[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 28, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13185-13187]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06213]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0229]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Port Gibson, MS

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing an emergency temporary safety
zone for all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River, extending
the entire width of the river, from mile marker (MM) 405 to MM 408.
This emergency safety zone is necessary to protect persons, property,
and infrastructure from potential damage and safety hazards associated
with vessels transiting this area during high water. This rule
prohibits persons and vessels from entering the safety zone area unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Lower
Mississippi River (COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from March 28, 2018
through 7 p.m. on March 31, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement,
actual notice will be used from 10 a.m. on March 13, 2018 through March
28, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0229 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Open
Docket Folder'' on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Todd Manow, Sector Lower Mississippi River
Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Lower Mississippi River
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to
the public interest. Increasing high water in this area requires
immediate action to

protect persons, property and power plant infrastructure from the
potential safety hazards associated with vessels transiting this area
during high water. This safety zone must be established immediately to
protect people and vessels associated with and resulting from the high
water and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment
period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. This
safety zone may include closures and/or navigation restrictions and
requirements that are vital to maintaining safe navigation on the Lower
Mississippi River during the high water. Therefore, delaying the
effective date for this emergency safety zone to complete the NPRM
process would also be contrary to the public interest as it would delay
the safety measures vital to safe navigation.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in
the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be
contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential
hazards created by the increasing high water.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Lower Mississippi River (COTP) has
determined that there are potential hazards associated with increasing
high water, including possible emergency operations to repair damage to
power distribution infrastructure taking place on the left descending
bank of the Lower Mississippi River between MM 405 and 408 in the
vicinity of the Entergy Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Facility, in Port
Gibson, MS. Loss of the power distribution lines system would be
catastrophic to large areas of Louisiana and Mississippi. This rule is
needed to protect persons, property, and infrastructure from potential
damage and safety hazards associated with vessels transiting this
safety zone during high water.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all
navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River, extending the entire
width of the river, from mile marker (MM) 405 to MM 408. Transit into
and through this area is prohibited for all traffic beginning at 10
a.m. on March 13, 2018 and will continue through 7 p.m. on March 31,
2018. The COTP will terminate the enforcement of this safety zone
before March 31, 2018 if the high water event ceases. Entry into this
safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the COTP or
a designated representative. A designated representative is a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard
assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Lower
Mississippi River.
    Requests for entry will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-
case basis. The COTP may be contacted by telephone at 1-866-777-2784 or
can be reached by VHF-FM channel 16. Persons and vessels permitted to
transit this safety zone shall not meet, pass, or overtake any vessel
currently transiting, shall maintain slowest speed for safe navigation,
and shall comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the
designated representative.
    This safety zone may include closures and/or navigation
restrictions and requirements that are vital to maintaining safe
navigation on the Lower Mississippi River during the high water. The
COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through
broadcast notices to mariners of any changes in the restrictions or the
enforcement period for the safety zone.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. This emergency safety zone
will restrict vessel traffic from entering or transiting through a
three-mile section of the navigable waterways of the Lower Mississippi
River from mile marker (MM) 405 to MM 408, in the vicinity of Port
Gibson, MS, from 10 a.m. on March 13, 2018 through 7 p.m. on March 31,
2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners
via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows
vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more 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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves an emergency safety zone lasting approximately nineteen
days that will prohibit entry into a three-mile stretch of the Lower
Mississippi River during a hazardous high-water event. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(d) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A
Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this
determination will be made available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  [thinsp]165.T08-0229 to read as follows:

Sec.  [thinsp]165.T08-0229   Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River; Port
Gibson, MS.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Lower Mississippi River, extending the entire width of
the river, from mile marker (MM) 405 to MM 408, in the vicinity of Port
Gibson, MS.
    (b) Period of enforcement. This section will be enforced from 10
a.m. on March 13, 2018 and will continue through 7 p.m. on March 31,
2018, or until the high-water event ceases, whichever occurs first.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  [thinsp]165.23, entry of vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
Sector Lower Mississippi River (COTP) or a designated representative. A
designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control
of USCG Sector Lower Mississippi River.
    (2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. To seek entry
into the safety zone, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by
telephone at 1-866-777-2784 or on VHF-FM channel 16.
    (3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone shall
not meet, pass, or overtake any vessel currently transiting, shall
maintain slowest speed for safe navigation, and shall comply with all
lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
    (d) Informational Broadcasts. This safety zone may include closures
and/or navigation restrictions and requirements that are vital to
maintaining safe navigation on this section of the Lower Mississippi
River during the high water. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of any
changes in the enforcement period for the safety zone.

    Dated: March 12, 2018.
R. Tamez,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Lower Mississippi
River.
[FR Doc. 2018-06213 Filed 3-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 28907]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11067]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Code Rebel Corporation; Order of Suspension of
Trading

May 6, 2016.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of accurate information concerning the securities of Code Rebel
Corporation (``CDRB'') because of questions regarding the accuracy of
statements in CDRB's Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended June 30, 2015
and September 30, 2015, and the Form 10-K for the year ending December
31, 2015, concerning the company's assets and financial condition. CDRB
is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices in
Kahului, Hawaii. Its stock is listed on NASDAQ under the symbol CDRB.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on
May 6, 2016, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 19, 2016.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-11067 Filed 5-6-16; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 24, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74857-74858]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25793]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0669; Airspace Docket No. 20-ANE-2]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Norway, ME

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface for Norway Heliport, Norway, ME, to
accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS)
standard instrument approach procedures (SIAPs) serving this heliport.
Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 25, 2021. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Ave, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rule regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes Class E airspace at Norway Heliport, Norway, ME, to
support IFR operations in the area.

