[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 18 (Monday, January 28, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5713-5715]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01647]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 510, 520, and 522

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0002]

New Animal Drugs; Cefpodoxime; Meloxicam

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect approval actions for new animal drug

applications (NADAs) and abbreviated new animal drug applications
(ANADAs) during December 2012. FDA is also informing the public of the
availability of summaries of the basis of approval and of environmental
review documents, where applicable.

DATES: This rule is effective January 28, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George K. Haibel, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7519
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is amending the animal drug regulations
to reflect approval actions for several original ANADAs during December
2012, as listed in table 1. In addition, FDA is informing the public of
the availability, where applicable, of documentation of environmental
review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and,
for actions requiring review of safety or effectiveness data, summaries
of the basis of approval (FOI Summaries) under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). These public documents may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday. Persons with access to the Internet may
obtain these documents at the Center for Veterinary Medicine FOIA
Electronic Reading Room: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofFoods/CVM/CVMFOIAElectronicReadingRoom/default.htm.

                             Table 1--Original ANADAs Approved During December 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        New animal drug                       21 CFR
    NADA/ANADA           Sponsor          product name         Action        section   FOIA summary  NEPA review
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
200-485...........  Accord             Meloxicam          Original           522.1367  yes.........  CE\1\
                     Healthcare,        Injection.         approval as a
                     Inc., 1009                            generic copy of
                     Slater Rd.,                           NADA 141-219.
                     suite 210-B,
                     Durham, NC 27703.
200-491...........  Norbrook           LOXICOM            Original           522.1367  yes.........  CE\1\
                     Laboratories,      (meloxicam)        approval as a
                     Ltd., Station      Solution for       generic copy of
                     Works, Newry       Injection.         NADA 141-219.
                     BT35 6JP,
                     Northern Ireland.
200-543...........  Putney, Inc., 400  Cefpodoxime        Original            520.370  yes.........  CE\1\
                     Congress St.,      Proxetil Tablets.  approval as a
                     suite 200,                            generic copy of
                     Portland, ME                          NADA 141-232.
                     04101.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33 that this action is categorically excluded (CE) from the
  requirement to submit an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because it is of a type
  that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects

21 CFR Part 510

    Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

21 CFR Parts 520 and 522

    Animal drugs.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510,
520, and 522 are amended as follows:

PART 510--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.

Sec.  510.600  [Amended]

    2. In Sec.  510.600, in the table in paragraph (c)(1),
alphabetically add an entry for ``Accord Healthcare, Inc.'' and revise
the entry for ``Jurox Pty. Ltd.''; and in the table in paragraph
(c)(2), numerically add an entry for ``016729'' and revise the entry
for ``049480'' to read as follows:
    (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Drug  labeler
                  Firm name and address                        code
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Accord Healthcare, Inc., 1009 Slater Rd., suite 210-B,            016729
 Durham, NC 27703.......................................

                                * * * * *
Jurox Pty. Ltd., 85 Gardiner St., Rutherford, NSW 2320,           049480
 Australia..............................................

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

    (2) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Drug labeler code                  Firm name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
016729..............................  Accord Healthcare, Inc., 1009
                                       Slater Rd., suite 210-B, Durham,
                                       NC 27703

                                * * * * *
049480..............................  Jurox Pty. Ltd., 85 Gardiner St.,
                                       Rutherford, NSW 2320, Australia

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

PART 520--ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
3. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 520 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 360b.

Sec.  520.370  [Amended]

0
4. In paragraph (b) of Sec.  520.370, remove ``No. 000009'' and in its
place add ``Nos. 000009 and 026637''.

PART 522--IMPLANTATION OR INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
5. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 522 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 360b.

Sec.  522.1367  [Amended]

0
6. In paragraph (b) of Sec.  522.1367, remove ``No. 000010'' and in its
place add ``Nos. 000010, 016729, and 055529''.

    Dated: January 22, 2013.
Bernadette Dunham,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 2013-01647 Filed 1-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 81 (Friday, April 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 19714]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08574]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL17-67-000]

New York Power Authority; New York Independent System Operator,
Inc.; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding

    On April 21, 2017, a letter order was issued in Docket No. EL17-67-
000 by the Director, Division of Electric Power--East, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether
the updated depreciation rates of New York Power Authority, which were
included in New York Independent System Operator, Inc.'s Open Access
Transmission Tariff may be unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory
or preferential. New York Power Authority and New York Independent
System Operator, Inc., 159 FERC 62,075 (2017).
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL17-67-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21
days of the date of issuance of the order.

    Dated: April 21, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08574 Filed 4-27-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 215 (Friday, November 6, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68766-68768]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28274]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0643; FRL-9935-65-Region 9]

Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Placer County Air
Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a revision to the Placer County portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns the
necessary procedures to create emission reduction credits (ERCs) from
the reduction of volatile organic compound (VOC), oxides of nitrogen
(NOx), oxides of sulfur (SOx), particulate matter (PM), and carbon
monoxide (CO) emissions due to the use and installation of a control
device on stationary locomotive engines in rail yards. We are approving
a local rule that provides administrative procedures for creating
emissions reduction credits, consistent with Clean Air Act (CAA or the
Act) requirements.

