\86\ The Exchange will use the following formula to calculate
the percentage of total national average daily volume that the
Market Maker assignment is for purposes of the MEI Port Fee for a
given month:
    Market Maker assignment percentage of national average daily
volume = [total volume during the prior calendar quarter in a class
in which the Market Maker was assigned]/[total national volume in
classes listed on MIAX in the prior calendar quarter].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to assess Market Makers the monthly MEI Port
Fees based on the greatest number of classes listed on MIAX Emerald
that the Market Maker was assigned to quote in on any given day within
a calendar month and the applicable fee rate that is the lesser of
either the per class basis or percentage of total national average
daily volume measurement.
    MEI Port users will be allocated two (2) Full Service MEI Ports and
two (2) Limited Service MEI Ports per Matching Engine to which they
connect. MEI Port Fees include MEI Ports at the Primary, Secondary and
Disaster Recovery data centers. MIAX Emerald Market Makers may request
additional Limited Service MEI Ports for which MIAX Emerald will assess
MIAX Emerald Market Makers $50 per month per additional Limited Service
MEI Port for each Matching Engine. Market Makers are limited to six
additional Limited Service MEI Ports per Matching Engine, for a total
of eight per Matching Engine.
    A MIAX Emerald Market Maker may request and be allocated two (2)
Purge Ports per Matching Engine to which it connects. For each month in
which the MIAX Emerald 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 MIAX Emerald Market
Maker a flat fee which will be waived for the Waiver Period, regardless
of the number of Purge Ports allocated to the MIAX Emerald Market
Maker.
Clearing Trade Drop Port Fee
    The Exchange is proposing to structure its CTD Port as a monthly
fixed amount, not tied to transacted volume of the Member. This fixed
fee structure is the same structure in place at Nasdaq PHLX with
respect to the proposed CTD Port Fees.\87\ CTD provides Exchange
members with real-time clearing trade updates. The updates include the
Member's clearing trade messages on a low latency, real-time basis. The
trade messages are routed to a Member's connection containing certain
information. The information includes, among other things, the
following: (i) Trade date and time; (ii) symbol information; (iii)
trade price/size information; (iv) Member type (for example, and
without limitation, Market Maker, Electronic Exchange Member, Broker-
Dealer); (v) Exchange Member Participant Identifier (``MPID'') for each
side of the transaction, including Clearing Member MPID; and (vi)
strategy specific information for complex transactions. CTD Port will
be assessed in any month the Member is credentialed to use the CTD Port
in the production environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See Nasdaq PHLX Pricing Schedule, Options 7, Section 9,
Other Member Fees, B. Port Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FIX Drop Copy Port Fees
    The Exchange is proposing to structure its FXD Port Fee as a
monthly fixed amount, not tied to transacted volume of the Member. This
fixed fee structure is the same structure in place at Nasdaq PHLX with
respect to FXD Port Fees.\88\ FXD is a messaging interface that will
provide a copy of real-time trade execution, trade correction and trade
cancellation information to FXD Port users who subscribe to the
service. FXD Port users are those users who are designated by an EEM to
receive the information and the information is restricted for use by
the EEM. FXD Port Fees will be assessed in any month the Member is
credentialed to use the FXD Port in the production environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MPID Fees
    MIAX Emerald proposes to assess monthly MPID fees on EEMs based
upon the number of MPIDs assigned to a particular EEM in a given month
in each month the Member is credentialed to use such MPIDs in the
production environment. MIAX Emerald intends to assess MPID fees in
order to cover the administrative costs it incurs in assigning and
managing these identifiers for each EEM.
    In order to provide an incentive to Members to start trading on
MIAX Emerald as soon as possible, all MPID fees assessable to EEMs will
be waived by the Exchange for the Waiver Period for such fees. The
Exchange will submit a rule filing to the Commission to establish the
fee amount and any related requirements, and provide notice to
terminate the applicable Waiver Period. Even though the Exchange is
proposing to waive this particular fee during the Waiver Period, the
Exchange believes that is appropriate to provide market participants
with the overall structure of the fee by outlining the structure on the
Fee Schedule without setting forth a specific fee amount, so that there
is general awareness that the Exchange intends to assess such a fee in
the future, should the Waiver Period terminate and the Exchange
establish an applicable fee. The Exchange believes that its proposal to
waive this fee under this waiver structure is reasonable because this
waiver structure is identical to the waiver structure that is currently
in place at the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX PEARL.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See supra note 65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Support Request Fee
    MIAX Emerald proposes to assess a technical support request fee to
both Members and non-Members that request MIAX Emerald technical
support at any of the MIAX Emerald data centers. MIAX Emerald proposes
that such fee