History

    The FAA published a notice of prosed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (85 FR 47322, August 5, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0669 to
establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Norway Heliport, Norway, ME. Interested parties were invited
to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments
on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface

within a 6-mile radius at Norway Heliport, Norway, ME. These changes
are necessary for continued safety and management of IFR operations in
the area. Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, the FAA found
excessive verbiage in the airport's description. The words `or more'
and `of the earth' are not necessary to describe the airspace. This
action makes the correction.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It
therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
only affects air traffic procedures an air navigation, it is certified
that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 20, 2020,
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANE ME E5 Norway, ME [New]

Norway Heliport, ME
    (Lat. 44[deg]12'34'' N, long. 70[deg]31'54'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6-mile radius of Norway Heliport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on November 18, 2020.
Matthew N. Cathcart,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team North, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2020-25793 Filed 11-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


E Mail FROM: " Stolpe, Elizabeth A." < Elizabeth_ A._ Stolpe@ ceq. eop. gov> 06/ 23/ 2004 01: 26 PM To: Stephanie Daigle/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Jeff Holmstead/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Bill Wehrum/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Bill Harnett/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Natalie Gochnour/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Cynthia Bergman/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Prudence Goforth/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: " Perino, Dana M." < Dana_ M._ Perino@ ceq. eop. gov>, " Fraas, Arthur G." < afraas@ OMB. eop. gov>

Subject: RE: Logistics on NSR Stephanie  I'm answering your voicemail w/ an email to everyone just to facilitate keeping us all up to date real time: Your question is can we clear the ERP Petition by tomorrow? I think the prospects are good. DOE's concerns are unknown but at this point I think they are related to the Stay not the Petition. Lee and I are still exchanging voicemails. If there are any problems, I'll report back and do my utmost to resolve them quickly. Our bigger impediment to finishing the ERP tomorrow in my view is getting communication docs over here and giving people time to review.

Thanks, E.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 38029]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15081]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped chronologically, in ascending order. These filings are
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three
digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC, Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Exempt:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Docket No.                   Filed date                     Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. P-13590-000........................          05-24-13  FERC Staff.\1\
 2. IS13-265-000.......................          05-28-13  US Congress.\2\
 3. P-12790-000........................          05-31-13  FERC Staff.\3\
 4. CP13-483-000, CP13-492-000.........           06-4-13  FERC Staff.\4\
 5. P-2144-000.........................          06-10-13  Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers.
 6. P-14241-000........................          06-11-13  Gov. Sean Parnell.
 7. P-2232-000.........................          06-11-13  Hon. Patrick McHenry.
 8. CP12-30-000........................          06-11-13  Hon. Rodney P. Frelinghuysen.
 9. P-459-000..........................          06-12-13  Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer.
10. P-1971-000.........................          06-14-13  Brian D. Miller, P.E., PMP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Email record.
\2\ Letter signed by: Hons. Mark Pryor, John Boozman, Rick Crawford, Tim Griffin and Steve Womack.
\3\ Email record.
\4\ FERC staff attended a meeting in Portland, OR.

    Dated: June 14, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-15081 Filed 6-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 43)]
[Notices]
[Page 10297-10298]
[DOCID:fr05mr10-102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2010-0136]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Numbers: 1625-0056

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) and Analysis to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of
information: 1625-0056, Labeling required in 33 CFR Parts 181 and 183
and 46 CFR 25.10-3. Before submitting this ICR to OMB, the Coast Guard
is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 4, 2010.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket [USCG-2010-
0136], please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (DMF) (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT), West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand deliver: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-611), Attn Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2100 2nd St. SW., Stop 7101, Washington DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Arthur Requina, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. We will post all comments received, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal
information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their
DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number [USCG-2010-0136], indicate the specific section of the
document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each
comment. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an e-mail
address, or other contact information in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but please
submit them by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8-1/2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail
and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and will
address them accordingly.
    Viewing comments and documents: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to
view documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the
docket. Click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2010-0136''
and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the
``Actions'' column. You may also visit the DMF in room W12-140 on the
West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Privacy
Act statement regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008
issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Labeling required in 33 CFR Parts 181 and 183 and 46 CFR
25.10-3.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0056.
    Summary: Parts 181 and 183 of Title 33, CFR and 46 CFR 25.10-3
contain the regulations and safety standards authorized by the statutes
which apply to manufacturers of recreational boats, un-inspected
commercial vessels and associated equipment. The regulations and safety
standards contain information collections, which require boat and
associated equipment manufacturers, importers and the boating public to
apply for serial numbers and to display various labels evidencing
compliance such as: Hull Identification Numbers; USCG Maximum
Capacities Label; Gasoline Fuel Tank Label; USCG Type Fuel Hose Label
and Certified Navigation Light Label.
    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. 4302(a)(3) gives the Coast Guard authority to
require the display of seals, labels, plates, insignia, or other
devices for certifying or evidencing compliance with safety regulations
and standards of the United States Government for recreational vessels
and associated equipment.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Manufacturers of boats, fuel tanks, fuel hoses and
navigation lights.
    Frequency: Various.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 395,107 to
299,141 hours a year.

