	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0525; FRL-       ]

	Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

	Maryland; Control Technique Guidelines for Paper, Film, and Foil
Coatings

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is taking direct final action to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland.
This SIP revision pertains to the control of volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions from paper, film, and foil coatings.  Specifically,
Maryland is amending its regulations by adopting the requirements of
EPA’s Control Technique Guidelines (CTG) for Paper, Film, and Foil
Coatings.  These amendments will reduce VOC emissions from this source
category.  This action is being taken in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:  This rule is effective on [Insert date 60 days after publication
in the Federal Register]  without further notice, unless EPA receives
adverse written comment by [Insert date 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register].  If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and
inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number
EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0525 by one of the following methods:

 www.regulations.gov.   Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

B.  E-mail:    HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

C.  Mail:  EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0525, Maria A. Pino, Acting Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

D.  Hand Delivery:  At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0525.  EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.  Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or
e-mail.  The www.regulations.gov website is an (anonymous access(
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.  If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet.  If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.

Docket:  All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800
Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ellen Wentworth,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is
used, we mean EPA.

On April 23, 2010, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
submitted a formal revision to its SIP.  This SIP revision (#10-02)
consists of amendments to Regulation .07, Paper, Fabric, Vinyl and Other
Plastic Parts Coating, under the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR)
26.11.19, Control of VOC from Specific Processes.  These amendments are
necessary since Maryland has adopted the recommendations contained in
EPA’s CTG (EPA 453/R-07-003, September 2007), for Paper, Film, and
Foil Coatings for the control of VOC emissions from this source
category.

Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas
must include reasonably available control measures (RACM), including
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for sources of emissions.
 Section 182(b)(2) provides that States must revise their ozone SIP to
include RACT for VOC sources covered by any CTG document issued after
November 15, 1990, and prior to the date of attainment. EPA defines RACT
as “the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable
of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably
available considering technological and economic feasibility”

(44 FR 53761, September 17, 1979).  In subsequent Federal Register
notices, EPA has addressed how States can meet the RACT requirements of
the CAA.  EPA provides States with guidance concerning what types of
controls could constitute RACT for a given source category through
issuance of a CTG.  The recommendations in the CTG are based on
available data and information and may not apply to a particular
situation based upon the circumstances.  The State of Maryland has
adopted the recommendations contained in the September 2007 (EPA
453/R-07-003) CTG for Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings as RACT for this
source category.

The paper, film, and foil coatings product category includes coatings
that are applied to paper, film, or foil surfaces in the manufacturing
of several major product types for the following industry sectors:
pressure sensitive tape and labels (including fabric coated for use in
pressure sensitive tapes and labels), photographic film, industrial and
decorative laminates, abrasive products (including fabric coated for use
in abrasive products), and flexible packaging (including coating of
non-woven polymer substrates for use in flexible packaging).  The
category also includes coatings applied during miscellaneous coating
operations for several products including: corrugated and solid fiber
boxes, die-cut paper paperboard, and cardboard, converted paper and
paperboard not elsewhere classified, folding paperboard boxes, including
sanitary boxes, manifold business forms and related products, plastic
asceptic packaging, and carbon paper and inked ribbons.  Coatings
performed on or in-line with any offset lithographic, screen,
letterpress, flexographic, rotogravure, or digital printing press is not
part of the paper, film, and foil coating category.