DATES: This rule is effective on January 5, 2016 without further
notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comments by December 7, 2015.
If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0643, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. If you need to include CBI as part
of your comment, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html
for further instructions. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.)
must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and should include discussion of all
points you wish to make. For the full EPA public comment policy and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3848<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this action with the dates that
it was adopted by the Placer County Air Pollution Control District
(PCAPCD) and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title            Adopted         Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCAPCD..............................             515   Stationary Rail Yard         02-19-2015       06-26-2015
                                                        Control Emission
                                                        Reduction Credits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 13, 2015, the EPA determined that the submittal for
PCAPCD Rule 515 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    There are no previous versions of Rule 515 in the SIP, although the
PCAPCD adopted an earlier version of this rule on October 9, 2008, and
CARB submitted it to us on December 23, 2008. CARB withdrew the earlier
version of Rule 515 on August 11, 2014.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    The purpose of Rule 515 is to provide owners of a rail yard located
in Placer County with a mechanism for quantifying, certifying, and
banking emission reductions from the installation and use of a control
device that reduces emissions from locomotive engines in rail yards.
Approval of Rule 515 into the SIP would allow these emission reductions
to be used as offsets under PCAPCD's New Source Review (NSR) rule. The
EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about this
rule.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not
interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section
110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in
nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    In addition, a rule of this type that generates emission reduction
credits for use as offsets in the NSR program must

meet the NSR requirements for valid offsets (see section 173(c)) and
meet the criteria set forth in the EPA's guidance concerning economic
incentive programs.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and other requirements consistently include the
following:
    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    2. State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the
General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of
Title I; Proposed Rule,'' (the NOx Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November
25, 1992.
    3. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    4. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    5. New Source Review--Section 173(c) of the CAA and 40 CFR part 51,
appendix S, ``Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling'' require certain
sources to obtain emission reductions to offset increased emissions
from new projects.
    6. ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,'' EPA-
452/R-01-001, January 2001.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability and economic incentive programs; and
ensures that the emission reductions are real, surplus, quantifiable,
enforceable, and permanent. This rule includes detailed emissions
quantification protocols and enforceable procedures that provide the
necessary assurance that the emission reduction credits issued will
meet the criteria for valid NSR offsets. The TSD has more information
on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully
approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule. If we
receive adverse comments by December 7, 2015, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on January 5, 2016. This will incorporate the
rule into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if the EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final
those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse
comment.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the CARB
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or
in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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, the 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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 (Pub. L. 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 the 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    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. The 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).
    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 January 5, 2016.

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 this Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that the EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the
comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action 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, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Sulfur dioxide, Carbon monoxide, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 25, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(463) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (463) Amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted on
June 26, 2015 by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Placer County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 515, ``Stationary Rail Yard Control Emission Reduction
Credits,'' amended on February 19, 2015.

[FR Doc. 2015-28274 Filed 11-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 218 (Friday, November 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67424-67427]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27360]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68154; File No. SR-C2-2012-036]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to System Access, Connectivity, and Testing

November 5, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 23, 2012, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules regarding System \3\
access, connectivity, and testing by Participants. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary,
and at the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The System means the automated trading system used by the
Exchange for the trading of options products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules regarding System access,
connectivity, and testing by Participants. The Exchange makes available
to Participants various application programming interfaces
(``APIs''),\4\ such as CBOE Market Interface (``CMi'') and Financial
Information eXchange (``FIX'') Protocol, for authorized Participants to
use to access the System.\5\ Participants may select which of these
APIs they would like to use to connect to the System when registering
with the Exchange for System access. The Exchange believes it is
important to provide Participants with this flexibility so that they
can determine the API that will be most compatible with their systems
and maximize the efficiency of their systems' connection to the System.
Connection to the System allows authorized Participants to enter and
execute orders, as well as submit certain order and trade data to the
Exchange, which data the Exchange uses to conduct surveillances of its
markets and Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ APIs are computer programs that allow Participants to
interface with the Exchange.
    \5\ Only Participants may access the System. The Commission
adopted Rule 15c3-5 under the Act, which, among other things,
requires broker-dealers providing others with access to an exchange
or alternative trading system to establish, document, and maintain a
system of risk management controls and supervisory procedures
reasonably designed to manage the financial, regulatory, and other
risks of providing such access. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 63241 (November 3, 2010), 75 FR 69792 (November 15, 2010). Rule
15c3-5 effectively eliminated ``naked access'' (i.e. ``Sponsored
Users'') to the Exchange by non-Participants and effectively
requires Participants to filter all non-Participant orders prior to
being sent to the Exchange. The Exchange expects to eliminate the
concept of sponsored use under its Rules in connection with the
adoption of Rule 15c3-5 in a separate rule filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After a Participant registers with the Exchange to use a specific
API, the Exchange may require the Participant to use a specific
connectivity protocol that, among other things, may require the input
of certain information (e.g. trading acronym, category of Participant)
during the connectivity process in accordance with technical
specifications established by the Exchange. The Exchange may prescribe
a specific connectivity protocol for all Participants, or for certain
categories of similarly situated Participants (e.g. Market-Makers,
Designated Primary Market-Makers (``DPMs'')).
    It is imperative for the Exchange to receive during the
connectivity process information regarding a Participant's
identification so that the Exchange can ensure that the connecting
party is a Participant authorized to access the System and that the
Exchange is aware of what type of Participant the connecting party is.
Requiring a specific connectivity protocol allows the Exchange to
receive this information in a uniform manner for all Participants, or
categories of similarly situated Participants, as the Exchange deems
necessary. This information allows the Exchange to, among other things,
perform the necessary surveillances applicable to the Participant and
determine whether the Participant is complying with all relevant
Exchange Rules. Many of the Exchange's surveillances are conducted by
type of Participants, as different types have

