
fee for Clearing Members and Order Flow Providers is the analog for
the Exchange's Trading Permit fee for Members that use the FIX
interface. NYSE American's ATP Trading Permit fee for Market Makers
is the analog for the Exchange's Trading Permit fee for Members that
use the MEO interface.
    \27\ See Nasdaq PHLX Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section 8.
Membership Fees, available at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/phlx/rules/Phlx%20Options%207 (last visited August 31,
2022). Nasdaq PHLX Options' SQT and RMMO fees is the analog to the
Exchange's Trading Permit fee for Members that use the MEO
Interface.
    \28\ See Nasdaq ISE Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section 8.A.
Access Services, available at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/ise/rules/ISE%20Options%207 (last visited August 31, 2022).
Nasdaq ISE Options' EAM Access Fee is the analog to the Exchange's
Trading Permit fee for Members that use the FIX Interface. Nasdaq
ISE Options' Primary and Competitive Market Maker Access Fees are
the analog to the Exchange's Trading Permit fee for Members that use
the MEO Interface.
    \29\ See Cboe Fee Schedule, Electronic Trading Permit Fees,
available at https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/membership/Cboe_FeeSchedule.pdf (last visited August 31, 2022). Cboe's
Electronic Access Permit fee and Clearing TPH fee are the analog to
the Exchange's Trading Permit fee for Members that use the FIX
Interface. Cboe's Market Maker Permit fee is the analog to the
Exchange's Trading Permit fee for Members that use the MEO
Interface.
    \30\ See Cboe C2 Fee Schedule, Access Fees, available at https://www.cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/ctwo/ (last visited
August 31, 2022). C2's Market Maker Access Permit fee is the analog
to the Exchange's Trading Permit fee for Members that use the MEO
Interface. C2's Electronic Access Permit fee is the analog to the
Exchange's Trading Permit fee for Members that use the FIX
Interface.
    \31\ See ``Membership Fees'' section of the Cboe BZX Options Fee
Schedule, available at https://www.cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/bzx (last visited August 31, 2022). The Exchange
understands Cboe BZX Options charges the same Membership Fee to all
of its Options Members.
    \32\ Under the Exchange's tiered structure, a Member may trade
approximately 106,000 more contracts on the Exchange than on Cboe
BZX Options and continue to qualify for the Exchange's lowest tier.
For example, a Member would qualify for Tier 1 of the Exchange's
tiered pricing structure where that Member's total volume as a
percentage of TCV is between 0.00% and 0.30%. Assuming an average of
37 million contracts are traded each day during a month, that Member
would qualify for Tier 1 where that Member traded less than 111,000
contracts that day and be charged $500, the same fee as Cboe BZX
Options, where that Member connects via the FIX Interface. On Cboe
BZX Options, the Exchange understands that same member would no
longer qualify for their lowest tier when their ADV equals or
exceeds 5,000 contracts and be charged a fee of $1,000 for that
month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\33\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among Exchange Members and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange commenced operations in February 2017 \34\ and adopted
its initial fee schedule that waived fees for Trading Permits to trade
on the Exchange.\35\ Although trading permit fees were waived, an
initial fee structure was put in place to communicate the Exchange's
intent to charge trading permit fees in the future. As a new exchange
entrant, the Exchange chose to offer Trading Permits free of charge to
encourage market participants to trade on the Exchange and experience,
among things, the quality of the Exchange's technology and trading
functionality. This practice is not uncommon. New exchanges often do
not charge fees or charge lower fees for certain services such as
memberships/trading permits to attract order flow to an exchange, and
later amend their fees to reflect the true value of those services,
absorbing all costs to provide those services in the meantime. Allowing
new exchange entrants time to build and sustain market share through
various pricing incentives before increasing non-transaction fees
encourages market entry and promotes competition. It also enables new
exchanges to mature their markets and allow market participants to
trade on the new exchanges without fees serving as a potential barrier
to attracting memberships and order flow.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See MIAX PEARL Successfully Launches Trading Operations,
dated February 6, 2017, available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/alert-files/MIAX_Press_Release_02062017.pdf.
    \35\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80061 (February 17,
2017), 82 FR 11676 (February 24, 2017) (SR-PEARL-2017-10).
    \36\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94894 (May 11,
2022), 87 FR 29987 (May 17, 2022) (SR-BOX-2022-17) (stating, ``[t]he
Exchange established this lower (when compared to other options
exchanges in the industry) Participant Fee in order to encourage
market participants to become Participants of BOX. . .''). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90076 (October 2, 2020), 85 FR
63620 (October 8, 2020) (SR-MEMX-2020-10) (``MEMX Membership Fee
Proposal'') (proposing to adopt the initial fee schedule and stating
that ``[u]nder the initial proposed Fee Schedule, the Exchange
proposes to make clear that it does not charge any fees for
membership, market data products, physical connectivity or
application sessions.''). MEMX has seen its market share increase
and recently proposed to adopt a membership fee and fees for
connectivity. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 93927
(January 7, 2022), 87 FR 2191 (January 13, 2022) (SR-MEMX-2021-19)
(proposing to adopt membership fees); and 95299 (July 15, 2022), 87
FR 43563 (July 21, 2022) (SR-MEMX-2022-17) (proposing to adopt fees
for connectivity). See also, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 88211 (February 14, 2020), 85 FR 9847 (February 20, 2020) (SR-
NYSENAT-2020-05), available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse-national/rule-filings/filings/2020/SR-NYSENat-2020-05.pdf (initiating market data fees for the NYSE National exchange
after initially setting such fees at zero).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Later in 2018, as the Exchange's market share increased,\37\ the
Exchange adopted nominal fees for Trading Permits along with a tiered-
volume based fee credit, known as the Trading Permit Fee Credit, and a
Monthly

