[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 169 (Thursday, September 1, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53664-53665]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18844]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0737]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Fireworks Display, Lewis Bay, Hyannis, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters within a 350-yard radius of the fireworks barge in the
vicinity of Lewis Bay, Hyannis, MA. The safety zone is needed to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential
hazards created by the firework display. Entry of vessels or persons
into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port Sector Southeastern New England.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 p.m. through 11 p.m. on September
3, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0737 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or Petty Officer Robert Fetters, Sector Southeastern New England,
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 Southeastern New England
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 doing so would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard was not provided the
final details for this event sufficient time to execute the full NPRM
process. Any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date by
publishing a NPRM would be contrary to public interest since immediate
action is needed to facilitate the safety of the persons and vessels
involved in the fireworks display.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule 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 ensure the safety of people and vessels during the
Barnstable Fireworks display on September 3, 2022.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector
Southeastern New England (COTP) has determined that potential hazards
associated with the Barnstable Fireworks display on September 3, 2022
will be a safety concern for anyone within a 350-yard radius of the
fireworks barge in the vicinity of Lewis Bay, Hyannis, MA. This rule is
needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the
navigable waters within the safety zone while the Barnstable Fireworks
display is occurring.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 8 p.m. through 11 p.m. on
September 3, 2022. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters
within a 350-yard radius of the fireworks barge in the vicinity of
Lewis Bay, Hyannis, MA. The duration of the zone is intended to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters
within the safety zone while the Barnstable Fireworks display is
occurring. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety
zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.

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. 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).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. The Coast Guard
would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16
about the zone, and the rule would allow 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
call or email 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.

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 an 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
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), 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 a
safety zone lasting only 3 hours that will prohibit entry within a 350-
yard radius of the fireworks barge in the vicinity of Lewis Bay,
Hyannis, MA. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-
01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on
locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email 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: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-0737 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0737  Safety Zone; Fireworks Display, Lewis Bay, Hyannis,
MA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters
within a 350-yard radius of the fireworks barge in the vicinity of
Lewis Bay, Hyannis, MA.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, Designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sector Southeastern New England (COTP) in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by VHF-FM radio channel 16 or phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 8 p.m.
through 11 p.m. on September 3, 2022.

    Dated: August 26, 2022.
Clint J. Prindle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Southeastern New
England.
[FR Doc. 2022-18844 Filed 8-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 59 (Thursday, March 27, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17023-17024]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06596]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 381

[Docket No. RM14-6-000]

Annual Update of Filing Fees

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule; annual update of Commission filing fees.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 18 CFR 381.104, the Commission issues this
update of its filing fees. This notice provides the yearly update using
data in the Commission's Management, Administrative, and Payroll System
to calculate the new fees. The purpose of updating is to adjust the
fees on the basis of the Commission's costs for Fiscal Year 2013.

DATES: Effective Date: April 28, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raymond D. Johnson Jr., Office of the
Executive Director, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Room 42-66, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Document Availability

    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426.
    From FERC's Web site on the Internet, this information is available
in the eLibrary (formerly FERRIS). The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field and follow other directions on the search page.
    User assistance is available for eLibrary and other aspects of
FERC's Web site during normal business hours. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866)
208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Annual Update of Filing Fees

(Issued March 20, 2014)

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is issuing
this notice to update filing fees that the Commission assesses for
specific services and benefits provided to identifiable beneficiaries.
Pursuant to 18 CFR 381.104, the Commission is establishing updated fees
on the basis of the Commission's Fiscal Year 2013 costs. The adjusted
fees announced in this notice are effective April 28, 2014. The
Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget, that this final rule is not a major rule within
the meaning of section 251 of Subtitle E of Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission is submitting
this final rule to both houses of the United States Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States.
    The new fee schedule is as follows:

              Fees Applicable to the Natural Gas Policy Act

1. Petitions for rate approval pursuant to 18 CFR               $ 12,070
 284.123(b)(2). (18 CFR 381.403)........................
                  Fees Applicable to General Activities

1. Petition for issuance of a declaratory order (except         $ 24,260
 under Part I of the Federal Power Act). (18 CFR
 381.302(a))............................................
2. Review of a Department of Energy remedial order:.....
                  Amount in controversy
    $ 0-9,999. (18 CFR 381.303(b))......................           $ 100
    $ 10,000-29,999. (18 CFR 381.303(b))................           $ 600
    $ 30,000 or more. (18 CFR 381.303(a))...............        $ 35,410
3. Review of a Department of Energy denial of
 adjustment:............................................
                  Amount in controversy
    $ 0-9,999. (18 CFR 381.304(b))......................           $ 100
    $ 10,000-29,999. (18 CFR 381.304(b))................           $ 600
    $ 30,000 or more. (18 CFR 381.304(a))...............        $ 18,570
4. Written legal interpretations by the Office of                $ 6,960
 General Counsel. (18 CFR 381.305(a))...................

                Fees Applicable to Natural Gas Pipelines

1. Pipeline certificate applications pursuant to 18 CFR        * $ 1,000
 284.224. (18 CFR 381.207(b))...........................

        Fees Applicable to Cogenerators and Small Power Producers

1. Certification of qualifying status as a small power          $ 20,860
 production facility. (18 CFR 381.505(a))...............
2. Certification of qualifying status as a cogeneration         $ 23,610
 facility. (18 CFR 381.505(a))..........................

* This fee has not been changed.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 381

    Electric power plants, Electric utilities, Natural gas, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

Anton C. Porter,
Executive Director.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 381,
Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.

PART 381--FEES

0
1. The authority citation for part 381 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 717-717w; 16 U.S.C. 791-828c, 2601-2645;
31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C.
1-85.

Sec.  381.302  [Amended]

0
2. In 381.302, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``$ 24,370'' and
adding ``$ 24,260'' in its place.

Sec.  381.303  [Amended]

0
3. In 381.303, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``$ 35,580'' and
adding ``$ 35,410'' in its place.

Sec.  381.304  [Amended]

0
4. In 381.304, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``$ 18,650'' and
adding ``$ 18,570'' in its place.

Sec.  381.305  [Amended]

0
5. In 381.305, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``$ 6,990'' and
adding ``$ 6,960'' in its place.

Sec.  381.403  [Amended]

0
6. Section 381.403 is amended by removing ``$ 12,130'' and adding ``$
12,070'' in its place.

Sec.  381.505  [Amended]

0
7. In 381.505, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``$ 20,960'' and
adding ``$ 20,860'' in its place and by removing ``$ 23,720'' and
adding ``$ 23,610'' in its place.