different responsibilities they must meet under the Exchange rules.\6\
The Exchange believes that receiving trade data in an organized and
uniform format from all Participants, or types of Participants, allows
it to efficiently identify Participants and monitor and conduct
surveillances of its markets and Participant, and thus effectively
fulfill its regulatory responsibilities. Additionally, the Exchange
believes that prescribing connectivity protocols on either all
Participants or categories of similarly situated Participants ensures
that the Exchange makes these prescriptions in an objective manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, a DPM must satisfy quoting obligations that are
different than those that a Market-Maker must satisfy, and the
Exchange reviews their quoting activity to determine whether they
have satisfied their respective obligations. See Rule 8.17
(obligations of DPMs) and Rule 8.5 (obligations of Market-Makers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also periodically requires Participants that have been
authorized to access the System to conduct or participate in the
testing of their computer systems to ascertain the compatibility of
these systems with the System. The Exchange believes that it is
critical that Participants work closely with the Exchange in testing
new software releases and other System changes. System testing allows
the Exchange to ensure that Participants' systems are continuously
compatible with the System in the event of System changes and that the
Exchange continues to receive all necessary data from Participants in a
timely manner and efficient format. Additionally, System testing allows
Participants to make any necessary adjustments to their systems in the
event of System changes to ensure that their connections to the System
are functioning properly and that they are able to submit order and
trade information in compliance with all applicable Exchange Rules.
    The Exchange proposes to codify these current Exchange practices
and requirements related to System access and connectivity. Proposed
Rule 6.34(c) clarifies in the Rules that only Participants (and their
associated persons) may be authorized to access the System to enter and
execute orders. This proposed provision also provides that the Exchange
will require a Participant to enter into a software user or license
agreement with the Exchange in a form or forms prescribed by the
Exchange in order to obtain authorized access to the System if the
Participant elects to use an API for which the Exchange has determined
that this type of an agreement is necessary. In other words, whether
the Exchange requires a Participant to enter into a user or license
agreement will depend solely on the objective criteria of what type of
API the Participant opts to use.\7\ The proposed rule change also
amends Rule 6.34(a) to clarify that the term API means application
programming interface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, the Exchange developed CMi and currently
requires all Participants that opt to connect to the System using
CMi to enter into a software license agreement with the Exchange to
use CMi. The Exchange has determined that Participants that opt to
connect to the System using FIX do not currently have to enter into
any type of software user or license agreement, which is a
universally available application for which the developer does not
require a user agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 6.34(d) provides that the Exchange may prescribe
technical specifications pursuant to which all Participants, or
categories of similarly situated Participants (e.g., DPMs, Market-
Makers), may establish an electronic connection to the System (and any
facilities). The Exchange will announce to Participants via Regulatory
Circular any connectivity protocol prescription.
    Proposed Rule 6.34(e)(i) provides that each Participant that the
Exchange designates as required to participate in a system test must
conduct or participate in the testing of its computer systems to
ascertain the compatibility of such systems with the System in the
manner and frequency prescribed by the Exchange. The Exchange will
designate Participants as required to participate in a system test
based on: (1) The category of the Participant (e.g. DPM, Market-Maker);
(2) the computer system(s) the Participant uses; and (3) the manner in
which the Participant connects to the System. The Exchange will give
Participants reasonable notice of any mandatory systems test, which
notice will specify the nature of the test and Participants'
obligations in participation in the test.
    In connection with this mandatory system testing, proposed Rule
6.34(e)(ii) provides that every Participant required by the Exchange to
conduct or participate in testing of computer systems must provide to
the Exchange any reports relating to the testing as the Exchange may
prescribe. Participants must maintain adequate documentation of tests
required by this Rule and results of this testing for examination by
the Exchange.
    Proposed Rule 6.34(e)(iii) states that a Participant that fails to
conduct or participate in mandatory systems tests, fails to file the
required reports, or fails to maintain the required documentation, as
required by proposed Rule 6.34(e)(i) and (ii), may be subject to
summary suspension or other action taken pursuant to Chapter 16
(Summary Suspension) and/or disciplinary action pursuant to Chapter 17
(Discipline) of the Exchange Rules. Disciplinary action may include
fines pursuant to proposed Rule 17.50(g)(19), which provides that
Participants that violate proposed Rule 6.34(e) may be subject to fines
under the Exchange's minor rule violation plan.\8\ As with all other
violations in the Exchange's minor rule violation plan, the Exchange
retains the ability to refer a violation of the system testing
requirements to its Business Conduct Committee should the circumstances
warrant such a referral. The Exchange believes that violations of the
proposed mandatory system testing provision are suitable for its minor
rule violation plan because they are generally technical in nature.
Further, including these violations into the minor rule violation plan
will allow the Exchange to carry out its regulatory responsibilities
more quickly and efficiently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ These fines are as follows: $250 for the first offense, $500
for the second offense, $1,000 for the third offense, $2,000 for the
fourth offense, and referral to the Business Conduct Committee for
any subsequent offenses. The fines are based on the number of
offenses in one calendar year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Codification of these requirements gives the Exchange the ability
to discipline any Participants that fail to comply with these
requirements. While Participants generally comply with these
requirements, their inclusion in the Rules (and the resulting potential
for discipline for noncompliance) may enhance Participants' overall
compliance with them.
    Codification of these requirements is also consistent with the
Rules of other exchanges. Proposed Rule 6.34(c) is substantially
similar to: BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') Rule 11.3(a); BOX Options
Exchange LLC (``BOX'') Rule 7000(a); EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'')
Chapter XI, Rule 11.3(a); EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') Chapter XI,
Rule 11.3(a); International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') Rule
706(a); NASDAQ Option Market (``NOM'') Chapter V, Section 1(a); NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') Rule 6.2A(a); and NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE
MKT'') Rule 902.1NY(a). Proposed Rule 6.34(e) is substantially similar
to: BATS Rule 18.13; BOX Rule 3180; ISE Rule 419; and NOM Chapter III,
Section 13. BOX Rule 12140(d)(7) and ISE Rule 1614(d)(8) also allow
those exchanges to fine their members for violations of their
respective mandatory system provisions pursuant to their respective
minor rule violation plans.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The proposed fine amounts in proposed Rule 17.50(g)(19) are
the same as the fine amounts in the corresponding BOX and ISE rules.