II.	Summary of SIP Revision

The amendments to Regulation .07 of COMAR 26.11.19 consist of revisions
to the existing sections .07A--Definitions, and .07B--Applicability, and
the addition of a new Section D-- Emission Standards for Paper, Film,
and Foil Product Coatings with VOC Emissions (Potential to Emit) of 25
Tons or Greater Per Year.  Since Maryland adopted the recommendations
contained in EPA’s 2007 CTG for Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, these
revisions to the Maryland SIP are necessary.  Specifically, the
amendment to COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>A--Definitions, adds the following
definitions used in the substantive provisions of the regulation:
coating line, coating solids applied, flash-off area, paper, film, and
foil product, paper, film, and foil product coating, and pressure
sensitive tape and label surface coating.  COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>, section
.07B-- Applicability, has been revised to reflect the applicability
requirements which are specific to coating lines that have the potential
to emit 25 tons per year (tpy) or greater of VOC from this source
category.  Sources subject to this regulation may either meet VOC
emission limits or use an add-on emission control device to reduce VOC
emissions by 90 percent.  In addition, the SIP revision amends COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS> by adding a new Section .07D--Emission Standards for Paper,
Film, and Foil Product Coatings with VOC Emissions (Potential to Emit)
of 25 Tons or Greater Per Year which contains the emissions standards
and air pollution control equipment requirements for this source
category.  Specifically, a person who meets the applicability level in
Section B of MDE’s regulation shall:  (a) use add-on air pollution
control equipment to reduce VOCs from the coating line by an overall
capture and control efficiency of at least 90 percent, by weight, or (b)
meet the following emission standards for each coating line
installation:

Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings	Emission Standard (Ratio)

	lb VOC/lb solids or

kg VOC/kg solids	lb VOC/lb coating or

kg VOC/kg coating

Paper Film, and Foil Coating other than a Pressure Sensitive Tape and
Label Surface Coating	0.40	0.08

Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface  Coating	0.20	0.06

III.	Final Action

EPA is approving the amendments to COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>, “Volatile
Organic Compounds from Specific Processes,” submitted by MDE on April
23, 2010 because they meet the recommendations for RACT contained in
EPA’s September, 2007 CTG for Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings.
Implementation of these amendments will result in additional reductions
of VOC emissions from this source category.  EPA is publishing this rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However,
in the (Proposed Rules( section of today(s Federal Register, EPA is
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to
approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed.  This rule will
be effective on [Insert date 60 days from date of publication in the
Federal Register] without further notice unless EPA receives adverse
comment by [Insert date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal
Register].  If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
will not take effect.  EPA will address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.  EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this action.  Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time.

IV. 	Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.   General Requirements

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations.  42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).  Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law.  For that reason, this action:

is not a "significant regulatory action” subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993);

does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997);

is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the
Clean Air Act; and

does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA
notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

B.   Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States.  EPA will submit a report containing this action 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.  A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
 This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial
review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [Insert date 60 days from date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action.  Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking.   This action pertaining to Maryland’s adoption of the CTG
standards for paper, film, and foil coatings may not be challenged later
in proceedings to enforce its requirements.  (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

_September 7, 2010____
__________/s/_______________

Dated:                                				W. C. Early, Acting

                                      				Regional Administrator,

                                      				Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52 - [AMENDED]

1.  The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

               Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart V( Maryland

	2. In ( 52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the
entry for COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> to read as follows:

( 52.1070  		Identification of plan.

*		*		*		*		*

(c)* * *

            EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE MARYLAND SIP

Code of Maryland administrative regulations (COMAR) citation
Title/subject	State effective date	EPA approval date	Additional
explanation/citation at 40 CFR 52.1100

*           *              *             *               *
*                 *

26.11.19	Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes

*           *              *             *               *
*                 *

<IP_ADDRESS>	Paper, Fabric, Vinyl and Other Plastic Parts Coating	4/19/10
[Insert Federal Register publication date)

[Insert page number where the document begins]	Revisions to Section
.07A, .07B and the addition of  new Section .07D

*           *              *             *               *
*                 *

*            *              *            *                *

 PAGE

 PAGE  11


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 148 (Thursday, August 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36172-36176]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16296]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81252; File No. SR-MIAX-2017-36]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New Type of MIAX Express Interface Port
Known as a Purge Port, To Amend MIAX Options Rule 519C, Mass
Cancellation of Trading Interest, To Adopt a New Purge Message, and To
Amend Its Fee Schedule To Adopt Fees for Purge Ports

