[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 198 (Wednesday, October 14, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61757-61765]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26142]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 228

[EPA-R04-OW-2014-0372; FRL-9934-57-Region 4]

Ocean Dumping: Expansion of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Site Offshore of Jacksonville, Florida

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule and technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing an
expansion of the ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) site
offshore of Jacksonville, Florida pursuant to the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA). The EPA decided to
finalize the expansion of the site because the site expansion is needed
to serve the long-term need for a location to dispose of material
dredged from the St. Johns River navigation channel, and to provide a
location for the disposal of dredged material for persons or entities
who have received a permit for such disposal. The newly expanded site
will be subject to ongoing monitoring and management to ensure
continued protection of the marine environment. In addition to the
designation, the EPA now issues a technical amendment to correct a
clerical error in the proposed rule.

DATES: The effective date of this final action shall be November 13,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Docket: All documents in the Docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will
be publicly available or in hard copy at the EPA Region 4 Office, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. The file will be made
available for public inspection in the Region 4

library between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays. Contact
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph
below to make an appointment. If possible, please make your appointment
at least two working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15
cent per page fee for making photocopies of documents.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Derby, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, Water Protection Division, Marine
Regulatory and Wetlands Enforcement Section, 61 Forsyth Street,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303; phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Potentially Affected Persons

    Persons potentially affected by this action include those who seek
or might seek permits or approval to dispose of dredged material into
ocean waters pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA), 33 U.S.C. 1401 to 1445. The EPA's
action would be relevant to persons, including organizations and
government bodies seeking to dispose of dredged material in ocean
waters offshore of Jacksonville, Florida. Currently, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) would be most affected by this action.
Potentially affected categories and persons include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Examples of potentially regulated
               Category                             persons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal government...................  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                                        Civil Works projects, U.S. Navy
                                        and other Federal agencies.
Industry and general public..........  Port authorities, marinas and
                                        harbors, shipyards and marine
                                        repair facilities, berth owners.
State, local and tribal governments..  Governments owning and/or
                                        responsible for ports, harbors,
                                        and/or berths, Government
                                        agencies requiring disposal of
                                        dredged material associated with
                                        public works projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding persons likely to be affected by this
action. For any questions regarding the applicability of this action to
a particular person, please refer to the contact person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Background

a. History of Disposal Sites Offshore of Jacksonville, Florida

    The existing Jacksonville ODMDS is located approximately 5 nautical
miles (nmi) southeast of the mouth of the St. Johns River on the
continental shelf off the east coast of Florida. It is currently 1 nmi
by 1 nmi (1 nmi\2\) in size. Since 1952, the area now designated as the
Jacksonville ODMDS and vicinity has been used for disposal of dredged
material (e.g., sand, silt, clay, rock) primarily from the Jacksonville
Harbor Navigation Project, Naval Station Mayport entrance channel, and
Naval Station Mayport turning basin. The Jacksonville ODMDS received
interim site designation status in 1977 and final designation in 1983.
    The USACE Jacksonville District and the EPA Region 4 have
identified a need to either designate a new ODMDS or expand the
existing Jacksonville ODMDS. The need for expanding current ocean
disposal capacity is based on observed mounding at the Jacksonville
ODMDS, future capacity modeling, historical dredging volumes, estimates
of dredging volumes for future proposed projects, and limited capacity
of upland confined disposal facilities (CDFs) in the area. This section
discusses in detail the current and future capacity issues at the
existing Jacksonville ODMDS and CDFs.
    The expansion of the ODMDS for dredged material does not mean that
the USACE or the EPA has approved the use of the ODMDS for open water
disposal of dredged material from any specific project. Before any
person can dispose dredged material at the ODMDS, the EPA and the USACE
must evaluate the project according to the ocean dumping regulatory
criteria (40 CFR, part 227) and authorize the disposal. The EPA
independently evaluates proposed dumping and has the right to restrict
and/or disapprove of the actual disposal of dredged material if the EPA
determines that environmental requirements under the MPRSA have not
been met.

b. Location and Configuration of Expanded Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site

    This action proposes the expansion of the ocean dredged material
site offshore of Jacksonville, Florida. The location of the expanded
ocean dredged material disposal site is bounded by the coordinates,
listed below, and shown in Figure 1. The expansion of the ODMDS will
allow the EPA to adaptively manage the ODMDS to maximize its capacity,
minimize the potential for mounding and associated safety concerns,
potentially create hard bottom habitat and minimize the potential for
any long-term adverse effects to the marine environment.
    The coordinates for the site are, in North American Datum 83 (NAD
83):
Expanded Jacksonville ODMDS
    (A) 30[deg]21.514' N. 81[deg]18.555' W.
    (B) 30[deg]21.514' N. 81[deg]17.422' W.
    (C) 30[deg]20.515' N. 81[deg]17.422' W.
    (D) 30[deg]20.515' N. 81[deg]17.012' W.
    (E) 30[deg]17.829' N. 81[deg]17.012' W.
    (F) 30[deg]17.829' N. 81[deg]18.555' W
    The expanded ODMDS is located in approximately 28 to 61 feet of
water, and is located to 4.4 nmi offshore the mouth of the St. Johns
River. The expanded ODMDS would be 3.7 nmi long on the west side and
2.7 nmi long on the east side. It would be 1 nmi long on the north side
and 1.3 nmi wide on the south side. It would be 4.56 nmi\2\ in size.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14OC15.000

c. Response to Comments Received

    On March 11, 2015, the EPA published a proposed rule to expand the
site and opened a public comment period under Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OW-
2014-0372. The comment period closed on April 10, 2015. The EPA
received six comments on the proposed rule. One comment was from the
U.S. Department of the Interior stating they have no comments at this
time. One commenter was in support of the expansion as it would protect
wildlife by having a specific location for disposal of dredged
materials.
    Two commenters raised concerns regarding impacts to endangered
species and critical habitat including whales. Although located within
the North Atlantic right whale critical habitat, disposal vessel speed
and operation will be restricted as necessary in order to protect North
Atlantic right whales as set forth in: (1) The Site Management and
Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the expanded ODMDS developed by the EPA in
coordination with the USACE; and (2) an Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Biological Assessment completed by the EPA. In a letter to the EPA from
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) dated August 3, 2015, NMFS
concluded that because all potential project effects to listed species
and critical habitat were found to be discountable, insignificant, or
beneficial, that the ODMDS expansion is not likely to adversely affect
listed species under NMFS purview including the North Atlantic right
whale. Additional discussion of compliance with the ESA is provided in
section III.d of this final rule labeled ``ESA.'' The SMMP, the ESA
Biological Assessment and the letter from NMFS dated August 3, 2015,
are included in the Docket for this action.
    Finally, two commenters raised concerns about the overall impacts
of disposal of sediments on the ecosystem, fisheries and reefs and that
additional measures should be instituted to reduce the amount of waste
that needs to be disposed in the ocean. The location of the expanded
ODMDS was selected to minimize impacts to the shrimp fishery in the
area and to minimize impacts to hard bottom communities in the vicinity
of the ODMDS. In response to these commenters, the EPA reviewed the
SMMP for the expanded ODMDS to ensure that controls are in place both
to prevent negative effects and to correct impacts from negative
effects in the unlikely event such effects occurred. The final SMMP,
found in the Docket for this action, includes safeguards to act to
prevent negative effects, primarily through ensuring that only material
meeting ocean dumping criteria for ocean disposal are allowed to be
disposed at the expanded ODMDS. The EPA can respond to negative
impacts, including, for example, having ODMDS users adjust disposal
amounts, techniques, and timing, and the EPA can shut down the ODMDS on
a short term or long term basis if needed, if negative effects are
observed or if trends suggest negative impacts could occur. The EPA has
authority to condition, terminate, or restrict ODMDS use with cause.
Regarding the amount of dredged material needed to be disposed in the
ocean, the USACE, rather than the EPA determines the location and
amount of dredging necessary to maintain the waterways of the U.S. The
EPA determines, with the USACE's input, how best to dispose of material
that must be disposed of in the ocean. Part of that analysis includes a
balancing community and ocean user needs. The EPA finds this ODMDS
expansion to be the best balance of those needs at this time. The EPA
will continue to evaluate these local community concerns and will use
the SMMP to make adjustments as needed to the extent practicable, to
help ensure the needs of the users are balanced against the concerns of
the local community.