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

    Additionally, proposed Rule 6.34(c) is consistent with Rule 15c3-1
[sic] under the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\11\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, 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
to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.\12\ Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) requirement that the
rules of a national securities exchange be designed to not permit
unfair discrimination between customer, issuers, brokers or
dealers.\13\ The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(6) \14\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange provide that its members and persons associated with its
members be appropriately disciplined for violation of the provisions of
the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, or the rules of the
exchange, by expulsion, suspension, limitation of activities,
functions, and operations, fine, censure, being suspended or barred
from being associated with a member, or any other fitting sanction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change codifies current Exchange requirements
that enhance C2's market surveillances and System functionality.
Proposed Rule 6.34(c) is consistent with Rule 15c3-5 under the Act, and
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change promotes compliance by
Participants with the market access requirements under that rule. The
Exchange believes that proposed Rule 6.34(d) allows the Exchange to
receive from Participants, or categories of similarly situated
Participants, information in a uniform format, which aids the
Exchange's efforts to monitor and regulate C2's markets and
Participants and helps prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices.
This also helps coordinate the ability of Participants to
electronically trade on the Exchange with the Exchange's ability to
receive the necessary information to regulate those transactions.
Proposed Rule 6.34(e) allows the Exchange to ensure that Participants'
connections to the System function correctly, which promotes efficiency
and enhances compliance by Participants with Exchange Rules.
    In addition, codification of these requirements is consistent with
the Act because it gives the Exchange the ability to discipline
Participants that fail to comply with these requirements, which may
enhance overall Participants compliance with these requirements. This
proposed rule change will also promote consistency in the minor rule
violation programs of other exchanges and allow the Exchange to carry
out its regulatory responsibilities more quickly and efficiently by
including violations of the mandatory system testing provision in the
Exchange's minor rule violation plan.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to
not permit unfair discrimination among Participants, as the proposed
rule change provides for the Exchange to impose requirements on
Participants in an objective manner. For example, under proposed Rule
6.34(d), the Exchange may impose connectivity protocol requirements on
all Participants, or similarly situated Participants. Additionally,
under proposed Rule 6.34(c), whether the Exchange requires a
Participant to enter into a software user or license agreement depends
solely on what type of API the Participant opts to use to connect to
the System.
    Finally, the proposed rule change will help remove impediments to
and promote a free and open market and a national market system because
it is consistent with rules in place at other exchanges and imposes
substantially similar requirements on Participants as those rules do on
those exchanges' members.

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

    C2 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.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. 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 Section 19(b)(3)(A) \15\ of the Act and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \16\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of this 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.

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-C2-2012-036 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2012-036. 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 on
official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying
at the principal offices 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-C2-2012-036, and should be submitted on
or before November 30, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27360 Filed 11-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 153 (Thursday, August 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 44460]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17155]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-662, OMB Control No. 3235-0720]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form 1-K

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form 1-K (17 CFR 239.91) is used to file annual reports by Tier 2
issuers under Regulation A, an exemption from registration under the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). Tier 2 issuers under
Regulation A conducting offerings of up to $50 million within a 12-
month period are required to file Form 1-K. Form 1-K provides audited
year-end financial statements and information about the issuer's
business operation, ownership, management, liquidity, capital resources
and operations on an annual basis. In addition, Part I of the Form 1-K
collects information on any offerings under Regulation A that have been
terminated or completed unless it has been previous reported on Form 1-
Z. The purpose of the Form 1-K is to better inform the public about
companies that have conducted Tier 2 offerings under Regulation A. We
estimate that approximately 36 issuers file Form 1-K annually. We
estimate that Form 1-K takes approximately 600 hours to prepare. We
estimate that 75% of the 600 hours per response (450 hours) is prepared
by the company for a total annual burden of 16,200 hours (450.0 hours
per response x 36 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    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 control number.
    Please direct your written comment to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 6, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-17155 Filed 8-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58843-58848]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20952]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95886; File No. SR-PEARL-2022-40]

Self-Regulatory Organizations: Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change by MIAX PEARL, LLC To Amend the
MIAX Pearl Options Fee Schedule