[FR Doc. 2014-06596 Filed 3-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


September 28, 2000 Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under The Paperwork Reduction Act 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title of the Information Collection TITLE: Request for Contractor Access to TSCA Confidential Business Information ICR No. EPA ICR No.: 1250.06; OMB Control No.: 2070 0075 1( b) Short Characterization Each Federal or contractor employee who will use Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA) Confidential Business Information ( CBI) in the performance of his or her duties must be authorized for access to TSCA CBI through a multi step process. The TSCA Confidential Business Information Security Manual ( EPA Publication 7700) provides Federal and contractor employees with guidelines and operating procedures for handling TSCA CBI while performing their official duties.

The EPA form entitled " TSCA CBI Access Request, Agreement, and Approval" ( EPA Form 7740 6) will be used by the Information Management Division ( IMD), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( OPPT), to collect information about contractor personnel so that the Agency can evaluate their suitability for access to TSCA CBI ( Attachment A). The information is stored on the OPPT Confidential Business Information Tracking System ( CBITS).

2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection This information collection request is necessary to protect information under provisions of TSCA section 14 ( Attachment B). It is necessary for EPA to provide guidance to its employees, other Federal agencies and contractors on the proper handling of CBI submitted to EPA under TSCA.

2( b) Use/ Users of the Data The information will be maintained within OPPT in paper copy files and in an automated security access tracking system ( CBITS, AXCON module) with access limited to the OPPT TSCA Security Officer and Document Control Officers ( DCOs) in OPPT, other parts of EPA, in Regional Offices and at contractor firms. RECEIVED OPPT NCIC 2003 July 25 9: 56AM OPPT 2003 0042 0002  2  The information will also be used to generate a monthly TSCA Authorized Access List for distribution to DCOs for verification of Federal and contractor employees authorized access to TSCA CBI. The information provided by contractor employees will not be released to sources who do not have a valid " need to know." Information submitted by one contractor will not be shared with another EPA contractor. If this information is not collected by the Agency, EPA will not be able to evaluate the suitability of its contractor employees for TSCA CBI access.

3 NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Non Duplication No other Federal agency or department could provide the information necessary for EPA to authorize contractor personnel for access to TSCA CBI. The data being collected are not available from any other sources and can only be collected from individuals themselves.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB In proposing to renew this ICR, EPA provided a 60 day public notice and comment period that ended on September 18, 2000 ( 65 FR 44779, July 19, 2000). EPA received no comments during the comment period.

3( c) Consultations No consultations on the collection of information to grant contractor personnel access to TSCA CBI were conducted by EPA. However, in consultation with a limited number of interested parties, EPA has evaluated the TSCA CBI Manual and corresponding forms, and expects to seek broader feedback on proposed improvements prior to implementing the changes in late 2001.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Not applicable; this is a one time information collection.

3( e) General Guidelines This information collection activity is necessary to protect confidential information submitted to the Agency as mandated by TSCA section 14 and is consistent with 5 CFR 1320.6. The consequences of not collecting these data could be monumental to private industry. Under TSCA, industry is required to submit data that may be deemed to be confidential, such as formulas and financial information related to chemicals companies plan to produce. EPA is obligated to protect these data as outlined by TSCA section 14.  3  In addition, the Agency could possibly harm businesses if these data were released to competitors.

The information collected by this request will be used to evaluate contractor personnel who will be authorized for access to TSCA CBI. Therefore the collection of information is necessary to provide the protection mandated by TSCA.

3( f) Confidentiality The information collected is stored at EPA Headquarters in paper files and in a secured local area network, the Confidential Business Information Tracking System ( CBITS) AXCON module. Any information that is discarded from the system is shredded. The EPA form used to collect these data contains a Privacy Act statement that complies with the Privacy Act and OMB Circular 108.

3( g) Sensitive Questions There are no sensitive questions contained in the form.

4 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes EPA procures contract support to facilitate the performance of certain duties. EPA may require contractors to handle TSCA CBI. Each contractor employee who will use TSCA CBI in the performance of his or her duties must be authorized for access to TSCA CBI. The TSCA Confidential Business Information Security Manual ( revised 4/ 95) ( Attachment C) mandates contractor personnel to submit to EPA the " TSCA CBI Access Request, Agreement, and Approval" form ( EPA Form 7740 6).

Standard Industrial Codes  not applicable.

4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items To complete the form, the contractor employee must: describe why access to TSCA CBI is necessary for the successful performance of his or her duties under the contract; identify, by section of TSCA, the types of CBI to which access is needed; and provide personal identification information. Justification statements are provided on the form and the employee only has to designate which statement ( A, B, C, D or Other) is applicable.

In addition, the contractor must appoint an employee to serve as a liaison ( DCO) between EPA and the contractor to handle issues relating to employee access to TSCA  4  CBI. Contractor responsibilities for maintaining the access list are explained under Chapter 2. D. l. f of the TSCA Confidential Business Information Security Manual. Contractor DCOs must ensure that contractor employees read the security manual and attend a security briefing. The DCO is responsible for conducting a review, on a monthly basis, of the TSCA CBI Authorized Access List to determine whether any names should be added to or deleted from the list or whether any employee's access authority should be broadened or narrowed. Any changes to the list require approval by the EPA Project Officer and the OPPT DCO.

( ii) Respondent Activities The process that contractor employees must go through in order to be authorized access to TSCA CBI entails the following:

( 1) Read EPA Form 7740 6. ( 2) Gather required information and complete the form. ( 3) Submit the form to the contractor DCO for processing, compilation and review. ( 4) The contractor DCO files, stores maintains an in house reference copy of the form. ( 5) The contractor DCO forwards the form to the EPA Project Officer ( or Delivery Order Project Officer) for signature and on to the OPPT DCO for further review and processing. ( 6) The contractor employee views the TSCA CBI security video.

5 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities  Inventory The contractor DCO forwards the EPA Form 7740 6 submitted by a contractor employee to the EPA Project Officer. The Project Officer then signs the form ( Section V) and forwards the form to the OPPT DCO. OPPT DCO staff review the form for completeness. The form is processed by the DCO staff and appropriate authorizing signatures are obtained; the OPPT DCO is the final approval authority. The information on the form is then entered into the CBITS AXCON module.

The information is retained within OPPT in paper copy files. The information is entered into CBITS with access limited to the OPPT Security Staff and other Agency and Regional Office DCOs. Current plus one year of contractor information is maintained in the paper files. Paper files are destroyed by shredding after a contractor employee has relinquished his/ her access.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management  5  Once processed within OPPT, each EPA Form 7740 6 is reviewed by an EPA Project Officer and the OPPT DCO, and the data are entered into CBITS. The monthly TSCA CBI Access List, which acts as a quality check on data entry accuracy, is produced, published and distributed to TSCA DCOs. There is no public access to the TSCA CBI Authorized Access List, nor to any of the information stored in the CBITS AXCON module.

CBITS is housed on a secured Local Area Network with OPPT internal access only. The system is available to CBI cleared users exclusively.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility All contractors regardless of company size are treated in the same manner. The collection process is simple and straightforward and can be completed quickly.