July 28, 2017.
    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 July 24, 2017, Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``MIAX Options'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II 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 Rule 519C, Mass
Cancellation of Trading Interest, to adopt new rule text to reflect the
proposed Purge Port functionality, as well as to make clarifying
changes to existing rule text to more accurately describe current
functionality, and to reorganize the rule for ease of reference. The
Exchange is also proposing to amend its Fee Schedule to adopt fees for
Purge Ports.
    The text of the proposed changes to Exchange Rule 519C is attached
as Exhibit 5A. The proposed changes to the Fee Schedule are attached as
Exhibit 5B. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site 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 offer Market Makers \3\ that connect to
the Exchange using the MIAX Express Interface (``MEI'') \4\ a new type
of connection port, named Purge Ports, to be used as dedicated ports
for sending purge messages to the Exchange. The Exchange also proposes
to amend its Fee Schedule to identify and adopt fees for Purge Ports.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 519C, Mass
Cancellation of Trading Interest, to adopt new rule text to reflect the
proposed Purge Port functionality, as well as to make clarifying
changes to existing rule text to more accurately describe current
functionality, and to reorganize the rule for ease of reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Lead Market Makers'',
``Primary Lead Market Makers'' and ``Registered Market Makers''
collectively. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \4\ MIAX Express Interface is a connection to MIAX systems that
enables Market Makers to submit simple and complex electronic quotes
to MIAX. See MIAX Options Fee Schedule, Section 5)d)ii), footnote
26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market Makers connect to the Exchange's System \5\ via their
assigned MEI ports. Currently, the Exchange offers Market Makers two
different types of MEI port connections. The first is a Full Service
Port \6\ which supports all message types, and the other is a Limited
Service Port \7\ which provides slightly less functionality. The
Exchange limits Market Makers to two (2) Full