Volume Credit.\38\ At that time, the Exchange chose to adopt a volume
tier-based fee for Trading Permits along with the type of interface
used--FIX or MEO--as a way to provide different choices regarding how
potential Members could access the Exchange's System. This was for
business and competitive reasons and to provide choice regarding
Trading Permits and membership that had not previously existed. The
Exchange now proposes to move away from the volume tier-based Trading
Permit fee structure and align its Trading Permit fees with its
affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald, as well as other options exchanges
by assessing Market Makers Trading Permit fees based on options classes
assigned and assessing EEMs a flat monthly Trading Permit fee based on
interface used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The Exchange experienced a monthly average trading volume
of 3.94% for the month of March 2018. See Market at a Glance,
available at www.miaxoptions.com (last visited (August 31, 2022).
    \38\ See supra note 8. The Exchange notes that it has since
filed to remove these credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange recently reviewed its current Trading Permit fees. In
its review, the Exchange determined that the calculation and amount of
Trading Permit fees would need to be amended, and volume tier-based
Trading Permit fees for all Member types is no longer appropriate.
Specifically, the Exchange found that Market Makers and EEMs using the
MEO Interface were benefitting from lower MEO Interface Trading Permit
fees while (1) consuming the most bandwidth and resources of the
network; (2) transacting the vast majority of the volume on the
Exchange; and (3) requiring the high touch network support services
provided by the Exchange and its staff. The Exchange notes that Broker
Dealers, Professional Customers, and Priority Customers \39\ that use
the FIX Interface take up significantly less Exchange resources and
costs. Further, the Exchange notes that Market Makers and EEMs using
the MEO Interface account for greater than 99% of message traffic over
the network, while other non-Market Maker market participants account
for less than 1% of message traffic over the network. In the Exchange's
experience, most Exchange Members do not have a business need for the
high performance MEO Interface required by Market Makers. The
Exchange's high performance MEO Interface (including employee support
for such interface), provides unparalleled system throughput and the
capacity to handle 10.8 million quotes per second and average round
trip latency rate of approximately 30.76 microseconds for a single
quote. Over the period from March 2022 through May 2022, the Exchange
processed 1.3 billion messages via the FIX Interface (0.33% of total
messages received). Over that same time period, the Exchange processed
386.1 billion messages (99.67% of total messages received) over the MEO
Interface, almost entirely from Market Maker message traffic (which
equals approximately 6 billion messages per day over that time period)
(386.1 billion messages divided 64 trading days from March through May
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 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 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial accounts(s). The
number of orders shall be counted in accordance with Interpretation
and Policy .01 of Exchange Rule 100. See the Definitions Section of
the Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule 100, including Interpretation and
Policy .01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in order to achieve consistent, premium quote and
order throughput performance, the Exchange must build out and maintain
an MEO infrastructure that has the capacity to handle the message rate
requirements beyond those billions of daily messages. These billions of
messages per day consume the Exchange's resources and significantly
contribute to the overall expense for quote and MEO order storage and
MEO throughput capabilities. Given this difference in utilization rate,
the Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory that Market Makers and EEMs using the MEO
Interface begin to pay for a higher portion of the system costs
(compared to other Exchange Member types).
    The Exchange notes that while Market Makers continue to account for
a vast majority of the increased costs and resources placed on the
Exchange and its systems (as discussed herein), Market Makers continue
to be valuable market participants on the exchanges as the options
market is a quote driven industry. The Exchange recognizes the value
that Market Makers bring to the Exchange. In fact, the Exchange
provides Market Makers transactional volume-based discounts and rebates
to incentivize Market Makers to direct order flow to the Exchange to
obtain the benefit of the rebate, which will in turn benefit all market
participants by increasing liquidity on the Exchange.\40\ The proposed
Trading Permit fees discussed herein are meant to strike a balance
between offsetting the costs to which Market Makers place on the
Exchange and continuing to incentivize Market Makers to access and make
a market on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ For example, Market Makers may qualify for higher Tier 3
rebates as follows: (i) Maker rebates of ($0.44) in SPY, QQQ and IWM
options for their Market Maker Origin when trading against Origins
not Priority Customer, and (ii) Maker rebates of ($0.42) in SPY, QQQ
and IWM options for their Market Maker Origin when trading against
Priority Customer Origins, if the Market Maker executes at least
1.10% in SPY when adding liquidity. This is compared to a lower
Professional Customer Tier 3 rebate of ($0.40) for options
transactions in the same classes. See Fee Schedule, Section (1)(a),
footnote ``[lozf].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its review of Trading Permit fees, the Exchange found that since
2018, Market Makers were paying nearly the same Trading Permit fees as
EEMs that used the MEO Interface despite Market Makers consuming the
most resources on the Exchange's system and contributing to increased
costs for the Exchange. As such, the Exchange proposes to establish
higher, separate electronic Trading Permit fees for Market Makers that
are more aligned with the costs and resources that Market Makers
continue to place on the Exchange and its systems and will align the
Trading Permit fees with those of the majority of other options
exchanges at similar or lower rates.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See supra notes 24 to 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed change will
better align the Exchange's Trading Permit fees with rates charged by
its affiliates and competing options exchanges in the industry for
similar Trading Permits for such market participants. As such, the
Exchange believes the proposed Market Maker Trading Permit fees are
reasonable in that they are lower than comparable fees at other options
exchanges.\42\ Further, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
reasonably designed to continue to compete with other options exchanges
by incentivizing market participants to register as Market Makers on
the Exchange in a manner than enables the Exchange to improve its
overall competitiveness and strengthen market quality for all market
participants. As stated above, the Exchange believes the proposed
Market Maker Trading Permit fees are an appropriate balance between
offsetting the costs to which Market Makers cost the Exchange and
continuing to incentivize Market Makers to access and make a market on
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as
the fees apply equally to all Market Makers. As such, all similarly
situated Market Makers, with the same number of appointments, will be
subject to the same Market Maker Trading Permit fee. The Exchange also
believes that assessing lower fees to Market Makers that quote in fewer
classes is reasonable and appropriate as it will allow the Exchange to
retain and attract smaller-scale Market Makers, which are an