5( d) Collection Schedule The information is collected once per each individual contractor employee requesting access authorization to TSCA CBI, provided the individual does not relinquish his or her TSCA CBI access authorization.

6 Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden Eligible contractors were directly contacted in the development of earlier versions of this ICR to determine the amount of time that would be required by them to complete the tasks outlined in section 3 of this ICR. Because the requirements for this ICR have not changed from the time the earlier estimates were made, the same estimates are used in this analysis. There are currently 36 companies under contract to EPA having employees who require clearance to access TSCA CBI, with each firm having an average of about 12 such employees, or about 432 total respondents.

The per employee burdens are given in table 6.1. The burdens ranged from .0558 hours ( 3 minutes) for a technical worker to complete task 5 to 3.019 hours for a clerical worker to complete task 4. These per employee burden estimates were then multiplied by the number of workers per firm in managerial ( 4), technical ( 7), and clerical ( 1) fields for all 36 firms to estimate the total annual burden in table 6.2. The total annual burden hours for all firms is 674.84 hours.  6  Table 6.1: EMPLOYEE BURDEN ESTIMATES Collection Activities Per Employee Burden Hours Management Technical Clerical 1. Read EPA Form 7740 6 .163 .163 .163 2. Gather required information and complete form. .224 .1975 .528 3. Contractor Document Control Officer process, compile, and review form. .0961 .0367 1.548 4. Store, file, or maintain copy of form for in house reference. .1089 .0086 3.019 5. Complete written form, obtain signatures, forward to EPA Information Management Division .2275 .0558 .971 6. View TSCA CBI Security Video .5 .5 .5 Table 6.2: TOTAL ANNUAL RESPONDENT ( CONTRACTOR) BURDEN ESTIMATES Collection Activities Burden Hours ( per year) Total Hours Management Technical Clerical 1. Read EPA Form 7740 6 23.5 41.1 5.87 70.47 2. Gather required information and complete form. 32.3 49.8 19.0 101.1 3. Contractor Document Control Officer process, compile and review form. 13.9 9.25 55.73 78.88 4. Store, file, or maintain copy of form for in house reference. 15.7 2.17 108.7 126.57 5. Complete written form, obtain signatures, forward to EPA Information Management Division 32.8 14.06 34.96 81.82 6. View TSCA CBI Security Video 72.0 126.0 18.0 216.0 Totals 190.2 242.38 242.26 674.84 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs Costs in this ICR have been updated using the most recent wage rates available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Compensation Survey 1998. These wages include fringe benefits and overhead. Wages have been updated to the fourthquarter 1999 from 1996 using the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Employment Cost Index.  7  Current labor rates are the following:

Labor Category Hourly Rate Managerial $ 92.33 Technical $ 68.35 Clerical $ 27.24 Estimated total annual costs to the respondents are equal to $ 40,727 and are presented in table 6.3 below, by activity and labor category. The total cost across all respondents for managers is $ 17,561, for technical workers is $ 16,567, and for clerical workers is $ 6,599. There are no capital costs for the contractors associated with this collection.

Table 6.3: ANNUAL RESPONDENT ( CONTRACTOR) COST ESTIMATES Collection Activities Costs ( per year) Total Cost Management @ $ 92.33/ hr Technical @ $ 68.35/ hr Clerical @ $ 27.24/ hr 1. Read EPA Form 7740 6 $ 2,170 $ 2,809 $ 160 $ 5,139 2. Gather required information and complete form. $ 2,982 $ 3,404 $ 518 $ 6,904 3. Contractor Document Control Officer process, compile, and review form. $ 1,283 $ 632 $ 1,518 $ 3,434 4. Store, file, or maintain copy of form for in house reference. $ 1,450 $ 148 $ 2,961 $ 4,559 5. Complete written form, obtain signatures, forward to EPA $ 3,028 $ 961 $ 952 $ 4,942 6. View TSCA CBI Security Video $ 6,648 $ 8,612 $ 490 $ 15,750 Totals $ 17,561 $ 16,567 $ 6,599 $ 40,727 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The costs and burdens to the Federal Government are presented in the table 6.4 below. The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics bases its burden hour estimates on prior experience in gathering and processing information associated with other information collections. Hourly wages for clerical support are based upon the salary for a GS 7, step1 ($ 12.68). Hourly costs for managerial and technical support are based upon the salary for GS 15, step 1 ($ 37.19) and GS 12, step 1 ($ 22.50), respectively. The hourly rates were taken from the U. S. Office of Personnel Management's 2000 General Schedule. These hourly estimates were then multiplied by 1.6 to account for benefits ( EPA Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests, 1992). The inflated hourly estimates yielded:  8  $ 59.50 for managers, $ 36.00 for technical workers, and $ 20.28 for clerical workers. The total cost to the Agency to maintain the collection system is $ 39,310.82 per annum and the total burden was 1151.5 hours.

Table 6.4: ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN/ COST ESTIMATES Collection Activities Burden Hours ( per year) Total Hours Total Cost Management @ $ 59.50 Technical @ $ 36.00 Clerical @ $ 20.28 1. Read EPA Form 7740 6 35.5 40.0 18.5 94.0 $ 3,927.43 2. Gather required info. & complete form. 16.5 44.5 122.0 162.5 $ 5,057.91 3. EPA Document Control Officer process, compile, and review form. 19.0 44.5 175.0 238.5 $ 6,281.5 4. Complete written form & obtain appropriate signatures. 18.0 12.5 47.0 77.5 $ 2,474.16 5. Store, file, or maintain copy of form for in house reference. 5.0 30.5 160.5 196.0 $ 4,650.44 6. DCO forward form to IMD 2.5 0.0 50.5 53.0 $ 1,172.89 7. Systems operations 5.0 150.0 175.0 330.0 $ 9,246 ( labor) $ 6,500 ( equipment)

Totals 101.5 301.5 748.5 1,151.5 $ 39,310.82 6( d) Total Burden Estimates Table 6.5 displays the annual burdens and costs borne by respondents and EPA, respectively, associated with preparing, filing and reviewing a notice resulting from this TSCA CBI Clearance ICR.

Table 6.5. Total Cost and Burden Summary for the Contractor Access to TSCA Confidential Business Information ICR Annual Burden Hours Annual Costs Industry 674.84 $ 40,727 Agency 1,151 $ 39,310.82 6( e) Reasons for Change in Burden  9  The estimated annual burden to contractors has decreased by 139.16 hours from the previous ICR. This adjustment was based on the fewer numbers of employees at contractors that need clearance ( 18 per firm in the prior ICR to 12 in this ICR). However, the costs to the industry respondents increased by $ 13,304.5, because of employee wage inflation.