Service Ports and allows up to eight (8) Limited Service Ports per MIAX
matching engine.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \6\ Full Service MEI Ports provide Market Makers with the
ability to send Market Maker simple and complex quotes, eQuotes, and
quote purge messages to the MIAX System. Full Service MEI Ports are
also capable of receiving administrative information. Market Makers
are limited to two Full Service MEI Ports per matching engine. See
MIAX Options Fee Schedule, Section 5)d)ii), footnote 27.
    \7\ Limited Service MEI Ports provide Market Makers with the
ability to send simple and complex eQuotes and quote purge messages
only, but not Market Maker Quotes, to the MIAX System. Limited
Service MEI Ports are also capable of receiving administrative
information. Market Makers initially receive two Limited Service MEI
Ports per matching engine. See MIAX Options Exchange Fee Schedule,
Section 5)d)ii), footnote 28.
    \8\ A ``matching engine'' is a part of the MIAX electronic
system that processes options quotes and trades on a symbol-by-
symbol basis. Some matching engines will process option classes with
multiple root symbols, and other matching engines will be dedicated
to one single option root symbol (for example, options on SPY will
be processed by one single matching engine that is dedicated only to
SPY). A particular root symbol may only be assigned to a single
designated matching engine. A particular root symbol may not be
assigned to multiple matching engines. See MIAX Options Exchange Fee
Schedule, Section 5)d)ii), footnote 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Purge Ports are a new, optional, third type of MEI
port dedicated solely to handling purge messages which would enable a
Market Maker, by MPID, to remove all or a subset of its (i) quotations
\9\ in the System and block all or a subset of new inbound quotations
from being received;\10\ or (ii) Standard quotations \11\ in the System
and block all or a subset of new inbound Standard quotations from being
received.\12\ Sending a purge message pursuant to (ii) above will not
remove or block eQuotes,\13\ which are a specific type of quotation
that allows the Market Maker to continue to provide targeted liquidity
to the market and to interact with Public Customer \14\ orders. When
quotes have been purged pursuant to (i) or (ii) above,\15\ the block
will remain in effect until the Market Maker requests that the Exchange
remove the block.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The term ``quote'' or ``quotation'' means a bid or offer
entered by a Market Maker that is firm and may update the Market
Maker's previous quote, if any. The Rules of the Exchange provide
for the use of different types of quotes, including Standard quotes
and eQuotes, as more fully described in Rule 517. A Market Maker
may, at times, choose to have multiple types of quotes active in an
individual option. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \10\ A Market Maker currently has the ability to send a purge
message to remove all or a subset of its quotations and block all or
a subset of its new inbound quotations via its MEI port or by
request to the Exchange's Help Desk. That ability is not changing
with this proposal. What is changing with this proposal is the
ability of a Market Maker to send that purge message via the
proposed Purge Ports.
    \11\ A Standard quote is a quote submitted by a Market Maker
that cancels and replaces the Market Maker's previous Standard
quote, if any. See Exchange Rule 517(a)(1).
    \12\ The Exchange is introducing a new purge message that will
remove all or a subset of a Market Maker's Standard quotations and
block all or a subset of its new inbound Standard quotations. This
request may only be sent electronically via a Market Maker's
existing MEI port, or via the new proposed Purge Ports.
    \13\ An eQuote is a quote with a specific time in force that
does not automatically cancel and replace a previous Standard quote
or eQuote. An eQuote can be cancelled by the Market Maker at any
time, or can be replaced by another eQuote that contains specific
instructions to cancel an existing eQuote. See Exchange Rule
517(a)(2).
    \14\ The term ``Public Customer'' means a person that is not a
broker or dealer in securities. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \15\ The Exchange notes that there is no mass cancellation
functionality available to remove eQuotes only and block new inbound
eQuotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purge messages described above may be sent via any type of MEI
port, however, purge messages received on the proposed Purge Ports will
be handled by the System in a way that ensures minimum possible latency
(as Purge Ports solely process purge messages, as opposed to Full
Service MEI Ports and Limited Service MEI Ports, which also process