will be $200 per hour for such technical support. The purpose of the
proposed fee is to permit users to request the use of Exchange's on-
site data center personnel as technical support as a convenience to the
users to test or otherwise assess the user's connectivity to the
Exchange. Other exchanges, including MIAX and MIAX PEARL, charge a fee
for similar services to Members and non-Members.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ See MIAX Fee Schedule, Section 5) f), Member and non-Member
Technical Support Request Fee and MIAX PEARL Fee Schedule, Section
5) f), Member and non-Member Technical Support Request Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Data Fees
    The Exchange proposes to assess fees for its market data products,
MIAX Emerald Top of Market (``ToM'') \91\ and Complex Top of Market
(``cToM'') \92\; Administrative Information Subscriber (``AIS'') \93\;
and MIAX Order Feed (``MOR'').\94\ The Exchange notes that it has
separately filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to
establish the ToM, cToM, AIS, and MOR products (the ``Market Data
Product Filing'').\95\ More information about the ToM, cToM, AIS, and
MOR products can be found in the Market Data Product Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69007 (February 28,
2013), 78 FR 14617 (March 6, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-05).
    \92\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79146 (October 24,
2016), 81 FR 75171(October 28, 2016)(SR-MIAX-2016-36)
    \93\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 69320 (April 5,
2013), 78 FR 21661 (April 11, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-13); 82740
(February 20, 2018), 83 FR 8304 (February 26, 2018) (SR-MIAX-2018-
04).
    \94\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74759 (April 17,
2015), 80 FR 22749 (April 23, 2015) (SR-MIAX-2015-28).
    \95\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85207 (February 27,
2019, 84 FR 7963 (March 5, 2019)) (SR-Emerald-2019-09) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to
Establish MIAX Emerald Top of Market (``ToM'') Data Feed, MIAX
Emerald Complex Top of Market (``cToM'') Data Feed, MIAX Emerald
Administrative Information Subscriber (``AIS'') Data Feed, and MIAX
Emerald Order Feed (``MOR'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To summarize, ToM provides market participants with a direct data
feed that includes the Exchange's best bid and offer, with aggregate
size, and last sale information, based on displayable order and quoting
interest on the Exchange. The ToM data feed includes data that is
identical to the data sent to the processor for the Options Price
Reporting Authority (``OPRA''). ToM will also contain a feature that
provides the number of Priority Customer contracts that are included in
the size associated with the Exchange's best bid and offer.
    cToM will provide subscribers with the same information as the ToM
market data product as it relates to the strategy book, i.e., the
Exchange's best bid and offer for a complex strategy, with aggregate
size, based on displayable order and quoting interest in the complex
strategy on the Exchange. cToM will also provide subscribers with the
identification of the complex strategies currently trading on MIAX
Emerald; complex strategy last sale information; and the status of
securities underlying the complex strategy (e.g., halted, open, or
resumed). cToM is distinct from ToM, and anyone wishing to receive cToM
data must subscribe to cToM regardless of whether they are a current
ToM subscriber. ToM subscribers are not required to subscribe to cToM,
and cToM subscribers are not required to subscribe to ToM.
    AIS provides market participants with a direct data feed that
allows subscribers to receive real-time updates of products traded on
MIAX Emerald, trading status for MIAX Emerald and products traded on
MIAX Emerald, and liquidity seeking event notifications. The AIS market
data feed includes opening imbalance condition information, opening
routing information, expanded quote range information, post-halt
notifications, and liquidity refresh condition information. AIS real-
time messages are disseminated over multicast to achieve a fair
delivery mechanism. AIS notifications provide current electronic system
status allowing subscribers to take necessary actions immediately.
    MOR provides market participants with a direct data feed that
allows subscribers to receive real-time updates of options orders,
products traded on MIAX Emerald, MIAX Emerald Options System status,
and MIAX Emerald Options Underlying trading status. Subscribers to the
data feed will get a list of all options symbols and strategies that
will be traded and sourced on that feed at the start of every session.
    The Exchange proposes to charge monthly fees to Distributors of the
ToM, cToM, AIS, and MOR market data products. MIAX Emerald will assess
market data fees applicable to the market data products on Internal and
External Distributors in each month the Distributor is credentialed to
use the applicable market data product in the production environment. A
``Distributor'' of MIAX Emerald data is any entity that receives a feed
or file of data either directly from MIAX Emerald or indirectly through
another entity and then distributes it either internally (within that
entity) or externally (outside that entity). All Distributors are
required to execute a MIAX Emerald Distributor Agreement. Market data
fees for ToM, cToM, AIS, and MOR will be reduced for new Distributors
for the first month during which they subscribe to the applicable
market data product, based on the number of trading days that have been
held during the month prior to the date on which they have been
credentialed to use the applicable market data product in the
production environment. Such new Distributors will be assessed a pro-
rata percentage of the fees described above, which is the percentage of
the number of trading days remaining in the affected calendar month as
of the date on which they have been credentialed to use the applicable
market data product in the production environment, divided by the total
number of trading days in the affected calendar month.
    Other exchanges, including MIAX and MIAX PEARL, charge fees for
market data products to Members and non-Members. In order to provide an
incentive to Members and non-Members to receive the market data feeds
as soon as possible, all market data fees assessable to Distributors
for ToM, cToM, AIS, and MOR will be waived by the Exchange for the
Waiver Period for such fees. The Exchange will submit a rule filing to
the Commission to establish the fee amount and any related
requirements, and provide notice to terminate the applicable Waiver
Period. Even though the Exchange is proposing to waive this particular
fee during the Waiver Period, the Exchange believes that is appropriate
to provide market participants with the overall structure of the fee by
outlining the structure on the Fee Schedule without setting forth a
specific fee amount, so that there is general awareness that the
Exchange intends to assess such a fee in the future, should the Waiver
Period terminate and the Exchange establish an applicable fee. The
Exchange believes that its proposal to waive this fee under this waiver
structure is reasonable because this waiver structure is identical to
the waiver structure that is currently in place at the Exchange's
affiliate, MIAX PEARL.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See supra note 65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not propose to adopt any other fees at this time.
The Exchange expects to adopt additional fees after the terminations of
applicable Waiver Periods as determined by the Exchange, which shall be
at a later date. The Exchange will submit rule filings with the
Commission prior to any such fees becoming effective.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is

consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \97\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \98\ in particular, in
that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges
among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities.
The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general to protect investors and the public interest and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \98\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transaction Fees
Add/Remove Tiered Exchange Rebates/Fees
    The Exchange believes the rebates and fees proposed for
transactions on MIAX Emerald are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. MIAX Emerald operates within a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily send order flow to
several other competing venues if, among other things, they deem fees
at a particular venue to be unreasonable or excessive. The proposed fee
structure is intended to attract order flow to MIAX Emerald by offering
market participants incentives to submit their orders or quotes to MIAX
Emerald.
Tiers and Their Application
    The Exchange believes that its proposed methodology for calculating
its tiers is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory, as
this methodology is similar to how another exchange calculates its
tiers. The Exchange's methodology, which analyzes three alternative
calculation methods and then selects the method that is the highest
tier reached to the Member, is similar to how GEMX calculates its
tiers.\99\ For example, GEMX has four qualifying tiers, the same number
that the Exchange is proposing. GEMX calculates its tiers using CTCV
(Customer Total Consolidated Volume) at the OCC, which is fundamentally
the same denominator method that the Exchange is proposing. GEMX
aggregates volume of affiliated members, as the Exchange is also
proposing. GEMX has two alternative calculation methods, however the
Exchange is proposing three alternative calculation methods, which the
Exchange believes provides greater benefit to Members, as there is an
additional method to enable qualification for a higher tier. For GEMX,
for certain of its tiers, offers a calculation that looks at absolute
ADV volume (i.e. 20,000 ADV), in addition to, or in lieu of,
percentages of CTCV, whereas the Exchange is proposing to only look at
monthly percentages of CTCV. The Exchange's proposed methodology for
calculating its tiers is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory because it applies equally to all Members. Volume-based
pricing models such as those proposed on the Exchange have been widely
adopted by options exchanges and are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because they are open to all Members and provide
additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to the
value of an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of
market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or
growth patterns, and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the
price and volume discovery processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ See Nasdaq GEMX, Options 7 Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to offer a rebate or lower fee to Makers
that provide liquidity in Penny and Non-Penny classes is also equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory under the Act. The Exchange believes
that the proposed maker-taker model is an important competitive tool
for exchanges and directly or indirectly can provide better prices for
investors. The proposed fee structure may incentivize the MIAX Emerald
bid and offer because the rebate or lower fee assessable to Makers
effectively subsidizes, and thus encourages, the posting of liquidity.
The Exchange believes that the Maker rebate or lower Maker fee will
also provide MIAX Emerald Market Makers with greater incentive to
either match or improve upon the best price displayed on MIAX Emerald,
all to the benefit of investors and the public in the form of improved
execution prices.
Priority Customers
    The Exchange believes the proposed Tiered rebates and fees assessed
on Priority Customers are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory because they are, as detailed in the Purpose section
above, comparable to fees that Priority Customers are assessed at other
competing exchanges.\100\ The Exchange believes charging lower fees and
providing higher rebates to Priority Customer orders attracts that
order flow to the Exchange and thereby creates liquidity to the benefit
of all market participants who trade on the Exchange. Further, the
Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
to assess lower fees to Priority Customer orders than for orders for
Origins other than Priority Customer. The Exchange believes assesses
Priority Customers lower or no transaction fees is equitable not
unfairly discriminatory because market participants generally seek to
trade with Priority Customer order flow, which in turn enhances
liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants.
Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Market Makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
This limitation does not apply to participants on the Exchange whose
behavior is substantially similar to that of market professionals,
including Non-Priority Customers, Non-MIAX Emerald Market Makers, Firm
Proprietary, and Broker-Dealers, who will generally submit a higher
number of orders than Priority Customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See supra notes 16 and 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MIAX Emerald Market Makers
    The Exchange believes that its proposed Tiered transaction rebates
and fees for MIAX Emerald Market Makers are reasonable, equitable, and
not unfairly discriminatory because they are available to all MIAX
Emerald Market Makers and are reasonably related to the value to the
Exchange that comes with higher market quality and higher levels of
liquidity in the price and volume discovery processes. Such increased
liquidity at the Exchange should allow it to spread its administrative
and infrastructure costs over a greater number of transactions leading
to lower costs per transaction.
    The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for MIAX Emerald Market Makers to be assessed generally
lower fees or higher rebates than other professional market
participants (such as non-Priority Customers, Broker-Dealers, Non-MIAX
Emerald Market Makers and Firm Proprietary). MIAX Emerald Market Makers
have obligations that other professional market participants do not. In
particular, they must maintain continuous two-sided markets in the
classes in which they are registered to trade, and must meet certain
minimum quoting requirements. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is
appropriate that MIAX Emerald Market Makers be assessed lower fees or
higher rebates