integral component of the options industry marketplace. Since these
smaller Market Makers utilize less bandwidth and capacity on the
Exchange network due to the lower number of quoted classes, the
Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate to offer such Market
Makers a lower fee. The Exchange also notes that other options
exchanges assess permit fees at different rates, based upon a member's
participation on that exchange,\43\ and, as such, this concept is not
new or novel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See supra notes 24 to 32; see also MIAX Fee Schedule,
Section (3)(b) and MIAX Emerald Fee Schedule, Section (3)(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes the proposed tiered structure of the
Market Maker Trading Permit fees is reasonable and appropriate. Under
the proposal, Market Makers will be charged monthly fees based on the
greatest number of classes quoted on any given trading day in a
calendar month. Under the proposed fee structure, the fees increase as
the number of classes quoted by a Market Maker increases. The Exchange
believes this structure is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the Exchange's system requires increased performance and
capacity in order to provide the opportunity for Market Makers to quote
in a higher number of options classes on the Exchange. Specifically,
the more classes that are actively quoted on the Exchange by a Market
Maker requires increased memory for record retention, increased
bandwidth for optimized performance, increased functionalities on each
application layer, and increased optimization with regard to
surveillance and monitoring of such classes quoted. As such, basing the
Market Maker Trading Permit fee on the greatest number of classes
quoted in on any given day in a calendar month is reasonable and
appropriate when taking into account how the increased number of quoted
classes directly impact the costs and resources required for the
Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed structure is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as all similarly situated
Market Makers will be charged the same fee. The Exchange notes that
another options exchange in the industry calculates Market Maker Permit
Fees in the same manner.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See supra notes 24 to 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is no requirement, regulatory or otherwise, that any broker-
dealer connect to and access any (or all of) the available options
exchanges. One other exchange recently noted in a proposal to amend
their own trading permit fees that of the 62 market making firms that
are registered as Market Makers across Cboe, MIAX, and BOX, 42 firms
access only one of the three exchanges.\45\ Further, the Exchange and
its affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald, have a total of 47 members. Of
those 47 total members, 35 are members of all three exchanges, four are
members of only two (2) exchanges, and eight (8) are members of only
one exchange. Of those that are Market Makers today on the Exchange,
two (2) are not registered as Market Makers on MIAX and one (1) is not
registered as a Market Maker on MIAX Emerald. Broken down even further,
of those Market Makers that use the MEO Interface and reached the
Exchange's top tier for the Trading Permit fee for June 2022, one (1)
Market Maker was only a Member of the Exchange and not its two
affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald. The above data evidences that a
Market Maker need not be a Member of all options exchanges, let alone
the Exchange and its two affiliates, and market makers elect to do so
based on their own business decisions and need to directly access each
exchange's liquidity pool. Not only is there not an actual regulatory
requirement to connect to every options exchange, the Exchange believes
there is also no ``de facto'' or practical requirement as well, as
further evidenced by the market maker membership analysis of the
options exchanges discussed above. Indeed, Market Makers choose if and
how to access a particular exchange and because it is a choice, the
Exchange must set reasonable pricing, otherwise prospective market
makers would not connect and existing Market Makers would disconnect
from the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94894 (May 11,
2022), 87 FR 29987 (May 17, 2022) (SR-BOX-2022-17) (Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Amend the
Fee Schedule on the BOX Options Market LLC Facility To Adopt
Electronic Market Maker Trading Permit Fees). The Exchange believes
that BOX's observation demonstrates that market making firms can,
and do, select which exchanges they wish to access, and,
accordingly, options exchanges must take competitive considerations
into account when setting fees for such access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that elasticity of demand for Exchange
Membership exists when it comes to purchasing a Trading Permit and, as
evidenced by the below data, prior fee proposals have resulted in
Members terminating their memberships.\46\ For example, over the course
of those prior filings, three Members terminated their memberships in
the time since the proposed fee increase first went into effect. In
June 2021, the month immediately preceding the initial implementation
of the prior proposed fee change, the Exchange had 20 users of the MEO
Interface and 28 users of the FIX Interface. These numbers remained
stagnant until August 2021, where one Member that utilized the MEO
Interface ceased utilizing the MEO Interface and again in December 2021
where one Member that utilized the FIX Interface ceased utilizing the
FIX Interface. These numbers again remained stagnant until March 2022,
where another Member that utilized the FIX Interface ceased utilizing
the FIX Interface. This resulted in 19 users of the MEO Interface and
26 users of the FIX Interface. Further, other exchanges have also
experienced termination of memberships if their members deem permit or
membership fees to be unreasonable or excessive. For example, the
Exchange notes that a BOX participant modified its access to BOX in
connection with the implementation of a proposed change to BOX's permit
fees.\47\ The absence of new memberships coupled with the termination
of two memberships on the Exchange, as well as similar membership
changes on another options exchange in relation to a trading permit fee
increase, clearly shows that elasticity of demand exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95419 (August 4,
2022), 87 FR 48702 (August 10, 2022) (SR-PEARL-2022-30).
    \47\ According to BOX, a Market Maker on BOX terminated its
status as a Market Maker in response to BOX's proposed modification
of Market Maker trading permit fees. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 94894 (May 11, 2022), 87 FR 29987 (May 17, 2022) (SR-
BOX-2022-17). BOX noted, and the Exchange agrees, that this Market
Maker's decision demonstrates that Market Makers can, and do, alter
their membership status if they deem permit fees at an exchange to
be unsuitable for their business needs, thus demonstrating the
competitive environment for Market Maker permit fees and the
constraints on options exchanges when setting Market Maker permit
fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that there are material costs associated with
providing the infrastructure and headcount to fully-support access to
the Exchange. The Exchange incurs technology expenses related to
establishing and maintaining Information Security services, enhanced
network monitoring and customer reporting associated with its network
technology. While some of the expense is fixed, much of the expense is
not fixed, and thus increases as the expenses associated with access
services for Market Makers increases. For example, new Market Makers to
the Exchange may require the purchase of additional hardware to support
those Members as well as enhanced monitoring and reporting of customer
performance that the Exchange provides. Further, as the total number of
Market Makers increase, the Exchange may need to increase its data
center