September 22, 2022.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on September 14, 2022, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX
Pearl'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Pearl Options
Fee Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl at MIAX
Pearl's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of

the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Add/Remove Tiered Rebates/Fees
set forth in Section 1(a) of the Fee Schedule to: (1) modify the Maker
rebates (defined below) in all Tiers for transactions in Penny Classes
(defined below) for MIAX Pearl Market Makers,\3\ Non-Priority
Customers, Firms, Broker-Dealers and Non-MIAX Pearl Market Makers; and
(2) provide for additional, separate Maker rebates for Market Makers
and Electronic Exchange Member (``EEM'') \4\ Professional origins
(defined below) for certain transactions in Non-Penny Classes (defined
below). The Exchange originally filed this proposal on September 1,
2022 (SR-PEARL-2022-38). On September 14, 2022, the Exchange withdrew
SR-PEARL-2022-38 and resubmitted this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Market Maker'' means a Member registered with the Exchange
for the purpose of making markets in options contracts traded on the
Exchange and that is vested with the rights and responsibilities
specified in Chapter VI of Exchange Rules. See the Definitions
Section of the Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule 100.
    \4\ ``Electronic Exchange Member'' or ``EEM'' means the holder
of a Trading Permit who is a Member representing as agent Public
Customer Orders or Non-Customer Orders on the Exchange and those
non-Market Maker Members conducting proprietary trading. Electronic
Exchange Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Exchange currently assesses transaction rebates and fees to all
market participants which are based upon the total monthly volume
executed by the Member \5\ on MIAX Pearl in the relevant, respective
origin type (not including Excluded Contracts) \6\ (as the numerator)
expressed as a percentage of (divided by) TCV \7\ (as the denominator).
In addition, the per contract transaction rebates and fees are applied
retroactively to all eligible volume for that origin type once the
respective threshold tier (``Tier'') has been reached by the Member.
The Exchange aggregates the volume of Members and their Affiliates.\8\
Members that place resting liquidity, i.e., orders resting on the book
of the MIAX Pearl System,\9\ are paid the specified ``maker'' rebate
(each a ``Maker''), and Members that execute against resting liquidity
are assessed the specified ``taker'' fee (each a ``Taker''). For
opening transactions and ABBO \10\ uncrossing transactions, per
contract transaction rebates and fees are waived for all market
participants. Finally, Members are assessed lower transaction fees and
receive lower rebates for order executions in standard option classes
in the Penny Interval Program \11\ (``Penny Classes'') than for order
executions in standard option classes which are not in the Penny
Interval Program (``Non-Penny Classes''), where Members are assessed
higher transaction fees and receive higher rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Member'' means an individual or organization that is
registered with the Exchange pursuant to Chapter II of Exchange
Rules for purposes of trading on the Exchange as an ``Electronic
Exchange Member'' or ``Market Maker.'' Members are deemed
``members'' under the Exchange Act. See the Definitions Section of
the Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule 100.
    \6\ ``Excluded Contracts'' means any contracts routed to an away
market for execution. See the Definitions Section of the Fee
Schedule.
    \7\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
total national volume in those classes listed on MIAX PEARL for the
month for which the fees apply, excluding consolidated volume
executed during the period time in which the Exchange experiences an
``Exchange System Disruption'' (solely in the option classes of the
affected Matching Engine (as defined below)). The term Exchange
System Disruption, which is defined in the Definitions section of
the Fee Schedule, means an outage of a Matching Engine or collective
Matching Engines for a period of two consecutive hours or more,
during trading hours. The term Matching Engine, which is also
defined in the Definitions section of the Fee Schedule, is a part of
the MIAX PEARL electronic system that processes options orders and
trades on a symbol-by-symbol basis. Some Matching Engines will
process option classes with multiple root symbols, and other
Matching Engines may be dedicated to one single option root symbol
(for example, options on SPY may 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. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and appropriate
to select two consecutive hours as the amount of time necessary to
constitute an Exchange System Disruption, as two hours equates to
approximately 1.4% of available trading time per month. The Exchange
notes that the term ``Exchange System Disruption'' and its meaning
have no applicability outside of the Fee Schedule, as it is used
solely for purposes of calculating volume for the threshold tiers in
the Fee Schedule. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
    \8\ ``Affiliate'' means (i) an affiliate of a Member of at least
75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's
Form BD, Schedule A, or (ii) the Appointed Market Maker of an
Appointed EEM (or, conversely, the Appointed EEM of an Appointed
Market Maker). An ``Appointed Market Maker'' is a MIAX PEARL Market
Maker (who does not otherwise have a corporate affiliation based
upon common ownership with an EEM) that has been appointed by an EEM
and an ``Appointed EEM'' is an EEM (who does not otherwise have a
corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with a MIAX PEARL
Market Maker) that has been appointed by a MIAX PEARL Market Maker,
pursuant to the following process. A MIAX PEARL Market Maker
appoints an EEM and an EEM appoints a MIAX PEARL Market Maker, for
the purposes of the Fee Schedule, by each completing and sending an
executed Volume Aggregation Request Form by email to
[email protected] no later than 2 business days prior to
the first business day of the month in which the designation is to
become effective. Transmittal of a validly completed and executed
form to the Exchange along with the Exchange's acknowledgement of
the effective designation to each of the Market Maker and EEM will
be viewed as acceptance of the appointment. The Exchange will only
recognize one designation per Member. A Member may make a
designation not more than once every 12 months (from the date of its
most recent designation), which designation shall remain in effect
unless or until the Exchange receives written notice submitted 2
business days prior to the first business day of the month from
either Member indicating that the appointment has been terminated.
Designations will become operative on the first business day of the
effective month and may not be terminated prior to the end of the
month. Execution data and reports will be provided to both parties.
See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
    \9\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \10\ ``ABBO'' means the best bid(s) or offer(s) disseminated by
other Eligible Exchanges (defined in Exchange Rule 1400(g)) and
calculated by the Exchange based on market information received by
the Exchange from OPRA. See the Definitions Section of the Fee
Schedule and Exchange Rule 100.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88992 (June 2,
2020), 85 FR 35142 (June 8, 2020) (SR-PEARL-2020-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Modify the Maker Rebates in All Tiers for Transactions in
Penny Classes for Market Makers and Non-Priority Customer, Firm, BD and
Non-MIAX Pearl Market Maker Origins
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for the Exchange's
options market to modify the Maker rebates in all Tiers for options
transactions in Penny Classes for Market Makers and Non-Priority
Customer, Firm, BD and Non-MIAX Pearl Market Maker origins' respective
rate tables. Currently, the Exchange provides different Maker rebates
for options transactions in Penny Classes for Market Makers and Non-
Priority Customer, Firm, BD and Non-MIAX Pearl Market Maker origins
depending on whether the Member is trading against the Priority
Customer \12\ origin or another origin type. In particular, the
Exchange provides the following Maker rebates for Market Makers for
options transactions in Penny Classes when trading against the Priority
Customer origin: ($0.23) in Tier 1, ($0.38) in Tier 2, ($0.38) in Tier
3, ($0.45) in Tier 4, ($0.46) in Tier 5, and