additional message types), thereby providing Market Makers with a
faster, more efficient means to have their quotes removed from the
System, which will provide Market Makers with an enhanced level of risk
protection.
    The proposed Purge Ports are designed to assist Market Makers in
the management of, and risk control over, their quotes, particularly if
the Market Maker is quoting a large number of options. For example, if
a Market Maker detects market indications that may influence the
direction or bias of its quotes, the Market Maker may use the proposed
Purge Ports to reduce uncertainty and to manage risk by purging all
quotes in a number of options seamlessly to avoid unintended
executions, while continuing to evaluate the direction of the market.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Section (5)(d)(ii) of its Fee
Schedule to identify and adopt fees for Purge Ports. The Exchange
currently assesses monthly MEI Port fees on Market Makers based upon
the number of matching engines used by the Market Maker. Market Makers
are allocated two (2) Full Service MEI Ports and two (2) Limited
Service MEI Ports per matching engine to which they connect.
    The Exchange currently assesses the following MEI Port fees: (i)
$5,000 for Market Maker Assignments in up to 5 option classes or up to
10% of option classes by volume; (ii) $10,000 for Market Maker
Assignments in up to 10 option classes or up to 20% of option classes
by volume; (iii) $14,000 for Market Maker Assignments in up to 40
option classes or up to 35% of option classes by volume; (iv) $17,500
for Market Maker Assignments in up to 100 option classes or up to 50%
of option classes by volume; and (v) $20,500 for Market Maker
Assignments in over 100 option classes or over 50% of option classes by
volume up to all option classes listed on MIAX.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See MIAX Fee Schedule, Section (5)(d)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also currently charges $100 per month for each
additional Limited Service MEI Port per matching engine for Market
Makers over and above the two (2) Limited Service MEI Ports per
matching engine that are allocated with the Full Service MEI Ports.\17\
Market Makers are limited to six (6) additional Limited Service MEI
Ports per matching engine, for a total of eight (8) per matching
engine.\18\ The Full Service MEI Ports, Limited Service MEI Ports and
the additional Limited Service MEI Ports all include access to the
Exchange's primary and secondary data centers and its disaster recovery
center.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
    \18\ See MIAX Fee Schedule, footnote 30.
    \19\ See MIAX Fee Schedule, Section (5)(d)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the introduction of Purge Ports, the Exchange proposes to
amend Section (5)(d)(ii) of its Fee Schedule to provide that a Market
Maker may request and be allocated two (2) Purge Ports per matching
engine to which it connects via a Full Service MEI Port. (That is, a
Market Maker must have a Full Service MEI Port connection to a matching
engine in order to be eligible to receive Purge Ports with respect to
that matching engine.) The Exchange proposes that, for each month in
which the Market Maker has been credentialed to use Purge Ports in the
production environment and has been assigned to quote in at least one
class, the Exchange will assess the Market Maker a flat fee of $1,500
per month, regardless of the number of actual Purge Ports allocated to
the Market Maker. For example, a Market Maker (that requests Purge
Ports) that connects to 10 matching engines would be allocated 20 Purge
Ports, and would be charged $1,500 per month for use of those Purge
Ports. A Market Maker (that requests Purge Ports) that connects to two
(2) matching engines would be allocated four (4) Purge Ports, and would
be charged $1,500 per month for use of those Purge Ports. The Exchange
believes that charging Market Makers a flat monthly fee for use of the
Purge Port service (regardless of the number of matching engines to
which it connects and consequently regardless of the number of Purge
Ports allocated to the Market Maker) is equitable, reasonable, and
competitive with the fees charged by other exchanges that offer
comparable purge port services, as most such exchanges charge per port,
which results in monthly fees for purge port usage that are
significantly higher than $1,500 per month for users with multiple
purge ports.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Bats BXZ Options Exchange Fee Schedule, Options Logical
Port Fees. Bats BZX assesses its members $750 per month per purge
port. See also Nasdaq GEMX Schedule of Fees, Section IV.E. Nasdaq
GEMX assesses its members $1,250 per SQF Purge Port per month,
subject to a monthly cap of $12,500 for SQF Purge Ports and SQF
Ports, applicable to market makers.