footprint and consume more power, resulting in increased costs charged
by their third-party data center provider. Accordingly, the cost to the
Exchange to provide access to its Market Makers is not fixed. The
Exchange believes the proposed Market Maker Trading Permit fees are
reasonable in order to offset a portion of the costs to the Exchange
associated with providing access to Market Makers to its quote and
order infrastructure.
    The Exchange believes that charging higher fees to Market Makers,
who connect solely through the MEO Interface, and EEMs that use the MEO
Interface, is not unfairly discriminatory because Market Makers
continue to account for the vast majority of network capacity
utilization and trading activity on the Exchange and the MEO Interface
provides higher throughput and enhanced functionality compared to the
FIX Interface, justifying the increased cost. MEO Interface users
account for the majority of expenses placed on the Exchange's systems.
The MEO Interface also provides additional functionality that Market
Makers and EEMs using the MEO Interface use to fulfill their market
making obligations. The Exchange offers three time-in-force modifiers:
\48\ Day Limit (``Day''), Immediate-Or-Cancel (``IOC''), and Good `Til
Cancelled (``GTC'').\49\ While all order types are available for use on
either interface, only the time-in-force modifiers of IOC and Day are
available on the MEO Interface.\50\ Market Makers utilize the time-in-
force of Day on orders to be posted on the MIAX Pearl Options Book \51\
and to meet Market Makers' continuous quoting obligations under
Exchange Rule 605(d).\52\ EEMs using the MEO Interface and Market
Makers that primarily remove liquidity tend to be more latency
sensitive and utilize the time-in-force of IOC on orders when looking
to remove liquidity from the MIAX Pearl Options Book. The MEO Interface
allows the submission of Cancel-Replacement orders,\53\ which allow for
the immediate cancellation of a previously received order and the
replacement of that order with a new order with new terms and
conditions.\54\ Cancel-Replacement orders are primarily used by Market
Makers as part of their continuous quoting obligations. Market Makers
use only the MEO Interface due to its lower latency, higher throughput,
available time-in-force instructions and order types that assist them
in satisfying their market making obligations. Market Makers do not use
the FIX Interface due to the unavailability of the above functionality.
While EEMs primarily use the FIX Interface, certain EEMs choose to use
the MEO Interface due to its enhanced functionality and based on their
own business models. The MEO Interface is the more robust interface
offering lower latency and higher throughput. Market Makers use only
the MEO Interface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See MIAX Pearl Options Exchange User Manual, Section 6,
Order Types, available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/exchange-functionality/pearl (last visited June 30, 2022).
    \49\ See, e.g., Exchange Rule 516.
    \50\ See preamble to Exchange Rule 516 (noting that not all
order types and modifiers are available for use on each of the MEO
Interface and the FIX Interface). See also Section <IP_ADDRESS> of the
MEO Interface Specification, available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_Express_Orders_MEO_v2.0.pdf (indicating that the time-in-force
instructions of IOC and Day are available on the MEO interface).
    \51\ The term ``Book'' means the electronic book of buy and sell
orders and quotes maintained by the System. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \52\ Only the time-in-force modifiers of IOC and Day are
available on the MEO Interface. See Exchange Rule 516 (noting that
not all order types and modifiers are available for use on each of
the MEO Interface and the FIX Interface). See also MIAX Pearl
Options Exchange MEO Interface Specification, Section <IP_ADDRESS>,
available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_Express_Orders_MEO_v2.0.pdf (indicating that the time-in-