d. Management and Monitoring of the ODMDS

    The expanded ODMDS is expected to receive sediments dredged by the
USACE to deepen and maintain the federally authorized navigation
project at Jacksonville Harbor, Florida, maintain Naval Station Mayport
and dredged material from other persons who have obtained a permit for
the disposal of dredged material at the ODMDS. All persons using the
ODMDS are required to follow a Site Management and Monitoring Plan
(SMMP) for the ODMDS. The SMMP includes management and monitoring
requirements to ensure that dredged materials disposed at the ODMDS are
suitable for disposal in the ocean and that adverse impacts of
disposal, if any, are addressed to the maximum extent practicable. The
SMMP for the expanded ODMDS, in addition to the aforementioned, also
addresses management of the ODMDS to ensure adverse mounding does not
occur, promotes habitat creation where possible and to ensure that
disposal events minimize interference with other uses of ocean waters
in the vicinity of the expanded ODMDS. The SMMP, which was available
for public comment as a draft document, has been finalized and the
final document may be found in the Docket.

e. MPRSA Criteria

    In proposing to expand the ODMDS, the EPA assessed the proposed
expanded ODMDS according to the criteria of the MPRSA, with particular
emphasis on the general and specific regulatory criteria of 40 CFR part
228, to determine whether the proposed site designations satisfy those
criteria. The EPA's Final Environmental Impact Statement for
Designation of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Offshore
Jacksonville, Florida, [October 2014] (FEIS), provides an extensive
evaluation of the criteria and other related factors for the expansion
of the ODMDS. The FEIS may be found in the Docket.
General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5)
    (1) Sites must be selected to minimize interference with other
activities in the marine environment, particularly avoiding areas of
existing fisheries or shellfisheries, and regions of heavy commercial
or recreational navigation (40 CFR 228.5(a)).
    Historical disposal of dredged material at the existing
Jacksonville ODMDS has not interfered with commercial or recreational
navigation, commercial fishing, or sportfishing activities. Expansion
of this ODMDS is not expected to change these conditions. The expanded
ODMDS avoids any identified major fisheries, natural and artificial
reefs, and areas of recreational use. The expanded ODMDS is
approximately 1 nmi east of the areas identified by commercial
shrimpers as important shrimp trawling areas. The expanded ODMDS
minimizes interference with shellfisheries by avoiding areas frequently
used by commercial shrimpers. The expanded ODMDS is not expected to
adversely affect recreational boating and is located outside of
designated shipping/navigation channels and anchorage areas. The draft
SMMP outlines ODMDS management objectives, including minimizing
interference with other uses of the ocean. Should an ODMDS use conflict
be identified, ODMDS use could be modified according to the SMMP to
minimize that conflict.
    (2) Sites must be situated such that temporary perturbations to
water quality or other environmental conditions during initial mixing
caused by disposal operations would be reduced to normal ambient levels
or undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects before reaching
any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically limited
fishery or shellfishery (40 CFR 228.5(b)).
    Based on the EPA's review of modeling, monitoring data, sediment
quality, and history of use, no detectable contaminant concentrations
or water quality effects, e.g., suspended solids, would be expected to
reach any beach or shoreline from disposal activities at the expanded
ODMDS. The expanded ODMDS is removed far enough from shore (4.4 nmi)
and fishery resources to allow water quality perturbations caused by
dispersion of disposed material to be reduced to ambient conditions
before reaching any environmentally sensitive areas. Dilution rates are
expected to range from 140:1 to 2800:1 after four hours. The primary
impact of disposal activities on water quality is expected to be
temporary turbidity caused by the physical movement of sediment through
the water column. All dredged material proposed for disposal will be
evaluated according to the ocean dumping regulations at 40 CFR 227.13
and guidance developed by the EPA and the USACE.
    (3) The sizes of disposal sites will be limited in order to
localize for identification and control any immediate adverse impacts,
and to permit the implementation of effective monitoring and
surveillance to prevent adverse long-range impacts. Size,
configuration, and location are to be determined as part of the
disposal site evaluation (40 CFR 228.5(d)).
    The location, size, and configuration of the expanded ODMDS allows
and facilitates long-term capacity, site management, and site
monitoring while limiting environmental impacts to the surrounding area
to the extent possible. Based on projected future new work and
maintenance dredged material disposal needs, is the USACE estimated
that the new ODMDS should be approximately 4 nmi\2\ in size to meet the
long-term (>50 years) disposal needs of the area. An ODMDS of this size
should have a capacity of greater than 65 million cubic yards. The
expanded ODMDS is 4.56 nmi\2\ in size inclusive of the existing
Jacksonville ODMDS and therefore meets the long-term disposal needs of
the area.
    A site management and monitoring program will be implemented to
determine if disposal at the ODMDS is significantly affecting adjacent
areas and to detect the presence of long-term adverse effects. At a
minimum, the monitoring program will consist of bathymetric surveys,
sediment grain size analysis, chemical analysis of constituents of
concern in the sediments, an assessment of the health of the benthic
community, and an assessment of any movement of disposed dredged
material offsite. The size of the expanded ODMDS is similar to that of
other ocean dredged material disposal sites in the Southeastern United
States. Monitoring of sites of this size have proved to be effective
and feasible.
    (4) EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites
beyond the edge of the continental shelf and other such sites where
historical disposal has occurred (40 CFR 228.5(e)).
    Disposal areas located off of the continental shelf would be at
least 60 to 70 nautical miles offshore. This distance is well beyond
the 5 to 10 nautical mile haul distance determined to be feasible by
the USACE for maintenance of their Jacksonville Harbor project.
Additional disadvantages to off-shelf ocean disposal would be the
unknown environmental impacts of disposal on deep-sea, stable, fine-
grained benthic communities and the higher cost of monitoring sites in
deeper waters and further offshore.
    Historic disposal has occurred at the location for the expanded
ODMDS. The substrate of the expanded ODMDS is similar grain size to the
disposal material.
Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6)
    (1) Geographical Position, Depth of Water, Bottom Topography and