($0.47) in Tier 6. The Exchange provides the following Maker rebates
for Non-Priority Customer, Firm, BD and Non-MIAX Pearl Market Maker
origins for options transactions in Penny Classes when trading against
the Priority Customer origin: ($0.23) in Tier 1, ($0.38) in Tier 2,
($0.38) in Tier 3, ($0.45) in Tier 4, ($0.46) in Tier 5, and ($0.46) in
Tier 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity
that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not
place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial accounts(s). The
number of orders shall be counted in accordance with Interpretation
and Policy .01 of Exchange Rule 100. See the Definitions Section of
the Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule 100, including Interpretation and
Policy .01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to lower the Maker rebates by $0.01 in
all Tiers for options transactions in Penny Classes for Market Makers
and Non-Priority Customer, Firm, BD and Non-MIAX Pearl Market Maker
origins, respectively, when trading against the Priority Customer
origin. Accordingly, with the proposed changes, the Exchange will
provide the following Maker rebates for Market Makers for options
transactions in Penny Classes when trading against the Priority
Customer origin: ($0.22) in Tier 1, ($0.37) in Tier 2, ($0.37) in Tier
3, ($0.44) in Tier 4, ($0.45) in Tier 5, and ($0.46) in Tier 6. The
Exchange will provide the following Maker rebates for Non-Priority
Customer, Firm, BD and Non-MIAX Pearl Market Maker origins for options
transactions in Penny Classes when trading against the Priority
Customer origin: ($0.22) in Tier 1, ($0.37) in Tier 2, ($0.37) in Tier
3, ($0.44) in Tier 4, ($0.45) in Tier 5, and ($0.45) in Tier 6.
    The purpose of adjusting the specified Maker rebates is for
business and competitive reasons. In order to attract order flow, the
Exchange initially set its Maker rebates so that they were higher than
other options exchanges that operate comparable maker/taker pricing
models.\13\ The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to adjust
these specified Maker rebates so that they are more in line with other
exchanges, but will remain highly competitive such that they should
enable the Exchange to continue to attract order flow and maintain
market share.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 80061 (February
17, 2017), 82 FR 11676 (February 24, 2017) (SR-PEARL-2017-10)
(establishing the Exchange's fee schedule with Market Maker and
Professional Member Maker Penny Class rebates ranging from ($0.25)
in Tier 1 to ($0.48) in Tier 4, the highest Tier at that time).
    \14\ See, generally, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Options 7 Pricing
Schedule, Section 2 (Market Maker and Professional Member rebates
ranging from $0.20 in Tier 1 to $0.48 in Tier 6); Box Options Fee
Schedule, Section IV. Electronic Transaction Fees, Section A (Market
Maker rebate of $0.50 when trading contra to a BOX Public Customer
for options transactions in Penny Classes); Cboe BZX Options Fee
Schedule, Standard Rates (Market Maker rebates for Penny Class
securities ranging from $0.29 to $0.46 for adding liquidity;
Professional rebates for Penny Class securities ranging from $0.25
to $0.48 for adding liquidity; and Firm, Broker-Dealer, Joint Back
Office rebates for Penny Class securities ranging from $0.25 to
$0.46 for adding liquidity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Adopt Additional, Separate Maker Rebates for Market Makers
and Non-Priority Customer, Firm, BD and Non-MIAX Pearl Market Maker
Origins for Certain Transactions in Non-Penny Classes
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for the Exchange's
options market to adopt additional separate Maker rebates for Market
Makers and Non-Priority Customer, Firm, BD and Non-MIAX Pearl Market
Maker origins for options transactions in Non-Penny Classes in Tiers 1
through 4. Currently, the Exchange provides the following Maker rebates
for Market Makers and Non-Priority Customer, Firm, BD and Non-MIAX
Pearl Market Maker origins for options transactions in Non-Penny
Classes: ($0.30) in Tier 1, ($0.30) in Tier 2, ($0.60) in Tier 3,
($0.65) in Tier 4, ($0.70) in Tier 5, and ($0.85) in Tier 6.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange notes that the current Maker rebates for
Market Makers and Non-Priority Customer, Firm, BD and Non-MIAX Pearl
Market Maker origins for options transactions in Non-Penny Classes
are similar to non-penny class maker rebates for similar origins at
competing options exchanges. See, e.g., NYSE Arca Options Fee
Schedule, Non-Customer, Non-Penny Posting Credit Tiers, Page 8
(providing base non-customer, non-penny maker rebates ranging from
($0.32) to ($0.82)); Cboe BZX Options Fee Schedule, Standard Rates
(providing firm, broker dealer and joint back office non-penny
program securities maker rebates ranging from ($0.30) to ($0.82) and
market maker non-penny program securities maker rebates ranging from
($0.40) to ($0.88)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to adopt additional, separate Maker
rebates for Market Makers for options transactions in Non-Penny Classes
in Tiers 1 through 4. In particular, the Exchange proposes that Market
Makers may qualify for additional, separate rebates for options
transactions in Non-Penny classes in Tiers 1 through 4 if the Market
Maker increases their Non-Penny Class Maker TCV by 100% or more as
compared to that Market Maker's Non-Penny Class TCV for the month of
July 2022,\16\ which will be the Market Maker's baseline Non-Penny
Class Maker TCV. Market Makers that qualify for the additional Non-
Penny Class Maker rebate will receive the following additional,
separate rebates: ($0.40) in Tier 1; ($0.40) in Tier 2; ($0.10) in Tier
3; and ($0.05) in Tier 4. Market Makers with no volume in the Non-Penny
Class Maker segment for the month of July 2022 will have any new volume
considered as added volume. Stated another way, the Exchange proposes
that Market Makers who did not have any volume in the Non-Penny Class
Maker segment for the month of July 2022, will receive the proposed
additional separate Maker rebates for any new Non-Penny Class Maker
volume in each subsequent month. The Exchange proposes to denote the
additional Maker rebates in Non-Penny Classes for Market Makers by
adopting new footnote ``[squf]'' following the tables of fees and
rebates in Section 1)a) of the Fee Schedule. For example, if a Market
Maker has specific Non-Penny Class Maker volume of 0.050% TCV for the
month of July 2022, then that Market Maker would need Non-Penny Class
Maker volume equal to or greater than 0.100% TCV in the relevant month
to receive the additional proposed rebates. The purpose of this change
is for business and competitive reasons in order to attract additional
Non-Penny Class volume from Market Makers, which should benefit all
Exchange participants by providing more trading opportunities and
tighter spreads.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange determined to use the month of July 2022 as
the baseline month because, at the time of the original filing (SR-
PEARL-2022-38), July was the most recent previous full month of
trading. For purposes of consistency with the original filing, the
Exchange proposes to continue to use the month of July 2022 as the
baseline month.
    \17\ See supra note 15. The Exchange notes that NYSE American,
LLC has a similar ``step-up'' incentive for its Professional
Customer, Broker Dealer, Non-NYSE American Options Market Maker and
Firm ranges, whereby those market participants are able to decrease
their fees for transactions in non-penny classes by increasing their
volume by specified percentages of TCADV over their August 2019
volume. See NYSE American Options Fee Schedule, Section I.A. and
Section I.H. (charging an $0.85 fee to Professional Customer, Broker
Dealer, Non-NYSE American Options Market Maker and Firm ranges for
transactions in non-penny classes and decreased fees of either $0.65
or $0.55 for transactions in on-penny classes depending on the
amount of increased volume by specified percentages of TCADV over
their August 2019 volume). See id., Key Terms and Definitions
Section for definitions of Professional Customer, Broker Dealer,
Non-NYSE American Options Market Maker, Firm and TCADV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to adopt an additional, separate Maker
rebate for EEM Professional origins (which includes, collectively, Non-
Priority Customer, Firm, BD and Non-MIAX Pearl Market Maker origins),
for options transactions in Non-Penny Classes in Tiers 1 through 4. In
particular, the Exchange proposes that EEMs may qualify for additional
separate rebates for options transactions in Non-Penny classes in Tiers
1 through 4 if the EEM increases their Professional origin Non-Penny
Class Maker TCV by 100% or more as compared to that EEM's Professional
origin Non-Penny Class TCV for the month of July 2022,\18\ which will
be EEM's Professional origin baseline Non-Penny Class Maker TCV. EEMs
that qualify for the additional Non-Penny Class Maker rebate will