since they have the potential to provide greater volumes of liquidity
to the market.
Non-MIAX Emerald Market Makers
    The Exchange believes the proposed Tiered rebates and fees assessed
on Non-MIAX Emerald Market Makers are reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory because they are, as detailed in the Purpose
section above, comparable to fees that non-market makers are assessed
at other competing exchanges.\101\ The tiered rebates/fees assessable
to Non-MIAX Emerald Market Makers proposed by the Exchange for simple
orders are also similar in structure to and in the range of the
transaction rebates and fees charged by GEMX for transactions for the
accounts of ``Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM).'' The fees
proposed by the Exchange for Non-MIAX Emerald Market Maker complex
transactions in Penny classes are also similar to those fees charged by
Nasdaq ISE to a ``Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker (FarMM)'' for complex
transactions in Nasdaq ISE Select Symbols. The fees proposed by the
Exchange for Non-MIAX Emerald Market Maker transactions in a PRIME/
cPRIME auction are also similar to those assessed by GEMX for
transactions on behalf of its Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Makers (FarMM) for
orders executed in a GEMX PIM auction in both Penny and Non-Penny
classes. Finally, the rebates and fees for Non-MIAX Emerald Market
Makers are the same amounts as the rebates and fees assessed by the
Exchange on other professional Origins (Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer,
Non-Priority Customer), with only minor differences in the highest
Tiers for certain simple Taker fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See supra notes 16 and 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealers
    The Exchange believes the proposed Tiered rebates and fees assessed
on Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealers are reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory because they are, as detailed in the Purpose
section above, comparable to fees that orders for Firm Proprietary/
Broker-Dealers are assessed at other competing exchanges. The tiered
rebates/fees assessable to Firm Proprietary or Broker-Dealers, proposed
by the Exchange for simple orders are also similar in structure to and
in the range of the transaction rebates and fees charged by GEMX for
transactions for the accounts of ``Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer.''
The fees proposed by the Exchange for Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer
complex transactions in Penny classes are also similar to those fees
charged by Nasdaq ISE to ``Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer'' order for
complex transactions in Nasdaq ISE Select Symbols. The fees proposed by
the Exchange for Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer transactions in a
PRIME/cPRIME auction are also similar to those assessed by GEMX for
transactions on behalf of its Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer orders
executed in a GEMX PIM auction in both Penny and Non-Penny classes.
Finally, the rebates and fees for Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealers are
the same amounts as the rebates and fees assessed by the Exchange on
other professional Origins (Non-MIAX Emerald Market Makers, Non-
Priority Customer), with only minor differences in the highest Tiers
for certain simple Taker fees.
Non-Priority Customers
    The Exchange believes the proposed Tiered rebates and fees assessed
on Non-Priority Customers are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory because they are, as detailed in the Purpose section
above, comparable to fees that Non-Priority Customers are assessed at
other competing exchanges. The tiered rebates/fees assessable to Non-
Priority Customers proposed by the Exchange are also similar in
structure to and in the range of the transaction rebates and fees for
simple orders charged by GEMX for transactions for the accounts of
``Professional Customers.'' The fees proposed by the Exchange for Non-
Priority Customer complex transactions in Penny classes are also
similar to those fees charged by Nasdaq ISE for ``Professional
Customers'' for complex transactions in Nasdaq ISE Select Symbols. The
fees proposed by the Exchange for Non-Priority Customer transactions in
a PRIME/cPRIME auction are also similar to those assessed by GEMX for
transactions on behalf of its Professional Customer orders executed in
a GEMX PIM auction in both Penny and Non-Penny classes. Finally, the
rebates and fees for Non-Priority Customers are the same amounts as the
rebates and fees assessed by the Exchange on other professional Origins
(Non-MIAX Emerald Market Makers, Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer), with
only minor differences in the highest Tiers for certain simple Taker
fees.
Penny and Non-Penny Classes
    The Exchange believes that establishing different pricing for
options in Penny classes and Non-Penny classes is reasonable,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because options in Penny
classes are generally more liquid as compared to Non-Penny classes.
Additionally, other competing options exchanges differentiate pricing
in a similar manner.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ See Nasdaq PHLX Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section 4,
Section II; NYSE American Options Fee Schedule, Section 1; Cboe
Exchange, Inc., Fee Schedule, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complex Transactions
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rebates and fees for
complex orders is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because all similarly situated market participants are subject to the
same fee and rebate structure for complex order transactions, and
access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly
discriminatory. With the exception of Priority Customer Origins which
receive higher rebates and lower fees, all other professional Origins
(Non-Emerald Market Maker, Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, Non-Priority
Customer) are assessed the same rebate and fee amounts. MIAX Emerald
Market Makers are also assessed higher rebates and lower fees than
those professionals in certain Tiers, however MIAX Emerald Market
Makers have additional obligations discussed above that warrant such
differences. The Exchange believes that the proposed tiered fee
structure for maker rebates and fees and taker rebates and fees for
complex orders, carving out orders that are contra to Priority Customer
Origin is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
the structure is consistent with other options markets that also assess
different transaction fees depending on the contra Origin.\103\
Additionally, the Exchange believes the structure is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all similarly
situated market participants in the same Origin type are subject to the
same tiered rebates and fees and access to the Exchange is offered on
terms that are not unfairly discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See supra note 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRIME/cPRIME
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee structure for PRIME/
cPRIME Auction transaction fees and rebates is reasonable, equitable,
and not unfairly discriminatory. The proposed fee structure is
reasonably designed because it is intended to incentivize market
participants to send simple and complex order flow to the Exchange in
order to participate in the price improvement mechanism in a manner
that enables the Exchange to improve its overall competitiveness and
strengthen its market quality for all market

participants. PRIME/cPRIME Auctions and the corresponding fees are also
reasonably designed because they are within the range of fees and
rebates assessed by other exchanges employing similar fee structures
for complex orders submitted and executed in a price improvement
mechanism. Other competing exchanges offer different fees and rebates
for complex agency orders, contra-side orders, and responders to an
auction in a manner similar to the proposal. Other competing exchanges
also charge different rates for transactions in their price improvement
mechanisms for Priority Customers versus Origins other than Priority
Customer in a manner similar to the proposal.
    The PRIME and cPRIME fee and rebate structure is reasonable,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply
equally to Priority Customer orders, Market Maker orders, Non-MIAX
Emerald Market Maker orders, Broker-Dealer orders, Firm Proprietary
orders, and Non-Priority Customers, in each respective category of
PRIME and cPRIME orders. All similarly situated categories of
participants are subject to the same transaction fee and rebate
schedule, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not
unfairly discriminatory. The PRIME and cPRIME fee and rebate structure
is reasonably designed because it is intended to incentivize market
participants to send complex orders to the Exchange in order to
participate in the price improvement mechanism in a manner that enables
the Exchange to improve its overall competitiveness and strengthen its
market quality for all market participants.
QCC Orders
    The Exchange believes the proposed transaction fees for QCC orders
is reasonable because the proposed amount is in line with the amount
assessed at other Exchanges for similar transactions.\104\
Additionally, the proposed fees would be charged to all Origins except
Priority Customer. Assessing QCC rates to all market participants
except Priority Customers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because Priority Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange
for the benefit of all market participants. Specifically, Priority
Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities, which attracts Market-Makers. An increase in the
activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter
spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order
flow from other market participants. By assessing a $0.00 fee for
Priority Customer orders, the QCC transaction fees will not discourage
the sending of Priority Customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See supra note 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rebate for the initiating order
side of a QCC transaction is reasonable because other competing
exchanges also provide a rebate on the initiating order side.
Additionally, the proposed rebate amount is within the range of the
rebate amounts at the other competing exchanges.\105\ The Exchange
believes the proposed rebate is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it applies to all Members that enter the
initiating order (except for when both the initiator and contra-side
orders are Priority Customers) and because it is intended to
incentivize the sending of more QCC Orders to the Exchange. The
Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to not provide a rebate for the initiating order for QCC
transactions for which both the initiator and the contra-side are
Priority Customers since Priority Customers are already incentivized by
a reduced fee for submitting QCC Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