Distance from Coast (40 CFR 228.6(a)(1)).
    The EPA does not anticipate that the geographical position of the
expanded ODMDS, including the depth, bottom topography and distance
from the coastline, will unreasonably degrade the marine environment.
The expanded ODMDS is located on the shallow continental shelf off
northeast Florida and is 7.1 nautical miles southeast of the mouth of
the St. Johns River. Depths within the expansion area of the ODMDS
range from 43 to 66 feet (13 to 20 meters) with an average depth of 57
feet (17 meters). To help avoid adverse mounding at the expanded ODMDS,
bathymetry will be routinely monitored following disposal activities
and disposal locations modified as necessary. In this way, mounding
that could create a navigation hazard will be avoided. Material
disposed in the expanded ODMDS is not expected to move from the
expanded ODMDS except during large storm events.
    (2) Location in Relation to Breeding, Spawning, Nursery, Feeding,
or Passage Areas of Living Resources in Adult or Juvenile Phases (40
CFR 228.6(a)(2)).
    The expanded ODMDS is located within the North Atlantic right whale
critical habitat. The coastal waters off Georgia and northern Florida
are the only known calving ground for the North Atlantic right whale
between November and April. The expansion of the ODMDS is not expected
to alter the critical habitat. Disposed dredged material will settle
out of the water column to the benthos, which is not considered part of
the critical habitat. Disturbances from ships transiting through the
area would not be significantly different from normal vessel operations
that occur daily in the project area, although during dredging
activities there would be an increase in vessel activity in the areas
between the river entrance and the expanded ODMDS which may lead to an
increase risk of animal collisions. Observance of critical habitat
designations and the North Atlantic right whale Early Warning System
should mitigate for this potential increase.
    The expanded ODMDS is not located in exclusive breeding, spawning,
nursery, feeding or passage areas for adult or juvenile phases of
living resources. The most active fish breeding and nursery areas are
located in inshore estuarine waters, along adjacent beaches, or in
nearshore reef areas. At and in the immediate vicinity of the expanded
ODMDS, spawning and migrating adult penaeid shrimp may be present.
However, as much of the dredged material will consist of silts and
clays, it appears likely that the area will remain suitable for penaeid
shrimp.
    (3) Location in Relation to Beaches and Other Amenity Areas (40 CFR
228.6(a)(3)).
    The ODMDS is approximately 4.4 nmi from coastal beaches and
protected inshore waters. Shore-related amenities include Nassau River-
St. Johns River Marshes Aquatic Preserve, Little Talbot Island State
Park, Kingsley Plantation Historic Monument, and Fort Caroline National
Memorial. These amenity areas are outside the area to be affected by
disposal in the expanded ODMDS. The ODMDS is approximately 4 to 5 nmi
west of the nearest artificial reef or fishing hotspots.
    (4) Types and Quantities of Wastes Proposed to be Disposed of, and
Proposed Methods of Release, including Methods of Packing the Waste, if
any (40 CFR 228.6(a)(4)).
    Dredged material found suitable for ocean disposal pursuant to the
regulatory criteria for dredged material, or characterized by chemical
and biological testing and found suitable for disposal into ocean
waters, will be the only material allowed to be disposed at the
expanded ODMDS. No material defined as ``waste'' under the MPRSA will
be allowed to be disposed at the ODMDS. The dredged material to be
disposed at the expanded ODMDS will be a mixture of rock, sands, silts
and clays. Annual average quantities are expected to range 0.5 to 1.1
million cubic yards. 18 million cubic yards is expected to be disposed
from the Jacksonville Harbor Deepening Project. Generally, disposal is
expected to occur from a hopper dredge or disposal scow, in which case,
material will be released just below the surface while the disposal
vessel remains underway and slowly transits the disposal location.
    (5) Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring (40 CFR
228.6(a)(5)).
    The EPA expects monitoring and surveillance at the expanded ODMDS
to be feasible and readily performed from ocean or regional class
research vessels. The expanded ODMDS is of similar size, water depth
and distance from shore of a majority of the ODMDSs within the
Southeastern United States which are routinely monitored. The EPA will
ensure monitoring of the ODMDS for physical, biological and chemical
attributes as well as for potential impacts beyond the ODMDS
boundaries. Bathymetric surveys will be conducted routinely as defined
in the SMMP, contaminant levels in the dredged material will be
analyzed prior to dumping, and the benthic infauna and epibenthic
organisms will be monitored every 10 years, as funding allows.
    (6) Dispersal, Horizontal Transport and Vertical Mixing
Characteristics of the Area, including Prevailing Current Direction and
Velocity, if any (40 CFR 228.6(a)(6)).
    Waves are predominately out of the east and a few exceed 2 meters
(6.6 feet) in height or 15 seconds (s) in period. Waves are the primary
factor influencing re-suspension of disposed dredged material, and
currents probably affect the direction and magnitude of transport.
Currents flow predominately in a north-northwest and south-southeast
direction and rarely exceeds 30 cm/s in magnitude. Modeling and
monitoring conducted at the existing ODMDS has shown that the net
direction of transport is to the south. Dilution rates due to mixing
are expected to range from 140:1 to 2800:1 after four hours.
    (7) Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Discharges and
Dumping in the Area (including Cumulative Effects) (40 CFR
228.6(a)(7)).
    The areas within the vicinity of the Jacksonville ODMDS have been
in use since 1952 for disposal of dredged material (e.g., sand, silt,
clay, gravel, shell, and some rock) from the Jacksonville Harbor
Navigation Project and the Naval Station Mayport entrance channel and
turning basin. The Jacksonville ODMDS received interim site designation
status in 1977 and final designation in 1983. Prior to 1970 and in the
early 1970s, material was disposed in an area 0.5 nmi east of the
Jacksonville ODMDS. In the late 1970s material was unintentionally
disposed south of the ODMDS. Water column chemistry in past studies at
the ODMDS has typically shown little or no impact due to dredged
material disposal. Sediment analysis in the late 1970s showed higher
concentrations of certain heavy metals (nickel, copper, zinc, lead, and
chromium), Kjeldahl nitrogen, and organic carbon in sediments within
the ODMDS versus outside the ODMDS. Sediment analysis as part of a 1995
benthic survey showed that, in general, metal concentrations within the
ODMDS remained elevated compared to concentrations outside the ODMDS.
However, concentrations within the ODMDS have decreased since 1978 and,
based on a 1998 study, continue to decrease. The average percentage of
silts and clays at stations within the ODMDS exceeds that of stations
outside the ODMDS, but has decreased both inside and outside the ODMDS
since. A 2009 study documented tri-n-butyltin, di-n-butyltin, and n-
butyltin present at sampling stations both inside and

