[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3000-3002]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00994]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2016-E-2463; FDA-2016-E-2464; FDA-2016-E-2465; and
FDA-2016-E-2466]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; NINLARO

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has
determined the regulatory review period for NINLARO and is publishing
this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the
determination because of the submission of applications to the Director
of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of
Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug
product.

DATES: Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are

incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for
a redetermination by March 23, 2018. Furthermore, any interested person
may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant
for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review
period by July 23, 2018. See ``Petitions'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for more information.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before March 23, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
midnight Eastern Time at the end of March 23, 2018. Comments received
by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket Nos.
FDA-2016-E-2463; FDA-2016-E-2464; FDA-2016-E-2465; and FDA-2016-E-2466
for ``Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; NINLARO.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely manner
(see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with Sec.  10.20 (21 CFR 10.20) and
other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's
posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18,
2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984
(Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term
Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may
be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item
(human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food
additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA
before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory
review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension
an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award
(for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any
time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's
determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human
drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase
as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product NINLARO
(ixazomib). NINLARO is indicated in combination with lenalidomide and
dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who
have received at least one prior therapy. Subsequent to this approval,
the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for NINLARO
(U.S. Patent Nos. 7,442,830; 7,687,662; 8,003,819; and 8,859,504) from
Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's
assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term
restoration. In a letter dated October 14, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO
that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period
and that the approval of

NINLARO represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of
the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the
product's regulatory review period.

II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
NINLARO is 2,538 days. Of this time, 2,404 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 134 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective:
December 10, 2008. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date
the investigational new drug application became effective was on
December 10, 2008.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: July 10,
2015. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug
application (NDA) for NINLARO (NDA 208462) was initially submitted on
July 10, 2015.
    3. The date the application was approved: November 20, 2015. FDA
has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 208462 was approved on
November 20, 2015.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO
applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual
period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 837 or 157 days of patent term extension.

III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under
21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as
specified in Sec.  60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period.
To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements
of Sec.  60.30, including but not limited to: Must be timely (see
DATES), must be filed in accordance with Sec.  10.20, must contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a
true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent
applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42,
1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are
required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: January 16, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-00994 Filed 1-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 23, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37565-37568]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10683]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0329; FRL-10009-69-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; GA; 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Transport
Infrastructure

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
Georgia's January 9, 2019, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission
pertaining to the ``good neighbor'' provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The good neighbor provision
requires each state's implementation plan to address the interstate
transport of air pollution in amounts that contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in any other
state. In this action, EPA is determining that Georgia will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Therefore,
EPA is approving the January 9, 2019, SIP revision as meeting the
requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.

DATES: This rule will be effective July 23, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0329. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if possible, you contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be
reached via phone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2
NAAQS with a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). Pursuant to section
110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as
EPA may prescribe. These SIPs, which EPA has historically referred to
as ``infrastructure SIPs,'' are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS, and the requirements are
designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air
quality management program are adequate to meet the state's
responsibility under the CAA. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states
to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the
contents of individual state submissions may vary depending upon the
facts and circumstances. The content of the changes in such SIP
submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's
approved SIP already contains. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to
address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic
program

requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires SIPs to include
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this
section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to
nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the
NAAQS).
    On January 9, 2019, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD),
submitted a revision to the Georgia SIP addressing only prongs 1 and 2
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. EPA is approving GA EPD's January 9, 2019, SIP submission based
on both the State's analysis and EPA's supplemental analysis as
contained in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) which together
demonstrate Georgia will not contribute significantly to nonattainment,
or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in any other state. All other elements related to the infrastructure
requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS for Georgia are addressed in a separate rulemaking.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA acted on the other elements of Georgia's October 22,
2013, SIP submission, as supplemented on July 25, 2014, for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS on April 28, 2016. See 81 FR 25355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a NPRM published on December 4, 2019, EPA proposed to approve
Georgia's January 9, 2019,\2\ SIP revision for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. See 84 FR 66334. The details of the SIP revision
and the rationale for EPA's action is explained in the December 4,
2019, NPRM. Comments on the December 4, 2019, NPRM were due on or
before January 3, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In one instance, EPA erroneously referred to Georgia's
January 9, 2019 SIP submission with a date of July 31, 2019, in the
NPRM. EPA confirms that the January 9, 2019, date was intended. See
84 FR 66335.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received two sets of adverse comments from anonymous commenters
(collectively referred to as the ``Commenter''). These comments are
included in the docket for this final action. EPA has summarized the
comments and provided responses below.
    Comment 1: The Commenter asks why EPA is using the 2014 National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) when the 2017 NEI data from point sources has
been available since August of 2019. The Commenter asserts that EPA
must use the most recently available data for all point sources.
    Response 1: EPA used the 2014 NEI (version 2) inventory to evaluate
SO2 emissions from all source categories in Table 1 of the
December 4, 2019, NPRM because it is the most recently available,
complete, and quality assured NEI dataset which addresses all source
categories.\3\ Additionally, EPA evaluated statewide data for point
sources from 1990 to 2017 provided in Georgia's SIP revision, and as
shown in Table 4 of the December 4, 2019, NPRM, available 2017
emissions data for point sources not subject to EPA's Data Requirements
Rule (DRR) that emitted greater than 100 tons per year (tpy) of
SO2 in 2017 and are located within 50 kilometers (km) of
Georgia's border (see Table 4 of the December 4, 2019, NPRM). EPA
considered this information as part of its overall ``weight of
evidence'' (WOE) analysis. The comprehensive 2017 NEI for all source
categories, including point sources, is expected to be released later
this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air
emissions for criteria pollutants, criteria pollutant precursors,
and hazardous air pollutants from air emissions sources that is
updated every three years using information provided by the states
and other information available to EPA. The NEI is available at
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The Commenter asks why EPA is using annual emissions in
its WOE notices instead of short-term potential (or allowable)
emissions. The Commenter contends that annual emissions are not
indicative of past or future SO2 emissions and that it is
especially important to use allowable emissions for areas close to
state borders and with relatively elevated ambient or modeled
SO2 levels (even those that are below the level of the
NAAQS) because ``these levels can become elevated quickly with a 1-hour
standard and violate the NAAQS quickly.'' The Commenter asserts that
EPA should model areas close to state borders with allowable emissions,
specifically for interstate transport, to confirm no possibilities of
violating the NAAQS or ``Georgia causing significant contribution above
1% of the NAAQS in Florida or North Carolina.''
    Response 2: EPA does not agree that modeling allowable emissions in
areas near the border is necessary to demonstrate that sources in
Georgia will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another
state. When reliable and relevant modeling information is available,
EPA may utilize this information to inform its determination of whether
a state has satisfied the good neighbor provision; however, EPA has
routinely found that such modeling is not required where a WOE approach
provides sufficient information to evaluate whether or not a state will
adversely impact air quality in a downwind state under the good
neighbor provision.\4\ In this instance, EPA used its long-standing WOE
approach to evaluate Georgia's January 9, 2019, SO2 good
neighbor SIP revision, including the evaluation of available modeling
information. EPA continues to believe that the WOE analysis provided in
the NPRM is adequate to determine the potential downwind impact from
Georgia to neighboring states. EPA's WOE analysis in the NPRM included
the following factors: (1) Potential ambient impacts of SO2
emissions from certain facilities in Georgia on neighboring states
based on available air dispersion modeling results; (2) SO2
ambient air quality and emissions trends for Georgia and neighboring
states; (3) SIP-approved regulations that address SO2
emissions; and (4) federal regulations that reduce SO2
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals
and Promulgations: Utah; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, Proposed Rule 78 FR 29314 (May 20,
2013), Final Rule 78 FR 48615 (August 9, 2013); Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California;
Interstate Transport of Pollution; Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment and Interference With Maintenance Requirements,
Proposed Rule 76 FR 146516 (March 17, 2011), Final Rule 76 FR 34872
(June 15, 2011); Approval and Promulgations of State Implementation
Plans; State of Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the
2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS, Proposed Rule, 80 FR 27121 (May
12, 2015), Final Rule 80 FR 47862 (August 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above and in the December 4, 2019, NPRM, EPA evaluated
a number of different factors in a WOE analysis \5\ based on available
information and found no basis to conclude that Georgia emissions will
have an adverse impact on downwind states, and therefore, further
concluded that Georgia will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in neighboring
states. Specifically, in Tables 2 and 3 of the December 4, 2019,