cQCC Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed transaction fees for cQCC orders
are reasonable because the proposed amounts are identical to the
proposed fees for QCC transactions and are in line with the amounts
assessed at other Exchanges for similar transactions.\106\
Additionally, the proposed fees would be assessed to all Origins except
Priority Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ See BOX Options Market LLC (``BOX'') Fee Schedule, Section
I(D) (BOX does not charge Public Customers but charges Professional
Customers, Broker-Dealers and Market Makers $0.17 per contract on
both Agency and Contra Orders); see also Cboe Exchange, Inc.
(``Cboe'') Fee Schedule, ``QCC Rate Table,'' Page 5 (Cboe charges
non-Public Customers $0.17 per contract and does not charge Public
Customers); see also NYSE American Options Fee Schedule, Section I.F
(NYSE American charges Non-Customers $0.20 per contract, Specialists
and e-Specialists $0.13 per contract, and does not charge Customer
and Professional Customers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rebate for the initiating order
side of a cQCC transaction is reasonable because other competing
exchanges also provide a rebate on the initiating order side.\107\
Additionally, the proposed rebate amount is within the range of the
rebate amounts at the other competing exchanges.\108\ The Exchange
believes the proposed rebate is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it applies to all Members that enter the
initiating order (except for when both the initiator and contra-side
orders are Priority Customers) and because it is intended to
incentivize the sending of cQCC Orders to the Exchange. The Exchange
believes it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory
to not provide a rebate for the initiating order for cQCC transactions
for which both the initiator and the contra-side orders are Priority
Customers since Priority Customers are already incentivized by a
reduced fee for submitting cQCC Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ See BOX Fee Schedule, Section I(D)(1); see also Cboe Fee
Schedule, ``QCC Rate Table,'' Page 5; see also NYSE American Options
Fee Schedule, Section I.F; see also Nasdaq ISE Pricing Schedule,
Options 7, Section 6, Other Options Fees and Rebate, A. QCC and
Solicitation Rebate.
    \108\ See BOX Fee Schedule, Section I(D)(1) (a $0.14 per
contract rebate will be applied to the Agency Order where at least
one party to the QCC transaction is a Non-Public Customer); see also
Cboe Fee Schedule, ``QCC Rate Table,'' Page 5 (a $0.10 per contract
credit will be delivered to the TPH Firm that enters the order into
Cboe Command but will only be paid on the initiating side of the QCC
transaction); see also NYSE American Options Fee Schedule, Section
I.F (a $0.07 credit is applied to Floor Brokers executing 300,000 or
fewer contracts in a month and a $0.10 credit is applied to Floor
Brokers executing more than 300,000 contracts in a month); see also
Nasdaq ISE Pricing Schedule, Options 7, Section 6, Other Options
Fees and Rebate, A. QCC and Solicitation Rebate (rebates range from
$0.00 to $0.11 per contract).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C2C and cC2C Fees
    The Exchange believes that adding the C2C fee to the Fee Schedule
is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because it
clarifies that there is no fee applicable for these orders which are
comprised solely of Priority Customer orders. The Exchange believes
that it will make it more transparent as to how the Exchange assesses
such fee and avoid any confusion as to how such fee is assessed for
simple (C2C) and complex (cC2C) orders. The Exchange believes that the
proposed transaction fee for cC2C Orders is reasonable because the
proposed amount is identical to the fee assessed for C2C transactions,
which is currently $0.00. The proposed fees would be charged to all
Priority Customers alike and the Exchange believes that assessing a
$0.00 fee to Priority Customers is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. By assessing a $0.00 fee to Priority Customer orders,
the C2C and cC2C transaction fees will not discourage the sending of
Priority Customer orders.
Routing Fees
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Routing Fees are
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly

discriminatory because they seek to recoup costs incurred by MIAX
Emerald when routing orders to various away markets. In determining its
proposed Routing Fees, the Exchange took into account transaction fees
and rebates assessed by the away markets to which the Exchange routes
orders, as well as the Exchange's clearing costs,\109\ administrative,
regulatory, and technical costs associated with routing orders to an
away market. The Exchange uses unaffiliated routing brokers to route
orders to the away markets; the costs associated with the use of these
services are included in the Routing Fees specified in the Fee
Schedule. This Routing Fees structure is not only similar to the
Exchange's affiliates, MIAX and MIAX PEARL, but is also comparable to
the structures in place at other exchanges, such as Cboe BZX
Options.\110\ The Exchange believes that having 8 groupings for its
proposed routing fees is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange will be able to better approximate
its costs associated with routing orders to away markets. The per-
contract transaction fee amount associated with each grouping closely
approximates the Exchange's all-in cost (plus an additional, non-
material amount) to execute that corresponding contract at that
corresponding exchange. The Exchange notes that in determining the
appropriate groupings, the Exchange considered the transaction fees and
rebates assessed by away markets, and grouped exchanges together that
assess transaction fees for routed orders within a similar range. This
same logic and structure applies to all of the groupings in the
proposed Routing Fees table. By utilizing the same structure that is
utilized by the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX and MIAX PEARL, those
Members which are Members of the Exchange, MIAX, and MIAX PEARL, will
be assessed Routing Fees in the same manner, which the Exchange
believes will minimize any confusion as to the method of assessing
Routing Fees between the three exchanges for those Members. This
proposal is identical to the routing fee tables of the Exchange's
affiliates, MIAX and MIAX PEARL.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See supra note 57.
    \110\ See supra note 56.
    \111\ See supra note 59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Fees
Sales Value Fee
    The assessment by the Exchange of the proposed Sales Value Fee is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory since it allows
the Exchange to offset the cost it incurs in payment to the Commission
of a transaction fee that is designed to recover the costs related to
the government's supervision and regulation of the securities markets
and securities professionals. The amount of the fee is the same amount
assessed to the Exchange pursuant to Section 31 of the Exchange Act.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to recover the actual costs
associated with the payment of Section 31 fees and other exchanges,
including MIAX, charge the same fee to their market participants.
Web CRD Fees
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for the proposed FINRA fees to be included on the Fee
Schedule because these fees are not being assessed or set by MIAX
Emerald, but by FINRA, and will be assessed to broker-dealers that
register associated persons through FINRA's Web CRD system, and other
exchanges, including MIAX, charge the same fees to their market
participants.
Non-Transaction Fees
Membership Fees
    The Exchange believes that the assessment of one-time Membership
Application fees is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. As described in the Purpose section, the one-time
application fees are charged by other options exchanges, including MIAX
and MIAX PEARL, and are designed to recover costs associated with the
processing of such applications. MIAX Emerald believes it is reasonable
and equitable to waive the fee to applicants who apply for membership
during the Waiver Period since the waiver of such fees provides
incentives to interested applicants to apply early for MIAX Emerald
membership. This in turn provides MIAX Emerald with potential order
flow and liquidity providers as it begins operations. The waiver will
apply equally to all applicants during the Waiver Period for the
membership application fee.
Trading Permit Fees
    The Exchange believes that the assessment of Trading Permit fees is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The assessment
of Trading Permit fees is done by the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX and
MIAX PEARL, and is commonly done by other exchanges as described in the
Purpose section above. MIAX Emerald believes it is reasonable and
equitable to waive the fee to Members during the Waiver Period since
the waiver of such fees provides incentives to interested Members to
apply early for trading permits. This in turn provides MIAX Emerald
with potential order flow and liquidity providers as it begins
operations. The waiver of the Trading Permit fees will apply equally to
all Members during the Waiver Period.
API and Network Testing and Certification Fees
    MIAX Emerald believes that the assessment of API and Network
Testing and Certification fees is a reasonable allocation of its costs
and expenses among its Members and other persons using its facilities
since it is recovering the costs associated with providing such
infrastructure testing and certification services. Other exchanges,
including MIAX and MIAX PEARL, charge a fee for similar services to
Members and non-Members.
    MIAX Emerald believes it is reasonable and equitable to waive the
API Testing and Certification fee assessable to Members and non-Members
during the Waiver Period since the waiver of such fees provides
incentives to interested Members and non-Members to test their APIs
early. Determining system operability with the Exchange's system early
will in turn provide MIAX Emerald with potential order flow and
liquidity providers as it begins operations. The waiver of API Testing
and Certification fees will apply equally to all Members and non-
Members during the Waiver Period.
    Additionally, MIAX Emerald believes it is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory to assess different Network Testing and
Certification fees to Members and non-Members. The higher fee charged
to non-Members reflects the greater amount of time spent by MIAX
Emerald employees testing and certifying non-Members. It has been MIAX
Emerald's experience that Member testing takes less time than non-
Member testing because Members have more experience testing these
systems with exchanges; generally fewer questions and issues arise
during the testing and certification process.
System Connectivity Fees
    The Exchange believes that the proposed pass-through of external
connectivity fees and Port Fees constitute an equitable allocation of
fees, and are not unfairly discriminatory, because they allow the
Exchange to recover costs associated with offering access through the
network connections and access and services through the Ports,
responding to customer requests, configuring MIAX