outside the Jacksonville ODMDS. Benthic infaunal community studies at
the existing Jacksonville ODMDS have showed that communities remain
diverse with no significant changes. The normal equilibrium benthic
community in the area consists of surface-dwelling suspension feeders
that are pre-adapted to energetic sandy environments.
    (8) Interference with Shipping, Fishing, Recreation, Mineral
Extraction, Desalination, Fish and Shellfish Culture, Areas of Special
Scientific Importance and Other Legitimate Uses of the Ocean (40 CFR
228.6(a)(8)).
    The expanded ODMDS is not expected to interfere with shipping,
fishing, recreation or other legitimate uses of the ocean. Commercial
navigation, commercial fishing, and mineral extraction (sand mining)
are the primary activities that may spatially overlap with disposal at
the expanded ODMDS. The expanded ODMDS avoids the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recommended vessel
routes offshore Jacksonville, Florida, thereby avoiding conflict with
commercial navigation.
    Commercial fishing (shrimp trawling) occurs primarily to the west
of the expanded ODMDS. The northern portion of the expanded ODMDS
encompasses areas with rubble and other debris that commercial shrimp
trawlers avoid due to potential damage to their shrimp nets. The
southern portion of the expanded ODMDS includes areas used for
commercial shrimp trawling. The expanded ODMDS will be managed such
that rock will be disposed in the eastern portion of the expanded ODMDS
outside of the fishing area and finer grained material (silts/clays)
will be disposed in the western portion. Additionally, the southern
portion will only be used if the northern portion has reached capacity.
    Potential sand borrow areas have been identified to the east of the
expanded ODMDS. The expanded ODMDS will be managed to avoid impacts to
these areas. Only rock and sand will be disposed in the eastern
portions of the expanded ODMDS providing a buffer between the disposal
of silts and clays and the potential borrow areas. The nearest
potential borrow area is adjacent to the southern half of the expanded
ODMDS. This borrow area is expected to be exhausted prior to use of the
southern portion of the expanded ODMDS as the southern portion will
only be used if the northern portion has reached capacity.
    The likelihood of direct interference with these activities is low,
provided there is close communication and coordination among users of
the ocean resources. The EPA is not aware of any plans for desalination
plants, or fish and shellfish culture operations near the expanded
ODMDS at this time. The expanded ODMDS is not located in areas of
special scientific importance.
    (9) The Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the Sites as
Determined by Available Data or Trend Assessment of Baseline Surveys
(40 CFR 228.6(a)(9)).
    Spring and fall season baseline surveys were conducted in 2010 at
the expanded ODMDS. Water quality was determined to be good with no
evidence of degradation. No hypoxia conditions were observed and all
chemical constituents were below EPA national recommended water quality
criteria for salt water. Annelid worms, arthropods, echinoderms,
gastropods, and bivalves are common benthic taxonomic groups. The
Atlantic croaker, spotted hake, searobins, drums, and sand flounders
are common fish species. Important mollusks include transverse and
ponderous arks, mussels, and Atlantic calico scallops.
    (10) Potentiality for the Development or Recruitment of Nuisance
Species in the Disposal Site (40 CFR 228.6(a)(10)).
    Nuisance species, considered as any undesirable organism not
previously existing at a location, have not been observed at, or in the
vicinity of, the expanded ODMDS. Material expected to be disposed at
the expanded ODMDS will be rock, sand, silt and clay similar to the
sediment present at the expanded ODMDS. Finer-grained material could
have the potential to attract different species to the expanded ODMDS
then currently exist as was documented following disposal of
significant amounts of silts and clays from deepening of Naval Station
Mayport. However, it is expected that over time, as current and wave
energy transports the finer-grained sediments away, the normal
equilibrium benthic community will re-establish itself. The SMMP
includes benthic infaunal monitoring requirements, which will act to
identify any nuisance species and allow the EPA to direct special
studies and/or operational changes to address the issue if it arises.
    (11) Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site of any
Significant Natural or Cultural Feature of Historical Importance (40
CFR 228.6(a)(11)).
    No significant cultural features have been identified at, or in the
vicinity of, the expanded ODMDS at this time. Archaeological surveys of
the expanded ODMDS were conducted in 2011 and 2012. The survey
identified three sub-bottom features and one magnetic cluster.
Archaeological divers investigated these targets and determined that
they did not represent significant cultural features of historical or
prehistorical importance. The EPA has coordinated with Florida's State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to identify any cultural features.
The SHPO concurred with the EPA's determination that the expansion of
the ODMDS will have no effect on cultural resources listed, or eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. No shipwrecks
have been observed or documented within the expanded ODMDS or its
immediate vicinity.

f. Technical Amendment

    The EPA corrected a clerical error that was included in the
proposed language in 40 CFR 228.15(h)(9)(vi). As indicated in the
preamble to the proposed rule, only dredged material from the
Jacksonville, Florida area may be disposed in the ODMDS. This
restriction was the only restriction specifically stated in the
regulation prior to this rulemaking. The language in the proposed rule
added three new restrictions to 40 CFR 228.15(h)(9)(vi) but due to a
clerical error did not include the existing restriction. The final rule
language reflects all four restrictions for disposal of dredged
material into the ODMDS.

III. Environmental Statutory Review--National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA); Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA); Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA); Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA); Endangered Species Act
(ESA); National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

a. NEPA

    Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 to 4370f, requires Federal agencies to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for major federal
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
NEPA does not apply to EPA designations of ocean disposal sites under
the MPRSA because the courts have exempted the EPA's actions under the
MPRSA from the procedural requirements of NEPA through the functional
equivalence doctrine. The EPA has, by policy, determined that the
preparation of NEPA documents for certain EPA regulatory actions,
including actions under the MPRSA, is appropriate. The EPA's ``Notice
of Policy and Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of NEPA Documents,''
(Voluntary NEPA Policy), 63 FR 58045, (October 29, 1998), sets out both
the policy and procedures the EPA uses when preparing such

environmental review documents. The EPA's primary voluntary NEPA
document for expanding the ODMDS is the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for Designation of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
Offshore Jacksonville, Florida, [October 2014] (FEIS), prepared by the
EPA in cooperation with the USACE. On October 17, 2014, the Notice of
Availability (NOA) of the FEIS for public review and comment was
published in the Federal Register (79 FR 62436 [October 17, 2014]).
Anyone desiring a copy of the FEIS may obtain one from the addresses
given above. The public comment period on the FEIS closed on November
17, 2014. The FEIS and its Appendices, which are part of the Docket for
this action, provide the threshold environmental review for expansion
of the ODMDS. The information from the FEIS is used above, in the
discussion of the ocean dumping criteria.

b. MSA

    The EPA prepared an essential fish habitat (EFH) assessment
pursuant to Section 305(b), 16 U.S.C. 1855(b)(2), of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, as amended (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 to 1891d, and submitted
that assessment to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on May
11, 2012. The NMFS provided EFH Conservation Recommendations and a
request for additional information on July 11, 2012. The EPA prepared
an interim response with the requested additional information on August
2, 2012 and a revised EFH Assessment for the preferred alternative on
October 6, 2014. In a letter dated January 5, 2015, NMFS determined
that the EPA and the USACE have provided the substantive justification
required by 50 CFR 600.920(k) for not following EFH conservation
recommendations.

c. CZMA

    Pursuant to an Office of Water policy memorandum dated October 23,
1989, the EPA has evaluated the site designations for consistency with
the State of Florida's (the State) approved coastal management program.
The EPA has determined that the designation of the ODMDS is consistent
to the maximum extent practicable with the State coastal management
program, and submitted this determination to the State for review in
accordance with the EPA policy. The State concurred with this
determination on November 17, 2014. In addition, as part of the NEPA
process, the EPA has consulted with the State regarding the effects of
the dumping at the ODMDS on the State's coastal zone. The EPA has taken
the State's comments into account in preparing the FEIS for the ODMDS,
in determining whether the ODMDS should be designated, and in
determining whether restrictions or limitations should be placed on the
use of the ODMDS, if they are designated. The EPA modified Alternative
1 to address the State's concern regarding potential impacts to hard
bottom benthic habitat and has incorporated management and monitoring
requirements into the SMMP to ensure that disposed dredged materials do
not negatively affect important benthic resources and sand borrow areas
located outside of the designated ODMDS boundaries. Furthermore, at the
request of the State, the EPA has conducted an evaluation of recently
designated critical habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle.