receive the following additional, separate rebates: ($0.40) in Tier 1;
($0.40) in Tier 2; ($0.10) in Tier 3; and ($0.05) in Tier 4.\19\ EEMs
with no Professional origin volume in the Non-Penny Class Maker segment
for the month of July 2022 will have any new volume considered as added
volume. Stated another way, the Exchange proposes that EEM Professional
origins that did not have any volume in the Non-Penny Class Maker
segment for the month of July 2022, will receive the proposed
additional separate Maker rebates for any new Non-Penny Class Maker
volume in each subsequent month. The Exchange proposes to denote the
additional Maker rebates in Non-Penny Classes for EEMs by adopting new
footnote ``[square]'' following the tables of fees and rebates in
Section 1)a) of the Fee Schedule. For example, if an EEM has specific
Professional origin Non-Penny Class Maker volume of 0.050% TCV for the
month of July 2022, then that EEM would need Professional origin Non-
Penny Class Maker volume equal to or greater than 0.100% TCV in the
relevant month to receive the additional proposed rebates. The purpose
of this change is for business and competitive reasons in order to
attract additional Non-Penny Class volume from EEMs, which should
benefit all Exchange participants by providing more trading
opportunities and tighter spreads.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 16.
    \19\ With the proposed additional rebates, the Exchange's Non-
Penny Class Maker rebates in Tiers 1 through 4 for Market Makers and
EEM Professional origins will be in line with, or higher than (for
lower tiers), similar rebates from competing options exchanges
depending on the tier achieved by the particular member. See supra
note 15.
    \20\ See supra notes 15 and 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The proposed changes are immediately effective.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \21\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\22\ in that it
is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among Exchange members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities, and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\23\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS,
the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, as of September 13, 2022, no single exchange has
more than approximately 11-13% equity options market share for the
month of September 2022.\25\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power. More specifically, as of September 13, 2022,
the Exchange has a market share of approximately 4.34% of executed
volume of multiply-listed equity options for the month of September
2022.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See ``The market at a glance,'' (last visited September 13,
2022), available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/.
    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products and
services, terminate an existing membership or determine to not become a
new member, and/or shift order flow, in response to transaction fee
changes. For example, on February 28, 2019, the Exchange filed with the
Commission a proposal to increase Taker fees in certain Tiers for
options transactions in certain Penny classes for Priority Customers
and decrease Maker rebates in certain Tiers for options transactions in
Penny classes for Priority Customers (which fee was to be effective
March 1, 2019).\27\ The Exchange experienced a decrease in total market
share for the month of March 2019, after the proposal went into effect.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that its March 1, 2019, fee change,
to increase certain transaction fees and decrease certain transaction
rebates, may have contributed to the decrease in MIAX Pearl's market
share and, as such, the Exchange believes competitive forces constrain
the Exchange's, and other options exchanges, ability to set transaction
fees and market participants can shift order flow based on fee changes
instituted by the exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85304 (March 13,
2019), 84 FR 10144 (March 19, 2019) (SR-PEARL-2019-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal to modify the Maker rebates in
all Tiers for options transactions in Penny classes for Market Makers
and Non-Priority Customer, Firm, BD and Non-MIAX Pearl Market Maker
origins when trading against Priority Customer origin is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all similarly
situated market participants in the same origin type are subject to the
same tiered Maker rebates and access to the Exchange is offered on
terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. For competitive and
business reasons, the Exchange initially set its Maker rebates for such
orders generally higher than certain other options exchanges that
operate comparable maker/taker pricing models. The Exchange now
believes that it is appropriate to modify those specified Maker rebates
so that they are more in line with other exchanges, and will remain
highly competitive such that they should enable the Exchange to
continue to attract order flow and maintain market share.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal is not unfairly discriminatory
because, with the proposed changes, the Maker rebates for Market Makers
and Non-Priority Customer, Firm, BD and Non-MIAX Pearl Market Maker
origins will be nearly the same as the Maker rebates for all other
origin types except for Priority Customer origin orders. The Exchange
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess
lower Maker rebates to Market Makers and EEM Professional origins than
to Priority Customer origin orders. A Priority Customer is by
definition not a broker or dealer in securities, and does not place
more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s).\29\ 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 Pearl Market Makers, Firms, and Broker-
Dealers, who will generally submit a higher number of orders (many