Emerald systems, programming API user specifications and administering
the various services. Access to the MIAX Emerald market is offered on
fair and non-discriminatory terms.
    MIAX Emerald believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to pass-through External Connectivity fees to Members
and non-Members that establish connections with MIAX Emerald through a
third-party. MIAX Emerald will only pass-through the actual costs it is
charged by third-party external vendors. MIAX Emerald believes it is
reasonable and equitable to recover costs charged it on behalf of a
Member or non-Member that establishes connections with MIAX Emerald
through a third party. Other exchanges, including MIAX, charge a fee
for similar services to Members and non-Members.
    MIAX Emerald believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess Port Fees on both Members and non-Members who
use such services. In particular, the Exchange believes that it is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess Port
Fees on Members since the Ports enable Members to submit orders and to
receive information regarding transactions. Specifically, the FIX Port,
MEI Port, CTD Port and FXD Port enable Members to submit orders
electronically to the Exchange for processing. The Exchange believes
that its proposed fees are reasonable in that other exchanges offer
similar ports with similar services and charge fees for the use of such
ports, including MIAX.
    MIAX Emerald believes it is reasonable and equitable to waive most
of the Port Fees assessable to Members and non-Members during the
Waiver Period since the waiver of such fees provides incentives to
Members and non-Members to connect to the Ports early. Determining
connectivity and system operability with the Exchange's system early
will in turn provide MIAX Emerald with potential order flow and
liquidity providers as it begins operations. The waiver of most of the
Port Fees will apply equally to all Members and non-Members during the
Waiver Period. The sole Port Fee that is not waived is the Additional
Limited Service MEI Ports Fee. The Exchange believes it is reasonable
to exclude this fee from the Waiver Period in order to ensure that
Members and non-Members do not request an excessive number of
Additional Limited Service MEI Ports, since there is no fee associated
with such Ports.
    MIAX Emerald believes that its fees for MPIDs are reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that they apply to all
EEMs equally and allow the Exchange to recover operational and
administrative costs in assigning and maintaining such services based
on the number of MPIDs assigned to the particular EEM in a given month
in each month the Member is credentialed to use such MPIDs in the
production environment. The Exchange believes that its proposed fees
are reasonable in that other exchanges charge fees for similar
services, including MIAX.
    MIAX Emerald believes it is reasonable and equitable to waive the
MPID fee to EEMs during the Waiver Period since the waiver of such fees
provides incentives to Members to apply early. This in turn provides
MIAX Emerald with potential order flow and liquidity providers as it
begins operations. The waiver of the MPID fees will apply equally to
all Members during the Waiver Period.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Technical Support fee is
fair, equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory, because it is
assessed equally to all Members and non-Members who request technical
support. Furthermore, Members and non-Members are not required to use
the service but instead it is offered as a convenience to all Members
and non-Members. The proposed fee is reasonably designed because it
will permit both Members and non-Members to request the use of the
Exchange's on-site data center personnel as technical support and as a
convenience in order to test or otherwise assess the User's
connectivity to the Exchange and the fee is within the range of the fee
charged by other exchanges for similar services and is identical to the
same fee assessed by MIAX and MIAX PEARL.
Market Data Fees
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to assess market data fees
is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act in that
it provides an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among
distributors of ToM, cToM, AIS and MOR, because all Distributors in
each of the respective category of Distributor (i.e., Internal and
External) will be assessed the same fees as other Distributors in their
category for the applicable market data product.
    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to
offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that
this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers,
and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market
data:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data when broker-dealers may choose to
receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own
internal analysis of the need for such data. \112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

    By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability
of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals
of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If
the free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to
broker-dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is
sold should be set by the market as well.
    In July, 2010, Congress adopted H.R. 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (``Dodd-Frank Act''),
which amended Section 19 of the Act. Among other things, Section 916 of
the Dodd-Frank Act amended paragraph (A) of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act
by inserting the phrase ``on any person, whether or not the person is a
member of the self-regulatory organization'' after ``due, fee or other
charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization.'' As a result, all
SRO rule proposals establishing or changing dues, fees or other charges
are immediately effective upon filing regardless of whether such dues,
fees or other charges are imposed on members of the SRO, non-members,
or both. Section 916 further amended paragraph (C) of Section 19(b)(3)
of the Act to read, in pertinent part, ``At any time within the 60-day
period beginning on the date of filing of such a proposed rule change
in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) [of Section 19(b)],
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the
rules of the self-regulatory organization made thereby, 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 this title. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under paragraph
(2)(B) [of Section 19(b)] to determine whether the proposed rule should
be approved or disapproved.''
    The Exchange believes that these amendments to Section 19 of the
Act reflect Congress's intent to allow the Commission to rely upon the
forces of competition to ensure that fees for

market data are reasonable and equitably allocated. Although Section
19(b) had formerly authorized immediate effectiveness for a ``due, fee
or other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization,'' the
Commission adopted a policy and subsequently a rule stating that fees
for data and other products available to persons that are not members
of the self-regulatory organization must be approved by the Commission
after first being published for comment. At the time, the Commission
supported the adoption of the policy and the rule by pointing out that
unlike members, whose representation in self-regulatory organization
governance was mandated by the Act, non-members should be given the
opportunity to comment on fees before being required to pay them, and
that the Commission should specifically approve all such fees. MIAX
Emerald believes that the amendment to Section 19 reflects Congress's
conclusion that the evolution of self-regulatory organization
governance and competitive market structure have rendered the
Commission's prior policy on non-member fees obsolete. Specifically,
many exchanges have evolved from member-owned, not-for-profit
corporations into for-profit, investor-owned corporations (or
subsidiaries of investor-owned corporations). Accordingly, exchanges no
longer have narrow incentives to manage their affairs for the exclusive
benefit of their members, but rather have incentives to maximize the
appeal of their products to all customers, whether members or non-
members, so as to broaden distribution and grow revenues. Moreover, the
Exchange believes that the change also reflects an endorsement of the
Commission's determinations that reliance on competitive markets is an
appropriate means to ensure equitable and reasonable prices. Simply
put, the change reflects a presumption that all fee changes should be
permitted to take effect immediately, since the level of all fees are
constrained by competitive forces. The Exchange therefore believes that
the assessment of fees for the use of ToM, cToM, AIS and MOR is proper
for all Distributors.
    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoaliton v. SEC, No. 09-1042 (D.C. Cir.
2010), although reviewing a Commission decision made prior to the
effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act, upheld the Commission's reliance
upon competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees
for market data:

    In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress
intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of
competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system. \113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ NetCoaltion, at 15 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92
(1975), as reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323).