6( f) Burden Statement The annual public burden for this collection of information, which is approved under OMB Control No. 2070 0075, is estimated to average 1.6 hours per response. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act, " burden" means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For this collection it includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this information collection appears above. In addition, the OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( Mail Code 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, D. C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit the requested information to this address. The requested information should be submitted in accordance with the instructions accompanying the form, or as specified in the corresponding regulation.

Attachments to This Supporting Statement:

Note: You may request a paper copy of these documents from Sandy Farmer, Collection Strategies Division, US Environmental Protection Agency ( Mail Code 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; or via e mail at farmer. sandy@ epa. gov. If available, instructions for an electronic copy are provided below.

A: TSCA CBI Access Request, Agreement, and Approval  EPA Form 7760 6 ( An electronic copy is currently not available. Please contact EPA for a copy.) B: TSCA Section 14 ( 15 USC 2613) ( An electronic copy of this attachment follows the Supporting Statement in the electronic file for this ICR.)

C: TSCA Confidential Business Information Security Manual. ( An electronic copy is not available. Please contact EPA for a copy.)

D: ICR Related Federal Register Notice, 65 FR 44779, July 19, 2000. ( Available electronically at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/ EPA GENERAL/ 2000/ July/ Day 19/ g18264. htm.

Attachment A TSCA CBI Access Request, Agreement, and Approval  EPA Form 7760 6 ( Note: An electronic copy of this attachment is not available. Please contact the Environmental Protection Agency at the address noted in the Federal Register notice for a complete copy of this ICR.) Attachment B TSCA Section 14 ( 15 USC 2613)

( An electronic copy of this provision follows the supporting statement in the electronic file for this ICR.) B  2 Sec. 2613. Disclosure of data ( a) In general  Except as provided by subsection ( b) of this section, any information reported to, or otherwise obtained by, the Administrator ( or any representative of the Administrator) under this chapter, which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to subsection ( a) of section 552 of title 5 by reason of subsection ( b)( 4) of such section, shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any other section of this chapter, not be disclosed by the Administrator or by any officer or employee of the United States, except that such information  ( 1) shall be disclosed to any officer or employee of the United States  ( A) in connection with the official duties of such officer or employee under any law for the protection of health or the environment, or ( B) for specific law enforcement purposes; ( 2) shall be disclosed to contractors with the United States and employees of such contractors if in the opinion of the Administrator such disclosure is necessary for the satisfactory performance by the contractor of a contract with the United States entered into on or after October 11, 1976, for the performance of work in connection with this chapter and under such conditions as the Administrator may specify; ( 3) shall be disclosed if the Administrator determines it necessary to protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment; or ( 4) may be disclosed when relevant in any proceeding under this chapter, except that disclosure in such a proceeding shall be made in such manner as to preserve confidentiality to the extent practicable without impairing the proceeding. In any proceeding under section 552( a) of title 5 to obtain information the disclosure of which has been denied because of the provisions of this subsection, the Administrator may not rely on section 552( b)( 3) of such title to sustain the Administrator's action. ( b) Data from health and safety studies ( 1) Subsection ( a) does not prohibit the disclosure of  ( A) any health and safety study which is submitted under this chapter with respect to ( i) any chemical substance or mixture which, on the date on which such study is to be disclosed has been offered for commercial distribution, or ( ii) any chemical substance or mixture for which testing is required under section 2603 of this title or for which notification is required under section 2604 of this title, and ( B) any data reported to, or otherwise obtained by, the Administrator from a health and safety study which relates to a chemical substance or mixture described in clause ( i) or ( ii) of subparagraph ( A). This paragraph does not authorize the release of any data which discloses processes used in the manufacturing or processing of a chemical substance or mixture or, in the case of a mixture, the release of data disclosing the portion of the mixture comprised by any of the chemical substances in the mixture. ( 2) If a request is made to the Administrator under subsection ( a) of section 552 of B  3 title 5 for information which is described in the first sentence of paragraph ( 1) and which is not information described in the second sentence of such paragraph, the Administrator may not deny such request on the basis of subsection ( b)( 4) of such section.

( c) Designation and release of confidential data ( 1) In submitting data under this chapter, a manufacturer, processor, or distributor in commerce may ( A) designate the data which such person believes is entitled to confidential treatment under subsection ( a) of this section, and ( B) submit such designated data separately from other data submitted under this chapter. A designation under this paragraph shall be made in writing and in such manner as the Administrator may prescribe. ( 2) ( A) Except as provided by subparagraph ( B), if the Administrator proposes to release for inspection data which has been designated under paragraph ( 1)( A), the Administrator shall notify, in writing and by certified mail, the manufacturer, processor, or distributor in commerce who submitted such data of the intent to release such data. If the release of such data is to be made pursuant to a request made under section 552( a) of title 5, such notice shall be given immediately upon approval of such request by the Administrator. The Administrator may not release such data until the expiration of 30 days after the manufacturer, processor, or distributor in commerce submitting such data has received the notice required by this subparagraph. ( B) ( i) Subparagraph ( A) shall not apply to the release of information under paragraph ( 1), ( 2), ( 3), or ( 4) of subsection ( a) of this section, except that the Administrator may not release data under paragraph ( 3) of subsection ( a) of this section unless the Administrator has notified each manufacturer, processor, and distributor in commerce who submitted such data of such release. Such notice shall be made in writing by certified mail at least 15 days before the release of such data, except that if the Administrator determines that the release of such data is necessary to protect against an imminent, unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, such notice may be made by such means as the Administrator determines will provide notice at least 24 hours before such release is made. ( ii) Subparagraph ( A) shall not apply to the release of information described in subsection ( b)( 1) of this section other than information described in the second sentence of such subsection. ( d) Criminal penalty for wrongful disclosure ( 1) Any officer or employee of the United States or former officer or employee of the United States, who by virtue of such employment or official position has obtained possession of, or has access to, material the disclosure of which is prohibited by subsection ( a) of this section, and who knowing that disclosure of such material is prohibited by such subsection, willfully discloses the material in any manner to any B  4 person not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $ 5,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. Section 1905 of title 18 does not apply with respect to the publishing, divulging, disclosure, or making known of, or making available, information reported or otherwise obtained under this chapter. ( 2) For the purposes of paragraph ( 1), any contractor with the United States who is furnished information as authorized by subsection ( a)( 2) of this section, and any employee of any such contractor, shall be considered to be an employee of the United States.

( e) Access by Congress  Notwithstanding any limitation contained in this section or any other provision of law, all information reported to or otherwise obtained by the Administrator ( or any representative of the Administrator) under this chapter shall be made available, upon written request of any duly authorized committee of the Congress, to such committee. Attachment C TSCA Confidential Business Information Security Manual ( Note: An electronic copy of this attachment is not available. Please contact the Environmental Protection Agency at the address noted in the Federal Register notice for a complete copy of this ICR.) B  6 Attachment D ICR Related Federal Register Notice, 65 FR 44779, July 19, 2000 ( Available electronically at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/ EPA GENERAL/ 2000/ July/ Day 19/ g18264. htm.)