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

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 519C, Mass
Cancellation of Trading Interest, to clarify current functionality.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend 519C(a) which reads, ``[a]
Member \21\ may remove all of its quotations and/or cancel all or any
subset of its orders . . . .'' Accordingly, the Exchange is deleting
the reference to quotations from this subsection (a) as quotations will
now be addressed in subsection (b)(2). The Exchange proposes to amend
the sentence to read, ``[a] Member may remove all or a subset of its
orders . . . .'' The Exchange believes that, although there is no
change to existing functionality addressed by subsection (a) of the
rule, the proposed changes to subsection (a) provide greater clarity
regarding the Exchange's risk protection functionality as it relates to
the handling of orders. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend
the rule to change the phrase, ``any subset'' to ``a subset'' to be
consistent with proposed changes to section (b) of the Rule as
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 519C(b) to
reorganize the rule for ease of reference and to reflect the proposed
Purge Port functionality. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
replace existing rule text pertaining to the removal of quotations and
the cancellation of orders with a separate subsection for orders,
proposed new subsection (b)(1); and a separate subsection for
quotations, proposed new subsection (b)(2). The Exchange proposes to
adopt new rule text under subsection (b)(1) to describe current
functionality pertaining to orders which states, ``[a]n EEM may request
that the Exchange cancel all or a subset of its orders in the System
and block all new inbound orders.'' Under this proposal there is no
change to the functionality available for Electronic Exchange Members
(``EEMs'').\22\ The Exchange believes that separately describing
functionality available for EEMs and Market Makers provides greater
clarity and specificity in the Exchange's rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The term ``Electronic Exchange Member'' means the holder of
a Trading Permit who is not a Market Maker. Electronic Exchange
Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See Exchange
Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to adopt new rule text under
subsection (b)(2) pertaining to quotations that provides that a Market
Maker may remove all or a subset of its quotations and block all or a
subset of its new inbound quotations by firm name or MPID.\23\ This
functionality currently exists on the Exchange and is not new, as a
Market Maker may contact Exchange staff to have this action performed
on their behalf or may submit a request to the Exchange's System via
its MEI port. However, what is now being proposed pursuant to this
filing is that this request may also be sent electronically to the
Exchange's System via the new proposed Purge Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The term ``MPID'' means Market Participant Identifier. See
Exchange Rule 519C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to adopt new rule text for new
functionality being introduced in this proposal which provides that a
Market Maker may remove all or a subset of its Standard quotations and
block all or a subset of its new inbound Standard quotations by MPID. A
Market Maker's eQuotes that are in the System will remain and the
Market Maker will retain the ability to continue to send eQuotes to the
System. This request may only be submitted to the Exchange's System
electronically via the Market Maker's MEI port, either via its existing
MEI ports, or via the new, proposed Purge Ports.
    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to amend the rule text which
currently states that, ``[t]he block will remain in effect until the
Member requests Exchange staff to remove the block,'' by removing the
word ``staff.'' To remove a block a Member may (i) send an electronic
message directly into the Exchange's System; or (ii) contact Exchange
staff. Additionally, a Market Maker may make a request to Exchange
staff to remove quotations or may send a message directly to the
Exchange's System via its MEI connection. The Exchange believes
removing the word staff from the rule text more accurately encompasses
the activity under both scenarios.
    The Exchange notes that this proposal does not preclude Members
from using the existing purge messages provided by either the MEI
protocol or the cancel messages provided by the FIX protocol. Under the
MEI protocol, Market Makers may request that all quotations for all
underlyings, or for a specific underlying, be removed, and that new
inbound quotations for all underlyings, or specific underlyings, be
blocked. Under the FIX protocol, EEMs may also request that all, or a
subset, of orders for an MPID, or all Day or GTC orders for an MPID, on
the requesting session, be canceled.
    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change by Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 60
days following the operative date of the proposed rule. The
implementation date will be no later than 60 days following the
issuance of the Regulatory Circular. The Exchange currently anticipates
implementing the proposed rule change on August 3, 2017, subject to
announcement of the actual date via Regulatory Circular.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \24\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \25\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\26\ in that it promotes just and
equitable principles of trade and removes impediments to and perfects
the mechanism of a free and open market. Offering Market Makers
designated Purge Ports would enhance their ability to manage quotes,
quote traffic, and their quoting obligations,\27\ which would, in turn,
improve their risk controls to the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange believes that Purge Ports would foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities because designating Purge Ports for purges only may
encourage better use of dedicated ports. This may, concurrent with the
ports that carry quotes and other information necessary for market
making activities, enable more efficient, as well as fair and
reasonable, use of Market Makers' resources. As Purge Ports are only
available for purging and not for activities such as order or quote
entry, the Purge Ports are not designed to permit unfair discrimination
but rather are designed to enable Market Makers to manage their quoting
risk and meet their heightened quoting obligations that other market