force instructions of IOC and Day are available on the MEO
interface).
    \53\ See MIAX Pearl Options Exchange User Manual, Section 6,
Interfaces and Liquidity Types, available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/exchange-functionality/pearl (last visited May
16, 2022).
    \54\ See Exchange Rule 516(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that while Market Maker users of the MEO
Interface continue to account for a vast majority of the increased
System usage placed on the Exchange, Market Makers continue to be
valuable market participants on the exchanges as the options market is
a quote driven industry. The Exchange recognizes the value that Market
Makers bring to the Exchange. The Exchange proposes higher, separate
fees for users of the MEO Interface that are more aligned with the
costs and resources that Market Makers continue to place on the
Exchange and its systems.
    Users of the MEO Interface, therefore, receive greater value than
Users of the FIX Interface due to its higher throughput, lower latency,
and available functionality. As the above data shows, the Exchange also
expends much more resources to support the MEO Interface than it does
to support the FIX Interface. Trading Permit fees for Members who
connect through the MEO Interface are, therefore, higher than the
Trading Permit fees for Members who connect through the FIX Interface.
The proposed pricing structure also accounts for the corresponding use
of the MEO and FIX Interfaces and proportionate pull on Exchange
resources.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Market Maker Trading Permit
fees are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. The
Exchange believes that the reasonableness of its proposed fees is
demonstrated by the very fact that such fees are in line with, and in
some cases lower than, the costs of similar access fees at other
exchanges.\55\ The Exchange notes these fees were similarly filed with
the Commission and neither suspended nor disapproved.\56\ The proposed
fees are fair and equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
they apply equally to all Market Makers and access to the Exchange is
offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange
designed the fee rates in order to provide objective criteria for
Market Makers of different sizes and business models that best matches
their quoting activity on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the
proposed fee rates and criteria provide an objective and flexible
framework that will encourage Market Makers to be appointed and quote
in option classes while also equitably allocating the fees in a
reasonable manner amongst Market Maker appointments to account for
quoting and trading activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See supra notes 24 to 32.
    \56\ The Exchange presumes that the fees of other exchanges are
reasonable, as required by the Exchange Act in the absence of any
suspension or disapproval order by the Commission providing
otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange again notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market makers can readily favor competing venues if
they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees for services
and products, in addition to order flow, to remain competitive with
other exchanges. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes
reflect this competitive environment.
    The Exchange again notes it is not aware of any reason why Market
Makers could not simply drop their access to an exchange (or not
initially access an exchange) if an exchange were to establish prices
for its non-transaction fees that, in the determination of such Market
Maker, did not make business or economic sense for such Market Maker to
access such exchange. The Exchange again notes that no market makers
are required by rule, regulation, or competitive forces to be a Market
Maker on the Exchange.
    In sum, the Exchange believes the proposed fees are reasonable and
reflect a competitive environment, as the Exchange seeks to amend its
Trading