    The court's conclusions about Congressional intent are therefore
reinforced by the Dodd-Frank Act amendments, which create a presumption
that exchange fees, including market data fees, may take effect
immediately, without prior Commission approval, and that the Commission
should take action to suspend a fee change and institute a proceeding
to determine whether the fee change should be approved or disapproved
only where the Commission has concerns that the change may not be
consistent with the Act.
    MIAX Emerald believes that the assessment of the proposed market
data fees for ToM, cToM, AIS and MOR is fair and equitable in
accordance with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, and not unreasonably
discriminatory in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. As
described above, market data fees are assessed by other exchanges,
including MIAX.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.69323 (April 5,
2013), 78 FR 21677(April 11, 2013)(SR-MIAX-2013-14); 73326 (October
9, 2014), 79 FR 62233 (October 16, 2014)(SR-MIAX-2014-51); 74857
(May 1, 2015), 88 FR 26306 (May 7, 2015)(SR-MIAX-2015-32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the decision as to whether or not to subscribe to ToM,
cToM, AIS and MOR is entirely optional to all parties. Potential
subscribers are not required to purchase the ToM, cToM, AIS or MOR
market data feed, and MIAX Emerald is not required to make the ToM,
cToM, AIS or MOR market data feed available. Subscribers can
discontinue their use at any time and for any reason, including due to
their assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. The allocation
of fees among subscribers is fair and reasonable because, if the market
deems the proposed fees to be unfair or inequitable, firms can diminish
or discontinue their use of this data.
    MIAX Emerald believes it is reasonable and equitable to waive the
market data fees to Distributors during the Waiver Period since the
waiver of such fees provides incentives to interested Distributors to
receive the data feeds early. This in turn provides MIAX Emerald with
potential order flow and liquidity providers as it begins operations.
The waiver of the market data fees will apply equally to all
Distributors during the Waiver Period.
    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 establish
fees that are competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons
described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees in the
MIAX Emerald Fee Schedule appropriately reflect this competitive
environment.

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

    MIAX Emerald 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. Unilateral action by MIAX
Emerald in establishing rebates and fees for services provided to its
Members and others using its facilities will not have an impact on
competition. As a new entrant in the already highly competitive
environment for equity options trading, MIAX Emerald does not have the
market power necessary to set prices for services that are unreasonable
or unfairly discriminatory in violation of the Act. MIAX Emerald's
proposed rebates and fees, as described herein, are comparable to
rebates and fees charged by other options exchanges for the same or
similar services, including those rebates and fees assessed by its
affiliates, MIAX and MIAX PEARL.

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,\115\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \116\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \116\ 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EMERALD-2019-15 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-EMERALD-2019-15. 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-EMERALD-2019-15 and should be submitted
on or before April 17, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\117\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-05816 Filed 3-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Date Modified 5/ 25/ 2006 By: Abt Associates Inc.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76406-76407]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31399]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0217; FRL-9500-8]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Sulfuric Acid Plants
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 6,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2011-0217, to: (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail
to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
2822IT, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26900), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to both EPA and OMB within 30
days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0217, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in
the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified
above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public
viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without
change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public
disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NSPS for Sulfuric Acid Plants (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1057.12, OMB Control Number 2060-0041.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2011.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the

collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Sulfuric
Acid Plants were proposed on August 17, 1971, and promulgated on
December 23, 1971. These standards apply to any sulfuric acid facility
commencing construction, modification, or reconstruction after the date
of proposal. The control of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and acid
mist requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment,
but also the proper operation and maintenance of that equipment. Sulfur
dioxide and acid mist emissions from sulfuric acid plants result from
the burning of sulfur or sulfur-bearing feed-stock to form
SO2, catalytic oxidation of SO2 to sulfur
trioxide, and absorption of SO2 in a strong acid stream.
These standards rely on the capture of SO2 and acid mist by
venting to a control device.
    Owners or operators of sulfuric acid plants are required to make
the following one-time-only reports, notification of the date of
construction or reconstruction, notification of actual startup dates,
notification of any physical or operational change to an existing
facility, and notification of demonstration of the continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS). The owners and operators should notify the
Administrator of the date of the initial performance test and the
results of the test. After the initial recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, semiannual reports are required if there has been an
exceedance of control device operating parameters. Respondents are also
required to maintain records of occurrence and duration of any startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, or any period during which the monitoring
system is inoperative.
    Notifications are to inform the Agency or delegated authority when
a source becomes subject to the standard. The reviewing authority may
then inspect the source to ensure that the pollution control devices
are properly installed and operating and that the standards are being
met. Performance test reports are required as these are the Agency's
records of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission
standards and to serve as a record of the operating conditions under
which compliance are to be achieved. The information generated by
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements described in this
ICR are used by the Agency to ensure that facilities that are affected
by the standard continue to operate the control equipment and achieve
continuous compliance with the regulation.
    All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In
the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are
sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart H, as
authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required
information consists of emissions data and other information that have
been determined to be private.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for the EPA
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are
identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 81
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Sulfuric acid plants.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 53.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 8,594.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1,061,150, which includes $822,650 in
labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and $238,500 in operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: The adjustment decrease in burden from
the most recently approved ICR is due to a more accurate estimate of
existing and anticipated new sources. After consulting with the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and a number of trade
associations, our data indicates that there are approximately 53
sources subject to the rule, as compared with the active ICR that shows
103 sources. There are no new facilities expected to be constructed
over the next three years of this ICR. The decline in the number of
sources is partially due to: (1) Plant closures, as the cost to
retrofit aging facilities increased due to the down turn in the
economy; (2) corporate mergers; and (3) foreign competition. Therefore,
there is a net decrease in the burden to industry.
    Because there are no new sources with reporting requirements, no
capital/startup costs are incurred. The only cost that is incurred is
for the O&M of the monitoring equipment.

    Dated: November 30, 2011.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-31399 Filed 12-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P