participants are not subject to, which, in turn, benefits all market
participants. The Exchange also notes that similar connectivity and
functionality is offered by other exchanges.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
    \27\ See Exchange Rule 604.
    \28\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 77613 (April 13,
2016), 81 FR 23023 (April 19, 2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-45); 79956
(February 3, 2017), 82 FR 10102 (February 9, 2017) (SR-BatsBZX-2017-
05); and 81095 (July 7, 2017), 82 FR 32409 (July 13, 2017) (SR-ISE-
2017-62).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will not relieve
Market Makers of their continuous quoting obligations under Exchange
Rule 604 and under Regulation NMS Rule 602.\29\ Specifically, any
interest that is executable against a Market Maker's quotes that is
received by the Exchange's matching engine prior to the time that the
purge message is received by the Exchange's matching engine will
automatically execute at that price, up to the quote's size. Market
Makers that purge their quotes will not be relieved of the obligation
to provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis, nor will it
prohibit the Exchange from taking disciplinary action against a Market
Maker for failing to meet its continuous quoting obligation each
trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 242.602.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market
and a national market system and, in general, protects investors and
the public interest by providing Market Makers with an additional purge
message which allows them to remove their Standard quotes and blocks
new inbound Standard quotes from being received yet preserves their
ability to continue to provide liquidity to the market and interact
with Public Customer orders via eQuotes. Further, the Exchange is
clarifying existing rule text in Rule 519C to better describe current
functionality available on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that
clarifying current functionality promotes the protection of investors
and the public interest by helping market participants better
understand the risk protection tools available on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\30\ in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
Members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange believes that its proposed
fees should facilitate the ability of the Exchange to recoup some costs
associated with Purge Ports as well as provide, maintain, and improve
Purge Ports. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in
which exchanges offer connectivity services as a means to facilitate
the trading activities of Members and other participants. Accordingly,
fees charged for connectivity are constrained by the active competition
for the order flow of such participants as well as demand for market
data from the Exchange. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees
for connectivity, affected Members will opt to terminate their
connectivity arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible
range of alternative strategies, including routing to the applicable
exchange through another participant or market center or taking that
exchange's data indirectly. Accordingly, the exchange charging
excessive fees would stand to lose not only connectivity revenues but
also revenues associated with the execution of orders routed to it by
affected Members, and, to the extent applicable, market data revenues.
The Exchange believes that this competitive dynamic imposes powerful
restraints on the ability of any exchange to charge unreasonable fees
for connectivity. The Exchange also believes the proposed fee for the
Purge Ports is equitable, reasonable, and competitive with the rates
charged by competitor exchanges for similar functionality.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \31\ See supra note 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to its fee
schedule are non-discriminatory because they will apply uniformly to
all Market Makers. The proposed Purge Ports are completely voluntary
and no Market Maker is required or under any regulatory obligation to
utilize them. All Market Makers that voluntarily request this service
will be charged the same amount for the same service. All Market Makers
have the option to select any connectivity option, and there is no
differentiation among Market Makers with regard to the fees charged for
the services offered by 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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the
proposed rule change will enhance competition because it will enable it
to offer similar connectivity and functionality as its competitor
exchanges.\32\ In addition, the proposed Purge Ports are completely
voluntary and no Market Maker is required or under any regulatory
obligation to utilize them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See supra note 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe that allowing one type of Member
(Market Makers) and not the other (EEMs) to utilize the proposed Purge
Ports will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the Act, given the roles and
responsibilities required by each type of Member. Market Makers connect
to the Exchange via MEI while EEMs connect to the Exchange via FIX.
Market Makers have a heightened obligation on the Exchange to maintain
a continuous two-sided market, pursuant to Rule 604(e). As such, Market
Makers have an obligation to provide continuous quotes for a large
number of series. The volume of quotes that the Market Maker has in the
market directly correlates to the Market Maker's risk exposure. EEMs,
by contrast, can only send orders to the Exchange and do not have
similar obligations. The Exchange believes providing Market Makers with
an additional risk management tool will enhance competition as this
tool is already offered by other exchanges.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposed amendments to its Fee Schedule
would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. On the contrary,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will enhance competition
because it will enable it to offer similar connectivity and
functionality as its competitor exchanges.\34\ In addition, the
proposed Purge Ports are completely voluntary and no Market Maker is
required or under any regulatory obligation to utilize them. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed change represents a
significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or
pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Market
Makers may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of Market
Makers or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in
the financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that fees for the proposed Purge Ports and
connectivity, in general, are constrained by the robust competition for
order flow among exchanges and non-exchange markets. Further, excessive
fees for

connectivity, including Purge Port fees, would serve to impair an
exchange's ability to compete for order flow rather than burdening
competition. The Exchange also does not believe the proposed rule
change would impact intramarket competition as it would apply to all
Members and non-Members equally.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \35\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\36\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \36\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \37\ permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. In its filing with the Commission,
the Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day operative
delay. As noted above, the Exchange has proposed to announce an
implementation date by Regulatory Circular, which the Exchange
anticipates will be August 3, 2017. The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, as it will enable the Exchange to
allow the enhanced risk protection for Market Makers offered by the
proposed Purge Ports to go into effect without undue delay.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay
requirement and designates the proposed rule change operative upon
filing.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \38\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2017-36 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-2017-36. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2017-36 and should be
submitted on or before August 24, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\39\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16296 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P