Permit fees for Market Makers, while still attracting Market Makers to
continue to, or seek to, access the Exchange. The Exchange further
believes the proposed Trading Permit fees discussed herein are an
appropriate balance between offsetting the costs to which Market Makers
cost the Exchange and continuing to incentivize Market Makers to access
and make a market on the Exchange.

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.
Intra-Market Competition
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Market Maker Trading Permit
fees do not place certain market participants at a relative
disadvantage to other market participants because the proposed fees do
not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that
would impose a burden on competition; rather, the fee rates are
designed in order to provide objective criteria for Market Makers of
different sizes and business models that best matches their quoting
activity on the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that the
proposed Market Maker Trading Permit fees will not impose a burden on
intramarket competition because, when these fees are viewed in the
context of the overall activity on the Exchange, Market Makers: (1)
consume the most bandwidth and resources of the network; (2) transact
the vast majority of the volume on the Exchange; and (3) require the
high touch network support services provided by the Exchange and its
staff, including more costly network monitoring, reporting and support
services, resulting in a much higher cost to the Exchange. The Exchange
notes that the majority of customer demand comes from Market Makers,
whose transactions make up a majority of the volume on the Exchange.
Further, as discussed herein, other Member types (Broker Dealers,
Professional Customers, and Priority Customers) take up significantly
less Exchange resources and costs. As such, the Exchange does not
believe charging Market Makers higher Trading Permit fees than other
Member types will impose a burden on intramarket competition.
    The Exchange believes that the tiered structure of the proposed
Market Maker Trading Permit fees will not impose a burden on
intramarket competition because the tiered structure takes into account
the number of classes quoted by each individual Market Maker. As
discussed herein, the Exchange's system requires increased performance
and capacity in order to provide the opportunity for each Market Maker
to quote in a higher number of options classes on the Exchange.
Specifically, the more classes that are actively quoted on the Exchange
by a Market Maker requires increased memory for record retention,
increased bandwidth for optimized performance, increased
functionalities on each application layer, and increased optimization
with regard to surveillance and monitoring of such classes quoted. As
such, basing the Market Maker Trading Permit fee on the greatest number
of classes quoted in on any given day in a calendar month is reasonable
and appropriate when taking into account how the increased number of
quoted classes directly impact the costs and resources for the
Exchange.
Inter-Market Competition
    The Exchange believes the proposed Market Maker Trading Permit fees
do not place an undue burden on competition on other SROs that is not
necessary or appropriate. In particular, market making firms are not
forced to become market makers on all options exchanges. The Exchange
notes that it has far less Market Makers as compared to the much
greater number of market makers at other options exchanges. There are a
number of large market makers that are participants of other options
exchange but not Members of the Exchange. The Exchange is also unaware
of any assertion that its existing fee levels or the proposed Market
Maker Trading Permit fees would somehow unduly impair its competition
with other options exchanges. To the contrary, if the fees charged are
deemed too high by a market making firm, they can simply discontinue
their membership with the Exchange.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily favor one of the 15 competing options
venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive.
Based on publicly-available information, and excluding index-based
options, no single exchange has more than 11-12% equity options market
share.\57\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power
in the execution of multiply-listed equity and exchange-traded fund
(``ETF'') options order flow. As of August 23, 2022, for the month of
August 2022, the Exchange had a market share of approximately 4.49% of
executed multiply-listed equity options \58\ and the Exchange believes
that the ever-shifting market share among exchanges from month to month
demonstrates that market participants can discontinue or reduce use of
certain categories of products, or shift order flow, in response to fee
changes. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees and fee waivers to remain competitive with other exchanges and
to attract order flow to the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See Market at a Glance, available at www.miaxoptions.com
(last visited (August 31, 2022).
    \58\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment.