d. ESA

    The Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 to
1544, requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to ensure that any action authorized,
funded, or carried out by the Federal agency is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification
of any critical habitat. The EPA prepared a Biological Assessment (BA)
to assess the potential effects of expanding the Jacksonville ODMDS on
aquatic and wildlife species and submitted that BA to the NMFS and
USFWS on October 6, 2014. A supplement to the BA addressing loggerhead
critical habitat was submitted on January 15, 2015. The EPA concluded
that its action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect 10
ESA-listed species and is not likely to adversely affect designated
critical habitat for the North Atlantic right whale or the loggerhead
sea turtle. The USFWS concurred on the EPA's finding that the action is
not likely to adversely affect listed endangered or threatened species
under the jurisdiction of the USFWS.
    The informal consultation process with NMFS was concluded on August
3, 2015. NMFS concluded that dredged disposal activities at the
Jacksonville ODMDS are not likely to adversely affect sea turtles,
sturgeon, or whales. The Jacksonville ODMDS is located within Unit 2 of
the proposed modifications to the designated critical habitat for the
North Atlantic right whale. North Atlantic right whales are observed
calving off the southeastern U.S. coast, in an area designated as Unit
2 of the proposed critical habitat. The essential features of right
whale calving habitat are calm sea surface conditions, sea surface
temperature, and depth. The NMFS concluded that neither the dredging,
related vessel operations, nor the disposal of dredged material will
significantly impact water depth, sea surface conditions, or the
temperature of the ocean. While the ODMDS will decrease water depths,
the elevated sea bottom will not impede whales in any way. Water depths
will still be sufficient for the animals to move freely throughout the
habitat. Furthermore, the likelihood of interaction which may impact
the distribution of right whale calf/cow pairs is further reduced by
the precautions stipulated for vessel avoidance. These precautions are
required as part of the SMMP and restrict disposal vessel speed and
operation in accordance with the most recent USACE South Atlantic
Division Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Regional
Biological Opinion for Dredging of Channels and Borrow Areas in the
Southeastern United States (SARBO), or other relevant Biological
Opinion for specific projects not included in the SARBO to capture
requirements for projects not covered by the SARBO. Because all
potential project effects to listed species and critical habitat were
found to be discountable, insignificant, or beneficial, NMFS concluded
that the action is not likely to adversely affect listed species under
their purview.

e. NHPA

    The USACE and the EPA initiated consultation with the State of
Florida's Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on November 24, 2010, to
address the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA), 16
U.S.C. 470 to 470a-2, which requires Federal agencies to take into
account the effect of their actions on districts, sites, buildings,
structures, or objects, included in, or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A submerged cultural
resource survey of the area including the use of magnetometer, side
scan sonar, and sub-bottom profiler was conducted in 2011. A follow-up
archaeological diver investigation was conducted in 2012. No historic
properties were found within the expanded ODMDS boundaries and SHPO
concurred with the determination that designated the expanded ODMDS
would have no effect on cultural resource listed, or eligible for
listing on the NRHP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This rule proposes the designation of an expanded ODMDS pursuant to
Section 102 of the MPRSA. This action complies with applicable
executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:

a. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

b. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This site designation does not
require persons to obtain, maintain, retain, report, or publicly
disclose information to or for a Federal agency.

c. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires Federal
agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by the Small
Business Administration's size regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district, or special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. The EPA determined that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on small entities because the rule
will only have the effect of regulating the location of site to be used
for the disposal of dredged material in ocean waters. After considering
the economic impacts of this rule, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C.
1531 to 1538, for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local
or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Those
entities are already subject to existing permitting requirements for
the disposal of dredged material in ocean waters.

e. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to
this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent
with EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and State and
local governments, the EPA specifically solicited comments on this
action from State and local officials.

f. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 because the expansion of the Jacksonville ODMDS
will not have a direct effect on Indian Tribes, on the relationship
between the federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action. Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action the EPA consulted with tribal officials in the development
of this action, particularly as the action relates to potential impacts
to historic or cultural resources. The EPA specifically solicited
comment from tribal officials. The EPA did not receive comments from
tribal officials.

g. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under Section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. The action
concerns the expansion of the Jacksonville ODMDS and only has the
effect of providing a designated location for ocean disposal of dredged
material pursuant to Section 102(c) of the MPRSA.

h. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355) because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.

i. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272),
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This action
includes environmental monitoring and measurement as described in EPA's
SMMP. The EPA will not require the use of specific, prescribed analytic
methods for monitoring and managing the designated ODMDS. The Agency
plans to allow the use of any method, whether it constitutes a
voluntary consensus standard or not, that meets the monitoring and
measurement criteria discussed in the SMMP.

j. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) establishes federal executive
policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States. The EPA determined that this rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. The EPA has assessed the overall protectiveness of
expanding the Jacksonville ODMDS against the criteria established
pursuant to the MPRSA to ensure that any adverse impact to the
environment will be mitigated to the greatest extent practicable. We
welcome comments on this action related to this Executive Order.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

    Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of Section
102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as
amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401, 1411, 1412.

    Dated: September 28, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA amends chapter I,
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 228--CRITERIA FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DISPOSAL SITES FOR OCEAN
DUMPING

0
1. The authority citation for Part 228 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418

0
2. Section 228.15 is amended by revising paragraphs (h)(9)(i) through
(iii) and (vi) to read as follows:

Sec.  228.15  Dumping sites designated on a final basis.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (i) Location: 30[deg] 21.514' N., 81[deg] 18.555' W.; 30[deg]
21.514' N, 81[deg] 17.422' W.; 30[deg] 20.515' N., 81[deg] 17.422' W.;
30[deg] 20.515' N, 81[deg] 17.012' W.; 30[deg] 17.829' N., 81[deg]
17.012' W.; 30[deg] 17.829' N, 81[deg] 18.555' W.
    (ii) Size: Approximately 3.68 nautical miles long and 1.34 nautical
miles wide (4.56 square nautical miles); 3,861 acres (1,562 hectares).
    (iii) Depth: Ranges from approximately 28 to 61 feet (9 to 19
meters).
* * * * *
    (vi) Restrictions: (A) Disposal shall be limited to dredged
material from the Jacksonville, Florida, area;
    (B) Disposal shall be limited to dredged material determined to be
suitable for ocean disposal according to 40 CFR 227.13;
    (C) Disposal shall be managed by the restrictions and requirements
contained in the currently-approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan
(SMMP);
    (D) Monitoring, as specified in the SMMP, is required.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-26142 Filed 10-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 91 (Friday, May 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 22152]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09612]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4310-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Idaho; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Idaho (FEMA-4310-DR), dated April 21, 2017,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective April 21, 2017.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated April 21, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Idaho resulting from severe winter storms and flooding during the
period of February 5-27, 2017, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the State of Idaho.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Timothy B. Manner, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Idaho have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Bingham, Cassia, Elmore, Franklin, Gooding, Jefferson, Jerome,
Lincoln, Minidoka, Twin Falls, and Washington Counties for Public
Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Idaho are eligible for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

Robert J. Fenton,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-09612 Filed 5-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19293-19298]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07497]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91498; File No. SR-MIAX-2021-06]