    Dated: February 25, 2010.
M.B. Lytle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2010-4646 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3134-3135]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-490-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review of the Rivervale South to Market Project

    On August 31, 2017, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC
(Transco) filed an application in Docket No. CP17-490-000 requesting a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section
7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural
gas pipeline facilities entirely within New Jersey. The proposed
project is known as the Rivervale South to Market Project (Project),
and would enable Transco to provide an additional 190 million cubic
feet (MMcf) per day of firm transportation service to meet supply needs
for the 2019/2020 winter heating season.
    On September 15, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project.
Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice
identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the
EA for the Project.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA--March 16, 2018
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--June 14, 2018

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    Transco proposes to construct, modify, upgrade, and operate various
facilities in connection with its proposed Rivervale South to Market
Project in Bergen, Hudson, and Union Counties, New Jersey. According to
Transco, the Project would increase the firm delivery transportation
capacity of its existing pipeline system by 190 MMcf per day of natural
gas from the Rivervale interconnection to existing Compressor Station
210 in Mercer County and the Central Manhattan meter and regulation
station (M&R) station in Hudson County. The Compressor Station 210
pooling point would receive 140 MMcf, and the Central Manhattan M&R
would receive 50 MMcf.
    The Project would consist of the following facilities:
     Construct 0.61 mile of 42-inch-diameter pipeline loop \1\
along Transco's Mainline A, from mileposts 1825.80 to 1826.41 (Bergen
County);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A loop is a segment of pipe that is usually installed
adjacent to an existing pipeline and connected to it at both ends.
The loop allows more gas to be moved through the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     uprate 10.35 miles of the existing 24-inch-diameter North
New Jersey Extension from the Paramus M&R station (Bergen County) to
the Orange and Rockland M&R station (Bergen County). The North New
Jersey Extension would be uprated from a maximum allowable operating
pressure of 650 pounds per square inch gauge (``psig'') to 812 psig;
     upgrade the existing valves, including overpressure
protection valves, and yard piping, and related activities at the
Paramus, Central Manhattan, Orange and Rockland, and Emerson M&R
stations; and
     construct additional facilities, such as mainline valves,
cathodic protection, internal inspection device (pig \2\) launchers and
receivers, and communication equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A pig is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into and
pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline, conducting
internal inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On October 19, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Rivervale South to
Market Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI).
The NOI was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local
government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public
interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and
local libraries and newspapers. In response to the NOI, the Commission
received comments from the Borough of Emerson, New Jersey; the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Food & Water Watch; and the New Jersey Sierra Club. Additionally, in
response to the Notice of Application, the Commission received comments
from the Hackensack Riverkeeper. The primary issues raised by the
commentors are impacts on drinking water, wetlands, and wildlife; the
necessity of the Project; pipeline safety; pollution prevention
practices; the continued reliance on fossil fuels; long-term
environmental impacts; improper segmentation; evaluation of cumulative,
indirect, and secondary impacts; environmental impacts from increased
shale gas development; evaluation of alternatives, including those
outside FERC's jurisdiction; climate change; environmental justice; and
the need for an Environmental Impact Statement.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This

can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General
Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket
Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP17-490), and follow the
instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can
be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
[email protected]. The eLibrary link on the FERC website also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: January 17, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-01112 Filed 1-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26967-26973]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10380]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91858; File No. SR-PEARL-2021-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX
Pearl Fee Schedule To Remove the Cap on the Number of Additional
Limited Service Ports Available to Market Makers