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,\59\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \60\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \60\ 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-PEARL-2022-39 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-PEARL-2022-39. 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-PEARL-2022-39 and should be submitted on
or before October 12, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\61\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-20371 Filed 9-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY                             National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory 2000 Traverwood Drive                                  Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105-2498

July 21, 2016

MEMORANDUM

             SUBJECT:	Pie Chart of the 2014 GHG Emissions from U.S. Transportation Sources

             FROM:	Bryan J. Manning, Mechanical Engineer Assessment and Standards Division              Office of Transportation and Air Quality              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

TO:	The Air and Radiation Docket              Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0828

This memorandum documents how the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from United States (U.S.) transportation sources (or categories) are inventoried.  This includes comparisons of the following: (1) the individual categories for U.S. transportation GHG emissions as a share of total U.S. transportation GHG emissions and (2) the separate categories for U.S. aircraft GHG emissions as a share of total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions.  Refer to the attachment for this memorandum for a description of these comparisons.  The reference for the above GHG emissions inventories and comparisons is the 2016 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report entitled, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014.

Attachments:   Calculations for Pie Chart of the 2014 GHG Emissions from U.S. Transportation Sources (Excel file)


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 5, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 84233-84234]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26628]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31520; Amdt. No. 4090]

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 amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures 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 for the 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 December 5, 2023. 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 December 5, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter 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 Information Services, 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, visit
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations or email
[email protected].

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online 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 Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., STB Annex, Bldg. 26, Room 217,
Oklahoma City, OK 73099. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending
the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP
is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National
Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Air Missions (P-NOTAM),
and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51,
and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and
the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, pilots do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but 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 contained on FAA form
documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR
sections, and specifies the SIAPs and 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 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 and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this
amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP
and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC
permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria
contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures
(TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and
ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions
existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule
have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency
action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published
aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than
30 days.
    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 these
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 November 24, 2023.
Thomas J. Nichols,
Manager, Aviation Safety, Flight Standards Service, Standards Section,
Flight Procedures & Airspace Group, Flight Technologies & Procedures
Division.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part
97 is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, 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:
    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

EFFECTIVE UPON PUBLICATION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AIRAC date            State             City             Airport name       FDC No.      FDC date                  Procedure name
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28-Dec-23................  UT           Provo..............  Provo Muni.........       3/1338      11/3/23  ILS OR LOC RWY 13, Amdt 5.
28-Dec-23................  TX           Lockhart...........  Lockhart Muni......       3/4048      11/2/23  RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig-B.
28-Dec-23................  MT           Sidney.............  Sidney-Richland           3/4295      11/3/23  RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 2.
                                                              Rgnl.
28-Dec-23................  MA           Westfield/           Westfield-Barnes          3/9342      10/5/23  ILS OR LOC RWY 20, Amdt 8C.
                                         Springfield.         Rgnl.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-26628 Filed 12-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 246 (Friday, December 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79013-79014]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27913]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34779; File No. 812-15248]

PCM Fund, Inc., et al.

December 19, 2022.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') and rule 17d-1
under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited
by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.

Summary of Application:  Applicants request an order to permit certain
business development companies and closed-end management investment
companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with
certain affiliated investment entities.