of which do not result in executions) than Priority Customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal to adopt additional, separate
Maker rebates for options transactions in Non-Penny Classes in Tiers 1
through 4 for Market Makers and EEM Professional origins is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all similarly
situated market participants in the same origin type are subject to the
same tiered Maker rebates and access to the Exchange is offered on
terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes its
proposal to offer an additional Non-Penny Class Maker rebates in Tiers
1 through 4 for Market Makers and EEM Professional origins will
incentivize Market Makers and EEMs to improve their posted liquidity to
the benefit of the entire market, which will increase order flow sent
to the Exchange, benefiting all market participants through increased
liquidity, tighter markets and order interaction. The Exchange believes
it is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory to offer higher
additional Non-Penny Class Maker rebates for Tiers 1 and 2, as compared
to Tiers 3 and 4, because the Exchange believes that the prospect of
obtaining the higher rebates for Tiers 1 and 2 will attract Non-Penny
Class Maker volume from new market participants. This anticipated new
Non-Penny Class Maker volume should benefit all Exchange participants
by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. Further,
with the proposed additional rebates, the Exchange's Non-Penny Class
Maker rebates in Tiers 1 through 4 for Market Makers and EEM
Professional origins will be in line with, or higher than (for Tiers 1
and 2) similar rebates from competing options exchanges.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to consider any new Non-Penny Class Maker volume as
added volume for Market Makers with no volume in the Non-Penny Class
Maker segment for the month of July 2022 in order for those Market
Makers to receive the proposed additional rebate because this should
attract additional Non-Penny Class Maker volume from Market Makers. In
turn, this additional volume should benefit all Exchange participants
by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. Similarly,
the Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to consider any new Non-Penny Class Maker volume as
added volume for EEMs with no Professional origin volume in the Non-
Penny Class Maker segment for the month of July 2022 in order for those
EEMs to receive the proposed additional rebate because this should
attract additional Non-Penny Class volume from EEMs, which should
benefit all Exchange participants by providing more trading
opportunities and tighter spreads.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
proposed changes in the Maker rebates for the applicable market
participants should continue to encourage the provision of liquidity
that enhances the quality of the Exchange's market and increases the
number of trading opportunities on the Exchange for all participants
who will be able to compete for such opportunities. The proposed rule
changes should enable the Exchange to continue to attract and compete
for order flow with other exchanges. However, this competition does not
create an undue burden on competition but rather offers all market
participants the opportunity to receive the benefit of competitive
pricing.
    The proposed Maker rebate adjustments are intended to keep the
Exchange's rebates highly competitive with those of other exchanges,
and to encourage liquidity and should enable the Exchange to continue
to attract and compete for order flow with other exchanges. The
Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee
levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment,
the Exchange must continually adjust its rebates and fees to remain
competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes reflect this
competitive environment because the proposal modifies the Exchange's
fees in a manner that encourages market participants to continue to
provide liquidity and to send order flow to the Exchange.

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,\31\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \32\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \32\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File SR-PEARL-2022-40 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2022-40. 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
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
PEARL-2022-40 and should be submitted on or before October 19, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-20952 Filed 9-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P