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 226 (Monday, November 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67758-67763]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25878]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93639; File Nos. SR-MIAX-2021-41, SR-PEARL-2021-45]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC; Suspension of and Order Instituting
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove Proposed Rule
Changes To Amend the Fee Schedules To Adopt a Tiered-Pricing Structure
for Certain Connectivity Fees

November 22, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On September 24, 2021, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC,
LLC (``MIAX'') and MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'') (collectively, the
``Exchanges'') each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change (File Numbers SR-MIAX-2021-41 and
SR-PEARL-2021-45) to amend the MIAX Fee Schedule and MIAX Pearl Options
Fee Schedule (collectively, the ``Fee Schedules'') to adopt a tiered
pricing structure for certain connectivity fees. The proposed rule
changes were immediately effective upon filing with the Commission
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The proposed rule
changes were published for comment in the Federal Register on October
4, 2021.\4\ Under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\5\ the Commission is
hereby: (i) Temporarily suspending File Numbers SR-MIAX-2021-41 and SR-
PEARL-2021-45; and (ii) instituting proceedings to determine whether to
approve or disapprove File Numbers SR-MIAX-2021-41 and SR-PEARL-2021-
45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.''
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 93165 (September
28, 2021), 86 FR 54750 (``MIAX Notice''); 93162 (September 28,
2021), 86 FR 54739 (``Pearl Notice''). For ease of reference,
citations to statements generally applicable to both notices are to
the MIAX Notice. Comments received on the proposed rule changes are
available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-miax-2021-41/srmiax202141.htm (SR-MIAX-2021-41); https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-pearl-2021-45/srpearl202145.htm (SR-PEARL-
2021-45).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Changes

    The Exchanges propose to modify their Fee Schedules to adopt a
tiered-pricing structure for 10 gigabit (``Gb'') ultra-low latency
(``ULL'') fiber connections to the Exchanges' primary and secondary
facilities available to both Members \6\ and non-Members. Specifically,
the Exchanges propose to modify the pricing structure for 10Gb ULL
connections from a flat monthly fee of $10,000 per 10Gb ULL connection
to the following fees (collectively, the ``Proposed Access Fees''): \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization that
is registered with the Exchange pursuant to Chapter II of Exchange
Rules for purposes of trading on the Exchange as an ``Electronic
Exchange Member'' or ``Market Maker.'' Members are deemed
``members'' under the Exchange Act. See the Definitions Section of
the Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule 100.
    \7\ The Exchanges initially filed the proposed fee changes on
July 30, 2021. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 92643
(August 11, 2021), 86 FR 46034 (August 17, 2021) (SR-MIAX-2021-35),
92644 (August 11, 2021), 86 FR 46055 (August 17, 2021) (SR-PEARL-
2021-36). These filings were withdrawn by the Exchanges and replaced
with the instant filings, with additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $9,000 each for the 1st and 2nd connections;
     $11,000 each for the 3rd and 4th connections; and
     $13,000 for each additional connection after the 4th
connection.
    These fees are assessed in any month the Member or non-Member is
credentialed to use any of the Exchanges' APIs or market data feeds in
the Exchanges' production environment, pro-rated when a Member or non-
Member makes a change to connectivity by adding or deleting
connections, and assessed in any month during which the Member or non-
Member has established connectivity with the Exchanges' disaster
recovery facility.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See MIAX Notice, supra note 4, at 54751.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges state that the Exchanges' MIAX Express Network
Interconnect (``MENI'') can be configured to provide Members and non-
Members of the Exchanges network connectivity to the trading platforms,

market data systems, test systems, and disaster recovery facilities of
both MIAX and MIAX Pearl, via a single, shared connection. The
Exchanges state that Members and non-Members utilizing the MENI to
connect to the trading platforms, market data systems, test systems,
and disaster recovery facilities of MIAX and MIAX Pearl via a single,
shared connection will be assessed one monthly connectivity fee per
connection, regardless of the trading platforms, market data systems,
test systems, and disaster recovery facilities accessed via such
connection.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See id. The Exchanges state that a firm that is a Member of
both MIAX Pearl and MIAX can also allocate connections to the
exchanges at the lowest rates. For example, a firm that purchases
three or four total 10 Gb ULL connections can allocate one or two to
MIAX Pearl and the remaining one or two to MIAX and pay the lowest
rate of $9,000 for each of these connections, due to the shared MENI
infrastructure of MIAX Pearl and MIAX. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Suspension of the Proposed Rule Changes