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

April 7, 2021.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on March 26, 2021, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to extend the waiver period for certain
non-transaction fees applicable to Market Makers \3\ that trade solely
in Proprietary Products \4\ until December 31, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Lead Market Makers'',
``Primary Lead Market Makers'' and ``Registered Market Makers''
collectively. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \4\ The term ``Proprietary Product'' means a class of options
that is listed exclusively on the Exchange. See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's principal
office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to extend the
waiver period for certain non-transaction fees applicable to Market
Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products until December 31,
2021.
    On October 12, 2018, the Exchange received approval from the
Commission to list and trade on the Exchange, options on the
SPIKES[supreg] Index, a new index that measures expected 30-day
volatility of the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (commonly known and referred
to by its ticker symbol, ``SPY'').\5\ The Exchange adopted its initial
SPIKES transaction fees on February 15, 2019 and adopted a new section
of the Fee Schedule--Section 1)a)xi), SPIKES--for those fees.\6\
Options on the SPIKES Index began trading on the Exchange on February
19, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84417 (October 12,
2018), 83 FR 52865 (October 18, 2018) (SR-MIAX-2018-14) (Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change by Miami International
Securities Exchange, LLC to List and Trade on the Exchange Options
on the SPIKES[supreg] Index).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 85283 (March 11, 2019),
84 FR 9567 (March 15, 2019) (SR-MIAX-2019-11). The Exchange
initially filed the proposal on February 15, 2019 (SR-MIAX-2019-04).
That filing was withdrawn and replaced with SR-MIAX-2019-11. On
September 30, 2020, the Exchange filed its proposal to, among other
things, reorganize the Fee Schedule to adopt new Section 1)b),
Proprietary Products Exchange Fees, and moved the fees and rebates
for SPIKES options into new Section 1)b)i). See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 90146 (October 9, 2020), 85 FR 65443 (October 15,
2020) (SR-MIAX-2020-32); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90814
(December 29, 2020), 86 FR 327 (January 5, 2021) (SR-MIAX-2020-39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 31, 2019, the Exchange filed a proposal with the Commission
to amend the Fee Schedule to waive certain non-transaction fees
applicable to Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products
(including options

on the SPIKES Index) until September 30, 2019.\7\ In particular, the
Exchange adopted waivers for Membership Application fees, monthly
Market Maker Trading Permit fees, Application Programming Interface
(``API'') Testing and Certification fees for Members, and monthly MIAX
Express Interface (``MEI'') Port fees assessed to Market Makers that
trade solely in Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES)
until September 30, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86109 (June 14,
2019), 84 FR 28860 (June 20, 2019) (SR-MIAX-2019-28).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 1, 2019, the Exchange filed a proposal with the
Commission to extend the waiver period for the same non-transaction
fees applicable to Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary
Products (including options on SPIKES) until December 31, 2019.\8\ On
December 30, 2019, the Exchange filed a proposal with the Commission to
extend the waiver period for the same non-transaction fees applicable
to Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including
options on SPIKES) until June 30, 2020.\9\ On June 30, 2020, the
Exchange filed a proposal with the Commission to extend the waiver
period for the same non-transaction fees applicable to Market Makers
that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES)
until September 30, 2020.\10\ On September 30, 2020, the Exchange filed
a proposal with the Commission to extend the waiver period for the same
non-transaction fees applicable to Market Makers that trade solely in
Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES) until December 31,
2020.\11\ On December 29, 2020, the Exchange filed a proposal with the
Commission to extend the waiver period for the same non-transaction
fees applicable to Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary
Products (including options on SPIKES) until March 31, 2021.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87282 (October 10,
2019), 84 FR 55658 (October 17, 2019) (SR-MIAX-2019-43).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87897 (January 6,
2020), 85 FR 1346 (January 10, 2020) (SR-MIAX-2019-53).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89289 (July 10,
2020), 85 FR 43279 (July 16, 2020) (SR-MIAX-2020-22).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90146 (October 9,
2020), 85 FR 65443 (October 15, 2020) (SR-MIAX-2020-32).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90814 (December 29,
2020), 86 FR 327 (January 5, 2021) (SR-MIAX-2020-39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to extend the waiver period for the same
non-transaction fees applicable to Market Makers that trade solely in
Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES) until December 31,
2021. In particular, the Exchange proposes to waive Membership
Application fees, monthly Market Maker Trading Permit fees, Member API
Testing and Certification fees, and monthly MEI Port fees assessed to
Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including
options on SPIKES) until December 31, 2021.
Membership Application Fees
    The Exchange currently assesses Membership fees for applications of
potential Members. The Exchange assesses a one-time Membership
Application fee on the earlier of (i) the date the applicant is
certified in the membership system, or (ii) once an application for
MIAX membership is finally denied. The one-time application fee is
based upon the applicant's status as either a Market Maker or an
Electronic Exchange Member (``EEM'').\13\ A Market Maker is assessed a
one-time Membership Application fee of $3,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The term ``Electronic Exchange Member'' or ``EEM'' means
the holder of a Trading Permit who is not a Market Maker. Electronic
Exchange Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that the waiver for the one-time Membership
Application fee of $3,000 for Market Makers that trade solely in
Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES) will be extended
from April 1, 2021 until December 31, 2021, which the Exchange proposes
to state in the Fee Schedule. The purpose of this proposed change is to
continue to provide an incentive for potential Market Makers to submit
membership applications, which should result in increasing potential
liquidity in Proprietary Products, including options on SPIKES. Even
though the Exchange is proposing to extend the waiver of this
particular fee for Market Makers who will trade solely in Proprietary
Products from April 1, 2021 until December 31, 2021, the overall
structure of the fee is outlined in the Fee Schedule so that there is
general awareness that the Exchange intends to assess such a fee after
December 31, 2021.
Trading Permit Fees
    The Exchange issues Trading Permits that confer the ability to
transact on the Exchange. MIAX Trading Permits are issued to Market
Makers and EEMs. Members receiving Trading Permits during a particular
calendar month are assessed monthly Trading Permit fees as set forth in
the Fee Schedule. As it relates to Market Makers, MIAX currently
assesses a monthly Trading Permit fee in any month the Market Maker is
certified in the membership system, is credentialed to use one or more
MIAX MEI Ports \14\ in the production environment and is assigned to
quote in one or more classes. MIAX assesses the monthly Market Maker
Trading Permit fee for its Market Makers based on the greatest number
of classes listed on MIAX that the MIAX Market Maker was assigned to
quote in on any given day within a calendar month and the applicable
fee rate is the lesser of either the per class basis or percentage of
total national average daily volume measurements. A MIAX Market Maker
is assessed a monthly Trading Permit Fee according to the following
table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Full Service MEI Ports provide Market Makers with the
ability to send Market Maker simple and complex quotes, eQuotes, and
quote purge messages to the MIAX System. Full Service MEI Ports are
also capable of receiving administrative information. Market Makers
are limited to two Full Service MEI Ports per matching engine. See
Fee Schedule, note 27.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Market maker assignments (the lesser of the applicable
                                         Monthly MIAX                  measurements below) [Omega]
        Type of trading permit          trading permit ---------------------------------------------------------
                                              fee                                   % of National average daily
                                                                Per class                      volume
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Maker (includes RMM, LMM, PLMM)       $7,000.00  Up to 10 Classes.........  Up to 20% of Classes by
                                                                                volume.
                                            $12,000.00  Up to 40 Classes.........  Up to 35% of Classes by
                                                                                volume.
                                          * $17,000.00  Up to 100 Classes........  Up to 50% of Classes by
                                                                                volume.
                                          * $22,000.00  Over 100 Classes.........  Over 50% of Classes by volume
                                                                                up to all Classes listed on
                                                                                MIAX.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Omega] Excludes Proprietary Products.

* For these Monthly MIAX Trading Permit Fee levels, if the Market Maker's total monthly executed volume during
  the relevant month is less than 0.060% of the total monthly executed volume reported by OCC in the market
  maker account type for MIAX-listed option classes for that month, then the fee will be $15,500 instead of the
  fee otherwise applicable to such level.