May 12, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 10, 2021, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Pearl Options
Fee Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to remove the cap on the number of
additional Limited Service MIAX Express Order Interface (``MEO'') Ports
(defined below) available to Members.\3\ The Exchange does not propose
to amend the fees for additional Limited Service MEO Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization that
is registered with the Exchange pursuant to Chapter II of these
Rules for purposes of trading on the Exchange as an ``Electronic
Exchange Member'' or ``Market Maker.'' Members are deemed
``members'' under the Exchange Act. See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 5)d) of the Fee Schedule to
remove the cap on the number of additional Limited Service MEO Ports
available to Members. The Exchange does not propose to amend the fees
charged for any additional Limited Service MEO Ports purchased by
Members.
    The Exchange initially filed this proposal to remove the cap on the
number of additional Limited Service MEO Ports available to Members on
April 9, 2021.\4\ On April 22, 2021, the Exchange withdrew the First
Proposed Rule Change and refiled this proposal (without increasing the
actual fee amounts) to provide further clarification regarding the
Exchange's revenues, costs, and profitability any time more Limited
Service MEO Ports become available, in general, (including information
regarding the Exchange's methodology for determining the costs and
revenues for additional Limited Service MEO Ports).\5\ On May 3, 2021,
the Exchange withdrew the Second Proposed Rule Change and refiled this
proposal to further clarify its cost methodology.\6\ On May 10, 2021,
the Exchange withdrew the Third Proposed Rule Change and refiled this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See SR-PEARL-2021-17 (the ``First Proposed Rule Change'').
    \5\ See SR-PEARL-2021-20 (the ``Second Proposed Rule Change'').
    \6\ See SR-PEARL-2021-22 (the ``Third Proposed Rule Change'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange offers different options of MEO Ports
depending on the services required by an Exchange Member, including a
Full Service MEO Port-Bulk,\7\ a Full Service MEO Port-Single,\8\ and a
Limited Service MEO Port.\9\ A Member may be allocated two (2) Full-
Service MEO Ports of either type, Bulk and/or Single, per Matching
Engine,\10\ and up to eight (8) Limited Service MEO Ports, per Matching
Engine. The two (2) Full-Service MEO Ports that may be allocated per
Matching Engine to a Member currently may consist of: (a) Two (2) Full
Service MEO Ports--Bulk; or (b) two (2) Full Service MEO Ports--Single.
The Exchange also has a third option, option (c), which permits a
Member to have one (1) Full Service MEO Port--Bulk, and one (1) Full
Service MEO Port--Single.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Full Service MEO Port--Bulk'' means an MEO port that
supports all MEO input message types and binary bulk order entry.
See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
    \8\ ``Full Service MEO Port--Single'' means an MEO port that
supports all MEO input message types and binary order entry on a
single order-by-order basis, but not bulk orders. See the
Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
    \9\ ``Limited Service MEO Port'' means an MEO port that supports
all MEO input message types, but does not support bulk order entry
and only supports limited order types, as specified by the Exchange
via Regulatory Circular. See the Definitions Section of the Fee
Schedule.
    \10\ The term ``Matching Engine'' means a part of the MIAX Pearl
electronic system that processes options orders and trades on a
symbol-by-symbol basis. Some Matching Engines will process option
classes with multiple root symbols, and other Matching Engines may
be dedicated to one single option root symbol (for example, options
on SPY may be processed by one single Matching Engine that is
dedicated only to SPY). A particular root symbol may only be
assigned to a single designated Matching Engine. A particular root
symbol may not be assigned to multiple Matching Engines. See the
Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently provides Members the first two (2) requested
Limited Service MEO Ports free of charge and charges $200 per month for
Limited Service MEO Ports three (3) and four (4), $300 per month for
Limited Service MEO Ports five (5) and six (6), and $400 per month for
Limited Service MEO Ports seven (7) to ten (10). These fees have been
unchanged since they were adopted in 2018.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83867 (March 13,
2018), 83 FR 12044 (March 19, 2018) (SR-PEARL-2018-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange originally added the Limited Service MEO Ports to
enhance the MEO Port connectivity made available to Members, and
subsequently made additional Limited Service MEO Ports available to
Members.\12\ Limited Service MEO Ports have been well received by
Members since their addition. Members are currently limited to
purchasing eight (8) additional Limited Service MEO Ports per Matching
Engine, for a total of ten (10) per Matching Engine.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 90812 (December
29, 2020), 86 FR 338 (January 5, 2021) (SR-PEARL-2020-35) (the
``Cost Analysis Filing'').
    \13\ See Fee Schedule, Section 5)d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend Section 5)d) of the Fee Schedule
to remove the cap on the number of additional Limited Service MEO Ports
that are available to Members. The Exchange notes that no other
exchange provides similar caps concerning connectivity and access in
their rulebooks or fee schedules.\14\ Including the cap on the number
of additional Limited Service MEO Ports in the Fee Schedule
unnecessarily hampers the Exchange's ability to adjust access to the
Exchange's network in order to ensure that the Exchange meets its
obligations under the Act such that access to the Exchange is offered
on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory \15\ among its Members,
as well as to ensure sufficient capacity and headroom in the
System.\16\