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\10\ at any time within
60 days of the date of filing of an immediately effective proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\11\ the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') 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. As discussed below, the Commission believes a temporary
suspension of the proposed rule changes is necessary and appropriate to
allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule changes' consistency
with the Act and the rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges state that the tiered-pricing structure is
reasonable, equitably allocated, and not unfairly discriminatory
because it will encourage Members and non-Members to be more efficient
and economical when determining how to connect to the Exchanges, and
also enable the Exchanges to better monitor and provide access to the
Exchanges' network to ensure sufficient capacity and headroom in the
System.\12\ The Exchanges also state that the majority of Members and
non-Members that purchase 10Gb ULL connections will either save money
or pay the same amount after the tiered-pricing structure is
implemented.\13\ The Exchanges further state that firms that primarily
route orders for best executions generally only need a limited number
of connections to fulfill that obligation and connectivity costs will
likely to be lower for these firms, while for firms that engaged in
advanced trading strategies that typically require multiple connections
will generate higher costs by utilizing more of the Exchanges'
resources.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See MIAX Notice, supra note 4, at 54761-62. The term
``System'' means the automated trading system used by the Exchange
for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \13\ See MIAX Notice, supra note 4, at 54752, 54759. The
Exchanges state that they initially filed the proposed fee changes
on July 30, 2021 (SR-MIAX-2021-35 and SR-PEARL-2021-36) and, after
the effective date of SR-MIAX-2021-35 and SR-PEARL-2021-36 on August
1, 2021, approximately 80% of the firms that purchased at least one
10Gb ULL connection experienced a decrease in their monthly
connectivity fees, while approximately 20% of firms experienced an
increase in their monthly connectivity fees as a result of the
proposed tiered-pricing structure when compared to the flat monthly
fee structure. See id. at 54752. The Exchanges also state that no
Member or non-Member has altered its use of 10Gb ULL connectivity
since the proposed fees went into effect on August 1, 2021.
    \14\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In further support of the proposed fee changes, the Exchanges argue
principally that the fees for 10Gb ULL connections are constrained by
competitive forces, and that this is supported by their revenue and
cost analysis. The Exchanges state that they operate in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive and the Exchanges must continually adjust their fees for
services and products, and in addition to order flow, to remain
competitive with other exchanges.\15\ The Exchanges state that they are
not aware of any evidence that a market share of approximately 5-6%
provides the Exchanges with anti-competitive pricing power, and that
market participants may look to connect to the Exchanges via cheaper
alternatives or choose to disconnect from the Exchanges or reduce the
number of connections to the Exchanges as a means to reduce costs.\16\
The Exchanges state that market participants can and do drop their
access to exchanges based on non-transaction fee pricing.\17\ The
Exchanges also state that there is no regulatory requirement that any
market participant connect to any one options exchange, or connect at a
particular connection speed or act in a particular capacity on the
Exchanges, and that the Exchanges are unaware of any one options
exchange whose membership includes all registered broker-dealers.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See id. at 54751-52.
    \16\ See id. at 54753. The Exchanges also note that non-Member
third-parties, such as service bureaus and extranets, resell the
Exchanges' connectivity, which is another viable alternative for
market participants to trade on the Exchanges. The Exchanges note
that they receive no connectivity revenue when connectivity is
resold, which the Exchanges believe creates and fosters a
competitive environment and subjects the Exchanges to competitive
forces in pricing their connectivity and access fees. See id. at
54759.
    \17\ See id. at 54754.
    \18\ See id. at 54759.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges also state that the proposed fees are reasonable and
appropriate to allow the Exchanges to offset expenses the Exchanges
have and will incur in relation to providing the Proposed Access Fees
and provide an analysis of their revenues, costs, and profitability
associated with these fees.\19\ The Exchanges state that this analysis
reflects an extensive cost review in which the Exchanges analyzed every
expense item in the Exchanges' general expense ledgers to determine
whether each such expense relates to the Proposed Access Fees, and, if
such expense did so relate, what portion (or percentage) of such
expense actually supports the access services.\20\ The Exchanges state
that this analysis shows the fee increases will not result in excessive
pricing or supra-competitive profits when compared to MIAX's and MIAX
Pearl's annual expense associated with providing the 10Gb ULL
connections versus the annual revenue for the 10Gb ULL connections.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See id. at 54754-57.
    \20\ See id. at 54752. The Exchanges also state that no expense
amount is allocated twice. Id. at 54755, 54757. Expenses associated
with the MIAX Pearl equities market are accounted for separately and
are not within the scope of this filing. See id. at 54754.
    \21\ See id. at 54757.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges state that, for 2021, the total annual expense for
providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees
for MIAX and MIAX Pearl is projected to be approximately $15.9
million.\22\ The $15.9 million in projected total annual expense is
comprised of the following, all of which the Exchanges state are
directly related to the access services associated with the Proposed
Access Fees: (1) Third-party expense, relating to fees paid by the
Exchanges to third-parties for certain products and services; and (2)
internal expense, relating to the internal costs of the Exchanges to
provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. The
Exchanges state that the $15.9 million in projected total annual
expense is directly related to the access services associated with the
Proposed Access Fees, and not any

other product or service offered by the Exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See id. at 54754.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges state that the total third-party expense, relating to
fees paid by MIAX and MIAX Pearl to third-parties for certain products
and services for the Exchanges to be able to provide the access
services associated with the Proposed Access Fees is projected to be
$3.9 million for 2021.\23\ The Exchanges represent that they determined
whether third-party expenses related to the access services associated
with the Proposed Access Fees, and, if such expense did so relate,
determined what portion (or percentage) of such expense represents the
cost to the Exchanges to provide access services associated with the
Proposed Access Fees. This includes allocating a portion of fees paid
to: (1) Equinix, for data center services (approximately 62% of the
Exchanges' total applicable Equinix expense); (2) Zayo Group Holdings,
Inc. for network services (approximately 62%); (3) Secure Financial
Transaction Infrastructure and various other services providers
(approximately 75%); \24\ and (4) various other hardware and software
providers (approximately 51%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See id. at 54755.
    \24\ The Exchanges state that on October 22, 2019, the Exchanges
were notified by Secure Financial Transaction Infrastructure that it
was raising its fees charged to the Exchanges by approximately 11%,
without being required to make a rule filing with the Commission
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.
See id. at 54755 n.29; see also 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) and 17 CFR
240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchanges state that the total internal expense,
relating to the internal costs of the Exchanges to provide the access
services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, is projected to be
approximately $12 million for 2021.\25\ The Exchanges represent that:
(1) The Exchanges' employee compensation and benefits expense relating
to providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access
Fees is projected to be approximately $6.1 million, which is a portion
of the total projected expense of $12.6 million for MIAX and $9.2
million for MIAX Pearl for employee compensation and benefits; (2) the
Exchanges' depreciation and amortization expense relating to providing
the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees is
projected to be $5.3 million, which is a portion of the total projected
expense of $4.8 million for MIAX and $2.9 million for MIAX Pearl for
depreciation and amortization; and (3) the Exchanges' occupancy expense
relating to providing the access services associated with the Proposed
Access Fees is projected to be $0.6 million, which is a portion of the
Exchanges' total projected expense of $0.6 million for MIAX and $0.5
million for MIAX Pearl for occupancy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See MIAX Notice, supra note 4, at 54756.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges state that this cost and revenue analysis shows that
the proposed rule changes will not result in excessive pricing or
supra-competitive profit.\26\ The Exchanges project that, on a fully-
annualized basis, the Proposed Access Fees will have an expense of
approximately $15.9 million per annum and a projected revenue of $22
million per year, and including projected revenue for providing network
connectivity for all connectivity alternatives to be approximately
$22.8 million per annum, resulting in a projected profit margin of 30%
inclusive of the Proposed Access Fees and all other connectivity
alternatives ($22.8 million in total projected connectivity revenue
minus $15.9 million in projected expense = $6.9 million profit per
year). The Exchanges state that this profit margin does not take into
account the cost of capital expenditures that MIAX and MIAX Pearl
historically spent or are projected to spend each year going forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See id. at 54757.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges state that the proposed fees for 10Gb ULL connections
is equitable and reasonable because the proposed highest tier is still
less than fees charged for similar connectivity provided by other
options exchanges.\27\ The Exchanges also state that their projected
revenue from access fees is less than, or similar to, the access fee
revenues generated by access fees charged by other U.S. options
exchanges based on the 2020 audited financial statements within their
Form 1 filings.\28\ The Exchanges also believe that their overall
operating margin is in line with or less than the operating margins of
competing options exchanges, including the revenue and expense
associated with the Proposed Access Fees.\29\ The Exchanges state that
this incremental increase in revenue generated from the 30% profit
margin on connectivity will allow the Exchanges to further invest in
their system architecture and matching engine functionality to the
benefit of all market participants.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See id. at 54753. The Exchanges note that higher
connectivity fees for competing exchanges have been in place for
years (over 8 years in some cases), which allowed these exchanges to
derive significantly more revenue from their access fees. See id. at
54753-54. The Exchanges state that the Exchanges and their
affiliates have historically set their fees purposefully low in
order to attract business and market share, and that it benefits
overall competition in the marketplace to allow relatively new
entrants like the Exchanges and their affiliates to propose fees
that may help these new entrants recoup their substantial investment
in building out costly infrastructure. See id. at 54758-59.
    \28\ See id. at 54758.
    \29\ See id.
    \30\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges state that the proposed fees are equitably allocated,
not unfairly discriminatory, and do not impose an unnecessary or
inappropriate burden on competition because the Proposed Access Fees do
not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that
would impose a burden on competition because the allocation reflects
the network resources consumed by the various usage of market
participants, with the lowest bandwidth consuming members paying the
least, and highest bandwidth consuming members paying the most,
particularly since higher bandwidth consumption translates to higher
costs to the Exchanges; \31\ options market participants are not forced
to connect to all options exchanges; \32\ and options market
participants may choose alternative methods of connecting to the
Exchanges, including routing through another participant or market
center accessing the Exchanges indirectly.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See id. at 54759.
    \32\ See id.
    \33\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received two comment letters from one commenter that
opposes the proposed rule changes.\34\ This commenter states that the
Exchanges have not sufficiently demonstrated their proposed fees'
consistency with the Act or addressed previous concerns with the
proposed fees raised by the same commenter.\35\ Specifically, this
commenter argues that there are no reasonable substitutes for the
Exchanges' 10Gb ULL connectivity lines, particularly for market makers
whose business models require them to subscribe to direct connectivity
to the Exchanges in the highest proposed pricing tier.\36\ The
commenter further