    MIAX proposes that the waiver for the monthly Trading Permit fee
for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including
options on SPIKES) will be extended from April 1, 2021 to December 31,
2021, which the Exchange proposes to state in the Fee Schedule. The
purpose of this proposed change is to continue to provide an incentive
for Market Makers to provide liquidity in Proprietary Products on the
Exchange, which should result in increasing potential order flow and
volume in Proprietary Products, including options on SPIKES. Even
though the Exchange is proposing to extend the waiver of this
particular fee for Market Makers trading solely in Proprietary Products
from April 1, 2021 until December 31, 2021, the overall structure of
the fee is outlined in the Fee Schedule so that there is general
awareness by potential Members seeking a Trading Permit on the Exchange
that the Exchange intends to assess such a fee after December 31, 2021.
    The Exchange also proposes that Market Makers who trade Proprietary
Products (including options on SPIKES) along with multi-listed classes
will continue to not have Proprietary Products (including SPIKES)
counted toward those Market Makers' class assignment count or
percentage of total national average daily volume. This exclusion is
noted with the symbol ``[Omega]'' following the table that shows the
monthly Trading Permit Fees currently assessed for Market Makers in
Section (3)(b) of the Fee Schedule.
API Testing and Certification Fee
    The Exchange assesses an API Testing and Certification fee to all
Members depending upon the type of Member. An API makes it possible for
Members' software to communicate with MIAX software applications, and
is subject to Members testing with, and certification by, MIAX. The
Exchange offers four types of interfaces: (i) The Financial Information
Exchange Port (``FIX Port''),\15\ which enables the FIX Port user
(typically an EEM or a Market Maker) to submit simple and complex
orders electronically to MIAX; (ii) the MEI Port, which enables Market
Makers to submit simple and complex electronic quotes to MIAX; (iii)
the Clearing Trade Drop Port (``CTD Port''),\16\ which provides real-
time trade clearing information to the participants to a trade on MIAX
and to the participants' respective clearing firms; and (iv) the FIX
Drop Copy Port (``FXD Port''),\17\ which provides a copy of real-time
trade execution, correction and cancellation information through a FIX
Port to any number of FIX Ports designated by an EEM to receive such
messages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A FIX Port is an interface with MIAX systems that enables
the Port user (typically an Electronic Exchange Member or a Market
Maker) to submit simple and complex orders electronically to MIAX.
See Fee Schedule, note 24.
    \16\ Clearing Trade Drop (``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 Fees will be assessed in any month the Member
is credentialed to use the CTD Port in the production environment.
See Fee Schedule, Section 5)d)iii.
    \17\ The FIX Drop Copy Port (``FXD'') is a messaging interface
that will provide a copy of real-time trade execution, trade
correction and trade cancellation information for simple and complex
orders to FIX Drop Copy Port users who subscribe to the service. FIX
Drop Copy 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 only. FXD Port Fees will be assessed in any month the Member
is credentialed to use the FXD Port in the production environment.
See Fee Schedule, Section 5(d)iv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    API Testing and Certification fees for Market Makers are assessed
(i) initially per API for CTD and MEI in the month the Market Maker has
been credentialed to use one or more ports in the production
environment for the tested API and the Market Maker has been assigned
to quote in one or more classes, and (ii) each time a Market Maker
initiates a change to its system that requires testing and
certification. API Testing and Certification fees will not be assessed
in situations where the Exchange initiates a mandatory change to the
Exchange's system that requires testing and certification. The Exchange
currently assesses a Market Maker an API Testing and Certification fee
of $2,500. The API Testing and Certification fees represent costs
incurred by the Exchange as it works with each Member for testing and
certifying that the Member's software systems communicate properly with
MIAX's interfaces.
    MIAX proposes to extend the waiver of the API Testing and
Certification fee for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary
Products (including options on SPIKES) from April 1, 2021 until
December 31, 2021, which the Exchange proposes to state in the Fee
Schedule. The purpose of this proposed change is to continue to provide
an incentive for potential Market Makers to develop software
applications to trade in Proprietary Products, including options on
SPIKES. Even though the Exchange is proposing to extend the waiver of
this particular fee for Market Makers who trade solely in Proprietary
Products from April 1, 2021 until December 31, 2021, the overall
structure of the fee is outlined in the Fee Schedule so that there is
general awareness that the Exchange intends to assess such a fee after
December 31, 2021.
MEI Port Fees
    MIAX provides four (4) Port types, including (i) the FIX Port,
which enables the FIX Port user (typically an EEM or a Market Maker) to
submit simple and complex orders electronically to MIAX; (ii) the MEI
Port, which enables Market Makers to submit simple and complex
electronic quotes to MIAX; (iii) the CTD Port, which provides real-time
trade clearing information to the participants to a trade on MIAX and
to the participants' respective clearing firms; and (iv) the FXD Port,
which provides a copy of real-time trade execution, correction and
cancellation information through a FIX Port to any number of FIX Ports
designated by an EEM to receive such messages.
    MIAX assesses monthly MEI Port Fees to Market Makers in each month
the Member has been credentialed to use the MEI Port in the production
environment and has been assigned to quote in at least one class. The
amount of the monthly MEI Port Fee is based upon the number of classes
in which the Market Maker was assigned to quote on any given day within
the calendar month, and upon the class volume percentages set forth in
the table below. The class volume percentage is based on the total
national average daily volume in classes listed on MIAX in the prior
calendar quarter. Newly listed option classes are excluded from the
calculation of the monthly MEI Port Fee until the calendar quarter
following their listing, at which time the newly listed option classes
will be included in both the per class count and the percentage of
total national average

daily volume. The Exchange assesses MIAX Market Makers the monthly MEI
Port Fee based on the greatest number of classes listed on MIAX that
the MIAX 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. MIAX assesses MEI Port Fees on Market Makers
according to the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Market maker assignments (the lesser of
                                   the applicable measurements below)
                                                 [Omega]
     Monthly MIAX MEI fees     -----------------------------------------
                                                   % of National average
                                    Per class           daily volume
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$5,000.00.....................  Up to 5 Classes..  Up to 10% of Classes
                                                    by volume.
$10,000.00....................  Up to 10 Classes.  Up to 20% of Classes
                                                    by volume.
$14,000.00....................  Up to 40 Classes.  Up to 35% of Classes
                                                    by volume.
$17,500.00 *..................  Up to 100 Classes  Up to 50% of Classes
                                                    by volume.
$20,500.00 *..................  Over 100 Classes.  Over 50% of Classes
                                                    by volume up to all
                                                    Classes listed on
                                                    MIAX.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Omega] Excludes Proprietary Products.
* For these Monthly MIAX MEI Fees levels, if the Market Maker's total
  monthly executed volume during the relevant month is less than 0.060%
  of the total monthly executed volume reported by OCC in the market
  maker account type for MIAX-listed option classes for that month, then
  the fee will be $14,500 instead of the fee otherwise applicable to
  such level.