The Exchange monitors the System's performance and makes adjustments to
its System based on market conditions and Member demand. Accordingly,
the Exchange's obligations under the Act to provide access on terms
that are not unfairly discriminatory and market conditions are key
drivers of the System's architecture and expansion. Thus the Exchange
believes a cap in the Fee Schedule is inconsistent with other exchanges
access offerings and not an appropriate mechanism to govern access to
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Cboe Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule, available at https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/membership/Cboe_FeeSchedule.pdf; Cboe BZX
Exchange, Inc. Options Fee Schedule, available at https://www.cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/; Cboe C2
Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule, available at https://www.cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/ctwo/; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.
Options Fee Schedule, available at https://www.cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC Options
Fee Schedule, available at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules/Nasdaq%20Options%207; Nasdaq PHLX LLC Options
Fee Schedule, available at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/phlx/rules/Phlx%20Options%207; NYSE Arca, Inc. Options Fee
Schedule, available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf; NYSE American LLC
Options Fee Schedule, available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/american-options/NYSE_American_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
    \15\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that adjusting the amount of available
Limited Service MEO Ports does not change on a material basis the
overall profitability of Limited Service MEO Ports. Any increase in
revenue associated with adding more Limited Service MEO Ports is
generally offset by the cost of purchasing and operating such new
equipment and providing the services associated with Limited Service
MEO Ports. When the Exchange provides fewer Limited Service MEO Ports,
its overall expense is lower, but is generally offset by lower revenues
associated with Limited Service MEO Ports. The Exchange's recent filing
\17\ to increase the number of additional Limited Service MEO Ports
provides clear evidence of that fact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All fees related to MEO Ports shall remain unchanged and Members
that voluntarily purchase additional Limited Service MEO Ports will
remain subject to the existing monthly fees per Limited Service MEO
Port as described in Section 5)d) of the Fee Schedule.
    The Exchange proposes to amend the port fee table in Section 5)d)
of the Fee Schedule to remove the cap of 10 Limited Service MEO Ports
as the total number that Members may purchase. With the proposed
changes, the port fee table will read as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Monthly port fees includes
                                           connectivity to the primary,
              Type of port                   secondary and  disaster
                                              recovery data centers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIX Port [supcaret]....................  Per Port: 1st $275, 2nd to 5th
                                          $175, 6th or more $75.
Full Service MEO Port--Bulk *..........  Tier 1 $3,000.
                                         Tier 2 $4,500.
                                         Tier 3 $5,000.
Full Service MEO Port--Single *........  Tier 1 $2,000.
                                         Tier 2 $3,375.
                                         Tier 3 $3,750.
Limited Service MEO Port **............  1st to 2nd $0, 3rd to 4th $200,
                                          5th to 6th $300, 7 or more
                                          $400.
MEO Purge Port ***.....................  $750.
CTD Port [supcaret]....................  Per Port: $450.
FXD Port [supcaret]....................  Per Port: $250.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to make corresponding changes to the
paragraph below the port fee table in Section 5)d) of the Fee Schedule
such that, with the proposed amendments, the explanatory paragraph will
read as follows:
    Members may be allocated two (2) Full-Service MEO Ports of either
type per Matching Engine and may request Limited Service MEO Ports for
which MIAX Pearl will assess Members Limited Service MEO Port fees per
Matching Engine based on the table above. The two (2) Full-Service MEO
Ports that may be allocated per Matching Engine to a Member may consist
of: (a) Two (2) Full Service MEO Ports--Bulk; (b) two (2) Full Service
MEO Ports--Single; or (c) one (1) Full Service MEO Port--Bulk and one
(1) Full Service MEO Port--Single.
    The Exchange notes that it does not propose to make any changes to
the MIAX Pearl Equities Fee Schedule as part of this proposal.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \18\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \19\ in that it is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general 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)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \20\ because the proposal to
remove the cap on the number of additional Limited Service MEO Ports
available to Members will apply equally to all Members, regardless of
type or size, and will allow the Exchange to offer access to its System
on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange does not
propose to change the amount of fees charged for additional Limited
Service MEO Ports. The existing fees will apply equally to all Members
that choose to purchase additional Limited Service MEO Ports, which is
a business decision of each Member and not a requirement of the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements under Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act that the
Exchange provide access on terms that are not unfairly
discriminatory.\21\ Including the cap on the number of additional
Limited Service MEO Ports in the Fee Schedule unnecessarily burdens the
Exchange from being able to adjust the connectivity and access to the
Exchange's System in order to ensure that the Exchange is able to
provide access \22\ to Members on non-discriminatory terms and ensure
sufficient capacity and headroom in the System. The Exchange constantly
monitors the System's performance based on market conditions and needs
to make adjustments based on customer demand. Adjusting the amount of
available Limited Service MEO Ports does not change on a material basis
the overall profitability of Limited Service MEO Ports. Any increase in
revenue associated with adding more Limited Service MEO Ports is
generally offset by the cost of purchasing and operating such new
equipment and providing the services associated with Limited Service
MEO Ports. When the Exchange provides fewer Limited Service MEO Ports,
its overall expense is lower, but is generally offset by lower revenues
associated with Limited Service MEO Ports. The Exchange's recent filing
\23\ to increase the number of additional Limited Service MEO Ports
provides clear evidence of that fact. Accordingly, the Exchange's
obligations under

Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \24\ and market conditions are key drivers
of the System's architecture and expansion and thus the Exchange
believes a cap in the Fee Schedule is not an appropriate mechanism to
govern access to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ See supra note 12.
    \24\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other exchanges, like MIAX Pearl, are required to provide access
and connectivity pursuant to the same requirements under Section
6(b)(5) of the Act regardless of whether a their rules or fee schedules
set forth caps on access.\25\ Further, the Exchange anticipates that it
will continue to expand its System and provide Members and other market
participants with additional access, including Limited Service MEO
Ports, based on customer demand and in response to changing market
conditions. The Exchange represents that any expansion or reduction in
the number of additional Limited Service MEO Ports will be conducted in
a similar manner that ensures fair access to its System.\26\ The
Exchange will also continuously assess its connectivity options and
availability to ensure that they meet the needs of all market
participants seeking to access the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act because only Members that voluntarily purchase
additional Limited Service MEO Ports will be charged the existing
monthly fees per port, which has been unchanged since they were adopted
in 2018.\27\ The Exchange does not propose to amend the fees applicable
to additional Limited Service MEO Ports, which were filed with the
Commission and became effective after notice and public comment.\28\ As
stated above, the Exchange anticipates that in the future, it may
provide more Limited Service MEO Ports due to customer demand and
increased volatility in the marketplace, which will result in increased
message traffic rates across the network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See supra note 11.
    \28\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes its proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act in that any time the Exchange makes
available more Limited Service MEO Ports, such ports that are
voluntarily purchased by Members will not result in the Exchange making
a supracompetitive profit. The Exchange recently conducted an extensive
cost review in which the Exchange analyzed every expense item in the
Exchange's general expense ledger (this includes over 150 separate and
distinct expense items) to determine whether each such expense relates
to additional Limited Service MEO Ports, and, if such expense did so
relate, what portion (or percentage) of such expense actually supports
additional Limited Service MEO Ports, and thus bears a relationship
that is, ``in nature and closeness,'' directly related to those
services.
    To provide continuity with the Exchange's most recent filing to add
two additional Limited Service MEO Ports \29\ and this filing, the
Exchange performed this cost review anticipating that Members may
purchase two additional Limited Service MEO Ports.\30\ The sum of all
such portions of expenses represents the total cost of the Exchange to
provide services associated with two additional Limited Service MEO
Ports pursuant to this proposed rule change. Assuming the costs
outlined in this proposal remain unchanged, the Exchange represents
that the below cost and revenue analysis would continue to be true
should the Exchange make additional Limited Service MEO Ports available
beyond the analysis for two additional Limited Service MEO Ports
discussed below.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See supra note 12.
    \30\ The cost review in this proposal is based on two additional
Limited Service MEO Ports because two additional Limited Service MEO
Ports were purchased since the First Proposed Rule Change was
submitted on April 12, 2021.
    \31\ As stated above, currently the number of available Limited
Service MEO Ports does not change on a material basis the overall
profitability of Limited Service MEO Ports; however, the Exchange
represents that it will continue to monitor its costs and revenue
analysis for material changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the avoidance of doubt, none of the expenses included herein
relating to the services associated with providing two additional
Limited Service MEO Ports also relate to the provision of any other
services offered by the Exchange. Stated differently, no expense amount
of the Exchange is allocated twice. The Exchange notes that it made
certain representations in a previous filing \32\ regarding its expense
allocation for the provision of network connectivity services. The
Exchange represents that none of the expenses allocated to the
provision of network connectivity services are also allocated to the
provision of ports--that is, there is no overlap of any such expenses
that are included in the costs associated with services the Exchange
provides for connectivity and for the services the Exchange provides
for ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87876 (December 31,
2019), 85 FR 757 (January 7, 2020) (SR-PEARL-2019-36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, utilizing 2020 \33\ expense figures, total third-
party expense relating to fees paid by the Exchange to third-parties
for certain products and services for the Exchange to be able to
provide two additional Limited Service MEO Ports is approximately
$11,611. This includes, but is not limited to, a portion of the fees
paid to: (1) Equinix, for data center services, for the primary,
secondary, and disaster recovery locations of the Exchange's trading
system infrastructure; (2) Zayo Group Holdings, Inc. (``Zayo'') for
network services (fiber and bandwidth products and services) linking
the Exchange's office locations in Princeton, NJ and Miami, FL to all
data center locations; (3) Secure Financial Transaction Infrastructure
(``SFTI''),\34\ which supports network feeds for the entire U.S.
options industry; (4) various other services providers (including
Thompson Reuters, NYSE, Nasdaq, and Internap), which provide content,
network services, and infrastructure services for critical components
of options network services; and (5) various other hardware and
software providers (including Dell and Cisco, which support the
production environment in which Members and non-Members connect to the
network to trade, receive market data, etc.). For clarity, only a
portion of all fees paid to such third-parties is included in the
third-party expense herein, and no expense amount is allocated twice.
Accordingly, the Exchange does not allocate its entire information
technology and communication costs to the services associated with
providing two additional Limited Service MEO Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The Exchange has not yet finalized its 2020 year-end
results. The Exchange is utilizing year-end 2020 expenses because
expenses incurred within 2021 have not yet been reviewed and full
year 2021 expenses have not yet been fully projected. Therefore, the
2020 year-end expenses are the most accurate to date.
    \34\ In fact, on October 22, 2019, the Exchange was notified by
SFTI that it is again raising its fees charged to the Exchange by
approximately 11%, without having to show that such fee change
complies with the Act by being reasonable, equitably allocated, and
not unfairly discriminatory. It is unfathomable to the Exchange
that, given the critical nature of the infrastructure services
provided by SFTI, that its fees are not required to be rule-filed
with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act and Rule
19b-4 thereunder. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate such third-party
expense described above towards the total cost to the Exchange to
provide the services associated with two additional Limited Service MEO
Ports. In particular, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to
allocate the identified portion of the