argues that the fact that no member or non-member has altered its use
of 10Gb ULL connectivity since the fee changes went into effect serves
as further support of its claim that there are no reasonable
alternatives to the service.\37\ This commenter also argues that the
ability for a member to withdraw from an exchange should not support
the reasonableness of any individual proposed fee, as a member would
incur significant costs in withdrawing from an exchange in the form of
lost infrastructure investments, the cost of withdrawal itself, and
other opportunity costs.\38\ This commenter further objects that the
Exchanges have not provided sufficient quantitative support for their
revenues, costs, and profitability under the current and proposed fees
to support an analysis that the proposed fees and the Exchanges'
profitability are reasonable.\39\ Moreover, the commenter argues that
the Exchanges' comparison of their projected access fee profit margins
to the overall profit margins of competing exchanges is insufficient as
it does not appropriately compare the individual components of these
other exchange fees to those of the Exchanges.\40\ The commenter also
suggests that any comparisons made by the Exchanges to the revenues and
margins of other exchanges are inapt because they do not account for
the circumstances under which other exchanges established their fees,
including, for example, whether the services are equivalent or the
costs to provide them are similar.\41\ Finally, this commenter claims
that the proposed tiers in the new fee structure are unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchanges have not provided any cost
breakdown to support the claim that the use of multiple connections
creates higher costs for the Exchanges.\42\ Instead, the commenter
argues that market participants who purchase more units of 10Gb ULL
connections use more exchange bandwidth simply due to the fact that
they have purchased more units, and that this does not justify the
proposal to charge a higher rate per unit, which the commenter claims
is unfairly discriminatory towards market maker subscribers.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See letters from Richard J. McDonald, Susquehanna
International Group, LLP, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission, dated October 1, 2021 (``First SIG Letter'') and October
26, 2021 (``Second SIG Letter'').
    \35\ See Second SIG Letter, at 2. In the First SIG Letter the
commenter requested that the Commission suspend the proposals and
institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove
the proposals on the basis that the proposals represent the same fee
changes previously proposed by the Exchanges for which the commenter
expressed concerns. See also letter from Richard J. McDonald,
Susquehanna International Group, LLP, to Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, Commission, dated September 7, 2021, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-miax-2021-35/srmiax202135-9208444-249989.pdf (comment letter submitted to File Nos. SR-MIAX-2021-35,
SR-MIAX-2021-37, SR-PEARL-2021-33, SR-PEARL-2021-36, SR-EMERALD-
2021-23, and SR-EMERALD-2021-25, and expressing similar concerns to
those described herein).
    \36\ See Second SIG Letter, supra note 36, at 2-3.
    \37\ See id. at 3.
    \38\ See id.
    \39\ See id. at 4. The commenter further argues that the
Exchanges have not sufficiently justified the profit margins they
would be accruing with the proposed fees by, for example, explaining
specific technological undertakings the Exchanges expect to fund
with the revenue from the new fees. See id.
    \40\ See id. at 4-5.
    \41\ See id.
    \42\ See id. at 5.
    \43\ See id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter opposing the proposed rule changes states that
the Exchanges have not met their burden of demonstrating that the
proposed fees are consistent with the standards under the Act.\44\ This
commenter states that the Exchanges' argument that competition for
order flow constrains pricing for products and services exclusively
offered by the Exchanges does not demonstrate that the fees are
reasonable.\45\ This commenter also disagrees with the Exchanges'
statement that they must continually adjust the fees for these services
as a result of competition from other markets, arguing that this does
not reflect marketplace reality.\46\ This commenter also states that
the Exchanges have failed to demonstrate that the proposed fees are
equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory, claiming that the
proposed fee changes directly impact market makers and the burden of
the fee increases fall predominantly on market makers operating on the
Exchanges because 10Gb ULL connections are an essential technology tool
for market makers.\47\ The commenter states that the Exchanges offer no
concrete support for their arguments that the tiered pricing structure
would encourage firms to be more economical and efficient in the number
of connections they purchase, allowing the Exchanges to better monitor
and provide access to their networks to ensure that they have
sufficient capacity and headroom in their systems.\48\ This commenter
also states that the Exchanges provide no support for their position
that the use of multiple 10Gb ULL connections generates higher costs
for the Exchanges, positing that it is likely the Exchanges have fixed
costs associated with providing connections and any additional
connections purchased by users will result in greater Exchange
profits.\49\ The commenter also states that the Exchanges have provided
no public information on how they derived the cost amounts they
determined to allocate to the products and services subject to the
proposed fee changes nor any meaningful baseline information regarding
the Exchanges' overall costs.\50\ This commenter believes that the
Exchanges have withdrawn and refiled essentially identical
proposals,\51\ subverting proper consideration of the proposed fee
changes under the process set forth in the Act.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See letter from Ellen Green, Managing Director, Equity and
Options Market Structure, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated
November 16, 2021 (``SIFMA Letter'').
    \45\ See id. at 3. This commenter asserts that the proposals are
similar to proprietary market data products offered by the
Exchanges, which the commenter states are unique to the Exchanges
and market participants cannot obtain anywhere else. Id.
    \46\ See id. at 4.
    \47\ See id. at 4-5. The commenter asserts that without high
speed access provided through 10Gb ULL connections, market makers
could be exposed to tremendous risk if their quotes become ``stale''
due to price movements in underlying securities. See id. at 4.
    \48\ See id. at 4. The commenter also states that the Exchanges
fail to provide any discussion of why their current capacity needs
are constrained under the current pricing structure.
    \49\ See id. at 5.
    \50\ See id. The commenter believes that such information is
needed to allow commenters to judge whether the allocations are
supportable. Id. This commenter also believes that the Exchanges'
discussion of profit margins are ``high-level and conclusory,'' and
fail to provide sufficient detail to understand whether or not the
fees are reasonable. Id.
    \51\ See supra note 8.
    \52\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 46, at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A different commenter, while not expressing support or opposition
for the specific proposed fee changes, applauds the Exchanges for the
enhanced disclosure they have provided with respect to their proposed
fee changes as compared to the information in prior rule filings by
other exchanges proposing similar types of market data or connectivity
fees.\53\ This commenter states that the proposed fee changes would
``materially lower costs for many users, while increasing the costs for
some of [the Exchanges'] heaviest of users,'' noting that when these
fee filing proposals were withdrawn and refiled, they contained
``significantly greater information about who is impacted and how than
other filings that have been permitted to take effect without
suspension.'' \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See letter from Tyler Gellasch, Executive Director, Healthy
Markets Association, to Gary Gensler, Chair, Commission, dated
October 29, 2021, at 17. This commenter also petitioned the
Commission for rulemaking regarding the process for reviewing self-
regulatory organization fee filings.
    \54\ See id. The commenter highlights that the Exchanges'
proposals detailed both the projected revenues generated from the
proposed fees by user class as well as the percentage of subscribers
whose fees increased or decreased as a result of the proposed
changes. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the
Commission, including fee filings like the Exchanges' present proposal,
they are required to provide a statement supporting the proposal's
basis under the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to the exchange.\55\ The instructions to Form 19b-4, on which exchanges
file their proposed rule changes, specify that such statement