    MIAX proposes to extend the waiver of the monthly MEI Port Fee for
Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including
options on SPIKES) from April 1, 2021 until December 31, 2021, which
the Exchange proposes to state in the Fee Schedule. The purpose of this
proposal is to continue to provide an incentive to Market Makers to
connect to MIAX through the MEI Port such that they will be able to
trade in MIAX Proprietary Products. Even though the Exchange is
proposing to extend the waiver of this particular fee for Market Makers
trading solely in Proprietary Products until December 31, 2021, the
overall structure of the fee is outlined in the Fee Schedule so that
there is general awareness that the Exchange intends to assess such a
fee after December 31, 2021.
    The Exchange notes that for the purposes of this proposed change,
other Market Makers who trade MIAX Proprietary Products (including
options on SPIKES) along with multi-listed classes will continue to not
have Proprietary Products (including SPIKES) counted toward those
Market Makers' class assignment count or percentage of total national
average daily volume. This exclusion is noted by the symbol ``[Omega]''
following the table that shows the monthly MEI Port Fees currently
assessed for Market Makers in Section 5)d)ii) of the Fee Schedule.
    The proposed extension of the fee waivers are targeted at market
participants, particularly market makers, who are not currently members
of MIAX, who may be interested in being a Market Maker in Proprietary
Products on the Exchange. The Exchange estimates that there are fewer
than ten (10) such market participants that could benefit from the
extension of these fee waivers. The proposed extension of the fee
waivers does not apply differently to different sizes of market
participants, however the fee waivers do only apply to Market Makers
(and not EEMs).
    Market Makers, unlike other market participants, take on a number
of obligations, including quoting obligations that other market
participants do not have. Further, Market Makers have added market
making and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to
other market participants. For example, Market Makers have obligations
to maintain continuous markets, engage in a course of dealings
reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and
orderly market, and to not make bids or offers or enter into
transactions that are inconsistent with a course of dealing.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes it is reasonable and not unfairly
discriminatory to continue to offer the fee waivers to Market Makers
because the Exchange is seeking additional liquidity providers for
Proprietary Products, in order to enhance liquidity and spreads in
Proprietary Products, which is traditionally provided by Market Makers,
as opposed to EEMs.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \18\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \19\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using
its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to extend the fee waiver
period for certain non-transaction fees for Market Makers in
Proprietary Products is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
because the proposal continues to waive non-transaction fees for a
limited period of time in order to enable the Exchange to improve its
overall competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all
market participants in MIAX's Proprietary Products, including options
on SPIKES. The Exchange believe the proposed extension of the fee
waivers is fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory
because it applies to all market participants not currently registered
as Market Makers at the Exchange. Any market participant may choose to
satisfy the additional requirements and obligations of being a Market
Maker and trade solely in Proprietary Products in order to qualify for
the fee waivers.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the fee
waivers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for Market Makers
as compared to EEMs because Market Makers, unlike other market
participants, take on a number of obligations, including quoting
obligations that other market participants do not have. Further, Market
Makers have added market making and regulatory requirements, which
normally do not apply to other market participants. For example, Market
Makers have obligations to maintain continuous markets, engage in a
course of dealings reasonably

calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market, and to not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that
are inconsistent with a course of dealing.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to continue to
waive the one-time Membership Application Fee, monthly Trading Permit
Fee, API Testing and Certification Fee, and monthly MEI Port Fee for
Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including
options on SPIKES) until December 31, 2021, since the waiver of such
fees provides incentives to interested market participants to trade in
Proprietary Products. This should result in increasing potential order
flow and liquidity in MIAX Proprietary Products, including options on
SPIKES.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to continue to
waive the API Testing and Certification fee assessable to Market Makers
that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES)
until December 31, 2021, since the waiver of such fees provides
incentives to interested Members to develop and test their APIs sooner.
Determining system operability with the Exchange's system will in turn
provide MIAX with potential order flow and liquidity providers in
Proprietary Products.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory that Market Makers who trade in Proprietary Products
along with multi-listed classes will continue to not have Proprietary
Products counted toward those Market Makers' class assignment count or
percentage of total national average daily volume for monthly Trading
Permit Fees and monthly MEI Port Fees in order to incentivize existing
Market Makers who currently trade in multi-listed classes to also trade
in Proprietary Products, without incurring certain additional fees.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the fee
waivers constitutes an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and
other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities. The proposed extension of the fee waivers means that all
prospective market makers that wish to become Market Maker Members of
the Exchange and quote solely in Proprietary Products may do so and
have the above-mentioned fees waived until December 31, 2021. The
proposed extension of the fee waivers will continue to not apply to
potential EEMs because the Exchange is seeking to enhance the quality
of its markets in Proprietary Products through introducing more
competition among Market Makers in Proprietary Products. In order to
increase the competition, the Exchange believes that it must continue
to waive entry type fees for such Market Makers. EEMs do not provide
the benefit of enhanced liquidity which is provided by Market Makers,
therefore the Exchange believes it is reasonable and not unfairly
discriminatory to continue to only offer the proposed fee waivers to
Market Makers (and not EEMs). Further, the Exchange believes it is
reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory to continue to exclude
Proprietary Products from an existing Market Maker's permit fees and
port fees, in order to incentive such Market Makers to quote in
Proprietary Products. The amount of a Market Maker's permit and port
fee is determined by the number of classes quoted and volume of the
Market Maker. By excluding Proprietary Products from such fees, the
Exchange is able to incentivize Market Makers to quote in Proprietary
Products. EEMs do not pay permit and port fees based on the classes
traded or volume, so the Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable,
and not unfairly discriminatory to only offer the exclusion to Market
Makers (and not EEMs).

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intra-Market Competition
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to reorganize certain
sections of the Fee Schedule does not impose any burden on intra-market
competition that is not necessary or appropriate because this proposal
is not competitive in nature, but rather is designed to remedy minor
non-substantive issues and provide added clarity to the Fee Schedule in
order to avoid potential confusion on the part of market participants.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to extend certain of the
non-transaction fee waivers until December 31, 2021 for Market Makers
that trade solely in Proprietary Products would increase intra-market
competition by incentivizing new potential Market Makers to quote in
Proprietary Products, which will enhance the quality of quoting and
increase the volume of contracts in Proprietary Products traded on
MIAX, including options on SPIKES. To the extent that this purpose is
achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should benefit from
the improved market liquidity for the Exchange's Proprietary Products.
Enhanced market quality and increased transaction volume in Proprietary
Products that results from the anticipated increase in Market Maker
activity on the Exchange will benefit all market participants and
improve competition on the Exchange.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed changes for each separate type of market participant (new
Market Makers and existing Market Makers) will be assessed equally to
all such market participants. While different fees are assessed to
different market participants in some circumstances, these different
market participants have different obligations and different
circumstances as discussed above. For example, Market Makers have
quoting obligations that other market participants (such as EEMs) do
not have.
Inter-Market Competition
    The Exchange does not believe the proposal to reorganize certain
sections of the Fee Schedule will impose any burden on inter-market
competition as the proposal does not address any competitive issues and
is intended to protect investors by providing further transparency
regarding the Exchange's Fee Schedule.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change to
extend the fee waiver for certain non-transaction fees will impose any
burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed
extension of the fee waivers apply only to the Exchange's Proprietary
Products (including options on SPIKES), which are traded exclusively on
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,\20\ and Rule

19b-4(f)(2) \21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \21\ 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-MIAX-2021-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2021-06. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2021-06, and should be submitted on
or before May 4, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-07497 Filed 4-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 23855-23856]
[DOCID:fr21my09-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER09-1090-000; ER09-728-000]

Twin Cities Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

May 13, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Twin Cities Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 2, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the

FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic
service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or
be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an
eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling
link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11787 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 169)]
[Notice]
[Page 50350]
[DOCID:fr31au07-76]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL05-60-003]

PJM Interconnection, LLC; Notice of Filing

July 13, 2007.
    Take notice that on July 10, 2007, PJM Interconnection, LLC filed a
second amendment to its October 17, 2005 filing in compliance with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's request.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 31, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-17310 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P