Equinix expense because Equinix operates the data centers (primary,
secondary, and disaster recovery) that host the Exchange's network
infrastructure. This includes, among other things, the necessary
storage space, which continues to expand and increase in cost, power to
operate the network infrastructure, and cooling apparatuses to ensure
the Exchange's network infrastructure maintains stability. Without
these services from Equinix, the Exchange would not be able to operate
and support the network and provide the services associated with two
additional Limited Service MEO Ports to its Members and non-Members and
their customers. The Exchange did not allocate all of the Equinix
expense toward the cost of providing the services associated with two
additional Limited Service MEO Ports, only that portion which the
Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing the
services associated with two additional Limited Service MEO Ports,
approximately 0.5% of the total Equinix expense. The Exchange believes
this allocation is reasonable because it represents the Exchange's
actual cost to provide the services associated with two additional
Limited Service MEO Ports, and not any other service, as supported by
its cost review.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified
portion of the Zayo expense because Zayo provides the internet, fiber
and bandwidth connections with respect to the network, linking the
Exchange with its affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald, as well as the
data center and disaster recovery locations. As such, all of the trade
data, including the billions of messages each day per exchange, flow
through Zayo's infrastructure over the Exchange's network. Without
these services from Zayo, the Exchange would not be able to operate and
support the network and provide the services associated with two
additional Limited Service MEO Ports. The Exchange did not allocate all
of the Zayo expense toward the cost of providing the services
associated with two additional Limited Service MEO Ports, only the
portion which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to
providing two additional Limited Service MEO Ports, approximately 0.4%
of the total Zayo expense. The Exchange believes this allocation is
reasonable because it represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide
the services associated with two additional Limited Service MEO Ports,
and not any other service, as supported by its cost review.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified
portions of the SFTI expense and various other service providers'
(including Thompson Reuters, NYSE, Nasdaq, and Internap) expense
because those entities provide connectivity and feeds for the entire
U.S. options industry, as well as the content, network services, and
infrastructure services for critical components of the network. Without
these services from SFTI and various other service providers, the
Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and
provide access to its Members and non-Members and their customers. The
Exchange did not allocate all of the SFTI and other service providers'
expense toward the cost of providing the services associated with two
additional Limited Service MEO Ports, only the portions which the
Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing the
services associated with two additional Limited Service MEO Ports,
approximately 0.5% of the total SFTI and other service providers'
expense. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it
represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the services
associated with two additional Limited Service MEO Ports.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified
portion of the other hardware and software provider expense because
this includes costs for dedicated hardware licenses for switches and
servers, as well as dedicated software licenses for security monitoring
and reporting across the network. Without this hardware and software,
the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and
provide access to its Members and non-Members and their customers. The
Exchange did not allocate all of the hardware and software provider
expense toward the cost of providing the services associated with the
two additional Limited Service MEO Ports, only the portions which the
Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing the
services associated with two additional Limited Service MEO Ports,
approximately 0.3% of the total hardware and software provider expense.
The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it
represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the services
associated with two additional Limited Service MEO Ports.
    For 2020, total projected internal expense relating to the internal
costs of the Exchange to provide the services associated with two
additional Limited Service MEO Ports is approximately $64,797. This
includes, but is not limited to, costs associated with: (1) Employee
compensation and benefits for full-time employees that support the
services associated with providing two additional Limited Service MEO
Ports, including staff in network operations, trading operations,
development, system operations, business, as well as staff in general
corporate departments (such as legal, regulatory, and finance) that
support those employees and functions (including an increase as a
result of the higher determinism project); (2) depreciation and
amortization of hardware and software used to provide the services
associated with two additional Limited Service MEO Ports, including
equipment, servers, cabling, purchased software and internally
developed software used in the production environment to support the
network for trading; and (3) occupancy costs for leased office space
for staff that provide the services associated with two additional
Limited Service MEO Ports. The breakdown of these costs is more fully-
described below. For clarity, only a portion of all such internal
expenses are included in the internal expense herein, and no expense
amount is allocated twice. Accordingly, the Exchange does not allocate
its entire costs contained in those items to the services associated
with providing two additional Limited Service MEO Ports.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate such internal
expense described above towards the total cost to the Exchange to
provide the services associated with two additional Limited Service MEO
Ports. In particular, the Exchange's employee compensation and benefits
expense relating to providing the services associated with two
additional Limited Service MEO Ports is approximately $50,553, which is
only a portion of the $8,425,565 total projected expense for employee
compensation and benefits. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to
allocate the identified portion of such expense because this includes
the time spent by employees of several departments, including
Technology, Back Office, Systems Operations, Networking, Business
Strategy Development (who create the business requirement documents
that the Technology staff use to develop network features and
enhancements), Trade Operations, Finance (who provide billing and
accounting services relating to the network), and Legal (who provide
legal services relating to the network, such as rule filings and
various license agreements and other contracts). As part of the
extensive cost review conducted by the Exchange, the Exchange reviewed
the amount of time spent by each employee on matters relating to the
provision of services associated with two additional Limited Service
MEO