``should be sufficiently detailed and specific to support a finding
that the proposed rule change is consistent with [those]
requirements.'' \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4 (Item 3 entitled ``Self-Regulatory
Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for,
the Proposed Rule Change'').
    \56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8),
require the rules of an exchange to (1) provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons
using the exchange's facilities; \57\ (2) perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, protect investors
and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; \58\
and (3) not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \58\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \59\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In temporarily suspending the Exchanges' fee changes, the
Commission intends to further consider whether the proposals to modify
fees for certain connectivity options and implement a tiered pricing
fee structure is consistent with the statutory requirements applicable
to a national securities exchange under the Act. In particular, the
Commission will consider whether the proposed rule changes satisfy the
standards under the Act and the rules thereunder requiring, among other
things, that an exchange's rules provide for the equitable allocation
of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons using its
facilities; not permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers; and do not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the
proposed rule changes.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ For purposes of temporarily suspending the proposed rule
changes, the Commission has considered the proposed rules' impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Changes

    In addition to temporarily suspending the proposals, the Commission
also hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(C)
\62\ and 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \63\ to determine whether the proposed
rule changes should be approved or disapproved. Institution of
proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any
conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide
additional comment on the proposed rule changes to inform the
Commission's analysis of whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily
suspends a proposed rule change, Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that the Commission institute proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
    \63\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\64\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also
provides that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a
proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days of the date
of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change.
See id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended
for up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for such
extension and publishes its reasons for so finding, or if the
exchange consents to the longer period. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchanges have demonstrated how the proposals
are consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange ``provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities;'' \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchanges have demonstrated how the proposals
are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
``designed to perfect the operation of a free and open market and a
national market system'' and ``protect investors and the public
interest,'' and not be ``designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers;'' \66\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchanges have demonstrated how the proposals
are consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange ``not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of [the Act].'' \67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section III above, the Exchanges makes various
arguments in support of the proposals, and the Commission received
comment letters disputing the Exchanges' arguments and expressing
concerns regarding the proposals.\68\ In particular, two commenters
argue that the Exchanges did not provide sufficient information to
establish that the proposed fees are consistent with the Act and the
rules thereunder.\69\ The Commission believes that there are questions
as to whether the Exchanges have provided sufficient information to
demonstrate that the proposed 10Gb ULL connectivity fees are consistent
with the Act and the rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See First SIG Letter and Second SIG Letter, supra note 36;
SIFMA Letter, supra note 46.
    \69\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange
Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the
[SRO] that proposed the rule change.'' \70\ The description of a
proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a
legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative
Commission finding,\71\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this
information may result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis
to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \71\ See id.
    \72\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to
whether the proposals are consistent with the Act, specifically, with
its requirements that the rules of a national securities exchange
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members, issuers, and other persons using its
facilities; are designed to perfect the operation of a free and open
market and a national market system, and to protect investors and the
public interest; are not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; and do not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act; \73\ as well as any other
provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect

to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by December 20, 2021.
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by January 3, 2022. Although
there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views,
data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule
19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO. See Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th
Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and
merit of the Exchanges' statements in support of the proposals, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule changes.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the proposed rule changes, including whether the
proposals are consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any
of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Nos. SR-MIAX-2021-41 and SR-PEARL-2021-45 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 Numbers SR-MIAX-2021-41 and SR-
PEARL-2021-45. These file numbers 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
changes that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule changes 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 filings also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of each 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 Numbers SR-
MIAX-2021-41 and SR-PEARL-2021-45 and should be submitted on or before
December 20, 2021. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by January 3,
2022.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\75\ that File Numbers SR-MIAX-2021-41 and SR-PEARL-2021-45 be, and
hereby are, temporarily suspended. In addition, the Commission is
instituting proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule changes
should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-25878 Filed 11-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18363-18364]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06355]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2023-0017]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on February 10, 2023, D & I
Railroad Company (DAIR) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal
railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 240 (Qualification
and Certification of Locomotive Engineers) and part 242 (Qualification
and Certification of Conductors). FRA assigned the petition Docket
Number FRA-2023-0017.
    Specifically, DAIR requests relief as part of its proposed
implementation of and participation in FRA's Confidential Close Call
Reporting System (C\3\RS) Program. DAIR seeks to shield reporting
employees and the railroad from mandatory punitive sanctions that would
otherwise arise as provided in Sec. Sec.  240.117(e)(1)-(4);
240.305(a)(l)-(4) and (a)(6); 240.307; 242.403(b), (c), (e)(l)-(4),
(e)(6)-(11), (f)(l)-(2); and 242.407. The C\3\RS Program encourages
certified operating crew members to report close calls and protects the
employees and the railroad from discipline or sanctions arising from
the incidents reported per the C\3\RS Implementing Memorandum of
Understanding.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate

scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications received by May 30, 2023 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-06355 Filed 3-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P