Applicants:  PCM Fund, Inc., PIMCO Corporate & Income Opportunity Fund,
PIMCO Corporate & Income Strategy Fund, PIMCO Dynamic Income Fund,
PIMCO Dynamic Income Opportunities Fund, PIMCO Energy and Tactical
Credit Opportunities Fund, PIMCO Global StocksPLUS[supreg] & Income
Fund, PIMCO High Income Fund, PIMCO Income Strategy Fund, PIMCO Income
Strategy Fund II, PIMCO Strategic Income Fund, Inc., PIMCO Access
Income Fund, PIMCO California Municipal Income Fund, PIMCO California
Municipal Income Fund II, PIMCO California Municipal Income Fund III,
PIMCO Municipal Income Fund, PIMCO Municipal Income Fund II, PIMCO
Municipal Income Fund III, PIMCO New York Municipal Income Fund, PIMCO
New York Municipal Income Fund II, PIMCO New York Municipal Income Fund
III, PIMCO Flexible Credit Income Fund, PIMCO Flexible Municipal Income
Fund, PIMCO Flexible Emerging Markets Income Fund, PIMCO Flexible Real
Estate Income Fund, PIMCO California Flexible Municipal Income Fund,
PIMCO Capital Solutions BDC Corp., PIMCO BRAVO Fund III, L.P., LVS III
Holding LP, PIMCO BRAVO Fund IV, L.P., LVS IV Holding SP LP, LVS IV
Holding LP, PIMCO Real Estate Opportunities Fund, L.P., PIMCO
Commercial Real Estate Debt Fund, L.P., PIMCO Commercial Real Estate
Debt Fund II, L.P., PIMCO Corporate Opportunities Fund III, L.P., PIMCO
Corporate Opportunities Fund IV, L.P., OC III Holding LP, PIMCO Private

Income Fund LP, PIMCO Tactical Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., PIMCO
Horseshoe Fund, LP, PIMCO Red Stick Fund, L.P., PIMCO Distressed Senior
Credit Opportunities Fund II, L.P., PIMCO Disco Fund III LP, PIMCO
Residential Opportunities Fund, L.P., PHFS Residential Opportunities
Offshore Fund, L.P., PIMCO OP Trust Flexible Credit Fund, L.P., PIMCO
Flexible Credit Master Fund, L.P., PIMCO ILS Series SPC, on behalf of
and for the Account of PIMCO ILS Fund I, PIMCO ILS Series SPC, on
behalf of and for the Account of PIMCO ILS Fund II, PIMCO Global Credit
Opportunity Master Fund LDC, PIMCO Absolute Return Strategy 3 Master
Fund LDC, PIMCO Absolute Return Strategy 3D Offshore Fund LTD., PIMCO
Absolute Return Strategy 3E Master Fund LDC, PIMCO Absolute Return
Strategy IV Master Fund LDC, PIMCO Absolute Return Strategy IV IDF LLC,
PIMCO Absolute Return Strategy IV eFund, PIMCO Absolute Return Strategy
V Master Fund LDC, PIMCO Mortgage Investment Trust, INC., PIMCO Private
Diversified Lending Fund Private Sleeve LP, PIF II Offshore I LTD, PAF
LUX SCA, SICAV-RAIF, PIMCO Disco Contingent Capital Fund Series I LP,
PIMCO European Data Centre Opportunity Fund, SCSP, PIMCO Commercial
Real Estate Lending Europe Fund SCSP, PIMCO Corporate Opportunities
Fund IV LUX, SCSP, DCCF SPV 1 Series 1 LP, DCCF SPV 1 Cayman Series 1
LTD, PIMCO Specialty Finance Income Fund, L.P., SFI Offshore 1 LTD,
PIMCO Elysian Park Fund, L.P., PIMCO CLO Opportunities Fund II, L.P.,
PIMCO Investments LLC, Pacific Investment Management Company LLC.

Filing Dates:  The application was filed on July 20, 2021, and amended
on March 3, 2022, August 29, 2022 and November 29, 2022.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing
the Commission's Secretary at [email protected] and serving the
Applicants with a copy of the request by email, if an email address is
listed for the relevant Applicant below, or personally or by mail, if a
physical address is listed for the relevant Applicant below. Hearing
requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on January
13, 2023, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the
Applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should
state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary at
[email protected].

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected]. Applicants: David
C. Sullivan, Ropes & Gray LLP, [email protected] and Michael
G. Doherty, Ropes & Gray LLP, [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara T. Heussler, Senior Counsel,
or Trace W. Rakestraw, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of
Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' third amended and
restated application, dated November 29, 2022, which may be obtained
via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the
top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search
field on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched
at, http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You
may also call the SEC's Public Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-27913 Filed 12-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P