Ports. Without these employees, the Exchange would not be able to
provide the services associated with two additional Limited Service MEO
Ports to its Members and non-Members and their customers. The Exchange
did not allocate all of the employee compensation and benefits expense
toward the cost of the services associated with providing two
additional Limited Service MEO Ports, only the portions which the
Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing the
services associated with two additional Limited Service MEO Ports,
approximately 0.6% of the total employee compensation and benefits
expense. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it
represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the services
associated with two additional Limited Service MEO Ports, and not any
other service, as supported by its cost review.
    The Exchange's depreciation and amortization expense relating to
providing the services associated with two additional Limited Service
MEO Ports is approximately $12,779, which is only a portion of the
$2,555,832 total projected expense for depreciation and amortization.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified
portion of such expense because such expense includes the actual cost
of the computer equipment, such as dedicated servers, computers,
laptops, monitors, information security appliances and storage, and
network switching infrastructure equipment, including switches and taps
that were purchased to operate and support the network and provide the
services associated with two additional Limited Service MEO Ports.
Without this equipment, the Exchange would not be able to operate the
network and provide the services associated with two additional Limited
Service MEO Ports to its Members and non-Members and their customers.
The Exchange did not allocate all of the depreciation and amortization
expense toward the cost of providing the services associated with two
additional Limited Service MEO Ports, only the portion which the
Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing the
services associated with the two additional Limited Service MEO Ports,
approximately 0.5% of the total depreciation and amortization expense,
as these services would not be possible without relying on such
equipment. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because
it represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the services
associated with two additional Limited Service MEO Ports, and not any
other service, as supported by its cost review.
    The Exchange's occupancy expense relating to providing the services
associated with providing two additional Limited Service MEO Ports is
approximately $1,465, which is only a portion of the $366,245 total
projected expense for occupancy. The Exchange believes it is reasonable
to allocate the identified portion of such expense because such expense
represents the portion of the Exchange's cost to rent and maintain a
physical location for the Exchange's staff who operate and support the
network, including providing the services associated with two
additional Limited Service MEO Ports. This amount consists primarily of
rent for the Exchange's Princeton, NJ office, as well as various
related costs, such as physical security, property management fees,
property taxes, and utilities. The Exchange operates its Network
Operations Center (``NOC'') and Security Operations Center (``SOC'')
from its Princeton, New Jersey office location. A centralized office
space is required to house the staff that operates and supports the
network. The Exchange currently has approximately 160 employees.
Approximately two-thirds of the Exchange's staff are in the Technology
department, and the majority of those staff have some role in the
operation and performance of the services associated with providing
additional Limited Service MEO Ports. Without this office space, the
Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and
provide the services associated with two additional Limited Service MEO
Ports to its Members and non-Members and their customers. Accordingly,
the Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified
portion of its occupancy expense because such amount represents the
Exchange's actual cost to house the equipment and personnel who operate
and support the Exchange's network infrastructure and the services
associated with two additional Limited Service MEO Ports. The Exchange
did not allocate all of the occupancy expense toward the cost of
providing the services associated with two additional Limited Service
MEO Ports, only the portion which the Exchange identified as being
specifically mapped to operating and supporting the network,
approximately 0.4% of the total occupancy expense. The Exchange
believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents the
Exchange's cost to provide the services associated with two additional
Limited Service MEO Ports, and not any other service, as supported by
its cost review. Accordingly, based on the facts and circumstances
presented, the Exchange believes that its provision of the services
associated with two additional Limited Service MEO Ports will not
result in excessive pricing or supra-competitive profit.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to allocate the respective percentages of each expense
category described above towards the total cost to the Exchange of
operating and supporting the network, including providing the services
associated with two additional Limited Service MEO Ports because the
Exchange performed a line-by-line item analysis of all the expenses of
the Exchange, and has determined the expenses that directly relate to
operation and support of the network. Further, the Exchange notes that,
without the specific third-party and internal items listed above, the
Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network,
including providing the services associated with two additional Limited
Service MEO Ports to its Members and non-Members and their customers.
Each of these expense items, including physical hardware, software,
employee compensation and benefits, occupancy costs, and the
depreciation and amortization of equipment, have been identified
through a line-by-line item analysis to be integral to the operation
and support of the network.
    To provide continuity with the Exchange's most recent filing to add
two additional Limited Service MEO Ports \35\ and this filing, the
Exchange is basing its projected revenue from additional Limited
Service MEO Ports that may be purchased by Members as though seven
Members purchased two additional Limited Service MEO Ports each. The
Exchange notes that any time it needs to expand its network by making
available two additional Limit Service MEO Ports due to increased
customer demand and increased volatility in the marketplace, which
translates into increased message traffic rates across the network,
there is an initial build out cost. The cost to expand the network in
this manner is greater than the revenue the Exchange anticipates the
additional Limited Service MEO Ports will generate. Specifically, the
Exchange estimates it will incur a one-time cost of approximately
$175,000 in capital expenditures (``CapEx'') on hardware, software, and
other items to expand the network to make available two additional
Limited Service MEO Ports.

This estimated cost also includes expense associated with providing the
necessary engineering and support personnel to transition those Members
who wish to acquire two additional Limited Service MEO Ports. Further,
the Exchange projects that the annualized revenue from the two
additional Limited Service MEO Ports will be approximately $67,200
(assuming seven Members purchase the two additional Limited Service MEO
Ports). Therefore, the Exchange's upfront cost in expanding its network
to provide its Members with two additional Limited Service MEO Ports--
approximately $175,000--is significant relative to the anticipated
annualized revenue the Exchange expects to bring in from two additional
Limited Service MEO Ports--approximately $67,200. Further, the Exchange
anticipates it will incur approximately $76,408 in annualized ongoing
operating expense (``OpEx'') in order to support the expanded network
and two additional Limited Service MEO Ports. Thus, even excluding the
upfront CapEx of $175,000, the Exchange is not generating a supra-
competitive profit from the provision of two additional Limited Service
MEO Ports. In fact, even excluding the one-time CapEx cost of $175,000,
the Exchange anticipates generating an annual loss from the provision
of two additional Limited Service MEO Ports of ($9,208)--that is,
$67,200 in revenue minus $76,408 in expense equates to a loss of
($9,208) to support the additional ports annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that no other exchange has a similar cap on
the amount of ports that firms can purchase in their rulebooks or fee
schedules and those exchanges have the same requirements under Section
6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act \36\ as MIAX Pearl.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \37\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
proposed rule change will not impose a burden on competition but will
benefit competition by enhancing the Exchange's ability to compete by
providing additional services to market participants. It is not
intended to address a competitive issue. Rather, the proposal is
intended to allow the Exchange to increase its inventory of MEO Ports
to meet increased Member demand and increased message traffic resulting
from greater marketplace volatility. The Exchange also does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose a burden on intramarket
competition because additional Limited Service MEO Ports are available
to all Members on an equal basis. It is a business decision of each
Member whether to pay for the additional Limited Service MEO Ports.

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,\38\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \39\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \39\ 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-PEARL-2021-23 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2021-23. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2021-23 and should be submitted on
or before June 8, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-10380 Filed 5-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P