NPRM, EPA considered available modeling results generated for certain
sources subject to EPA's DRR \6\ which were also used during round 3 of
EPA's initial area designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. Some of these sources were modeled using actual emissions data
as allowed by the DRR,\7\ while others opted to model using potential
or allowable emissions. EPA's preferred dispersion model, American
Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model
(AERMOD), which was the model used to yield all the modeling results
referenced in the December 4, 2019, NPRM, requires that SO2
emissions (whether actual or allowable) are based on hourly emissions
rates and input into AERMOD in units of grams per second. Typically,
these are derived from actual reported hourly emissions or short-term
allowable emissions instead of calculated hourly emissions derived from
annual emissions. EPA's assessment of these available DRR modeling
results are one part of the Agency's WOE approach, and EPA continues to
believe that they provide helpful information to assess whether there
are any indications of NAAQS violations or relatively high maximum 1-
hour SO2 impacts around a modeled DRR source close to
Georgia's border. As noted in the December 4, 2019, NPRM, while such
DRR modeling was not designed specifically to address interstate
transport, the 50-km distance that is typically used in AERMOD for the
DRR modeling aligns with the 50-km zone used for evaluating cross-
border impacts, both supported by the concept that there are localized
pollutant impacts of SO2 near an emissions source that
decrease with distance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commenter refers to WOE ``notices;'' however, EPA is
responding to this comment only as it relates to the Agency's
proposed rulemaking on Georgia's January 9, 2019, SO2
good neighbor SIP revision. To the extent the Commenter is concerned
about other EPA rulemakings that use a WOE analysis, those concerns
are outside the scope of this action.
    \6\ The DRR required state air agencies to characterize air
quality, through air dispersion modeling or monitoring, in areas
associated with sources that emitted 2,000 tpy or more of
SO2, or that have otherwise been listed under the DRR by
EPA or state air agencies. In lieu of modeling or monitoring, state
air agencies, by specified dates, could elect to impose federally-
enforceable emissions limitations on those sources restricting their
annual SO2 emissions to less than 2,000 tpy, or provide
documentation that the sources have been shut down. See 80 FR 51052
(August 21, 2015).
    \7\ Modeling performed pursuant to the DRR provided the bases
for many areas in round 3 of designations for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.1203(d)(2) (``Modeling analyses
shall characterize air quality based on either actual SO2
emissions from the most recent 3 years, or on any federally
enforceable allowable emission limit or limits established by the
air agency or the EPA and that are effective and require compliance
by January 13, 2017'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, in Table 4 of the December 4, 2019, NPRM, EPA evaluated
certain sources near the Georgia border for which no modeling
information was available. For these sources, EPA considered the
available emissions information, proximity to the border and to cross-
state sources to determine whether any areas warranted further review
for potential cross-state impacts. This evaluation did not yield any
areas that warranted further review based primarily on the large
distances between cross-state sources. In response to the Commenter's
concern that actual emissions may increase in the future, EPA also
considered as part of the WOE analysis in the December 4, 2019, NPRM:
Emissions trends for Georgia and neighboring states' sources, SIP-
approved regulations that address SO2 emissions, and federal
regulations that reduce SO2 emissions. These factors taken
together provide sufficient information to support EPA's conclusion
that sources in Georgia will not adversely impact air quality in a
downwind state under the good neighbor provision.
    EPA also notes that the Commenter did not provide a technical
analysis that contradicts EPA's proposed determination that sources in
Georgia will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another
state.
    Furthermore, the Commenter has provided no basis for the suggestion
that the determination of significant contribution from sources in
Georgia to Florida and North Carolina should be based on modeled
concentrations greater than one percent of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. In the December 4, 2019, NPRM, EPA did not rely
on a one percent significance threshold to support the conclusion that
Georgia does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state, nor has EPA in any other action set an air quality threshold for
defining significant contribution or interference with maintenance for
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. While EPA has used such a
threshold in other contexts to address regional pollutants like ozone
and fine particulate matter, that threshold was found to be appropriate
in those cases based on data showing that downwind air quality problems
were caused by the collective contribution of otherwise small impacts
form hundreds of sources in numerous upwind states. Moreover, the air
quality threshold was only one of several steps in defining the
``amount'' of emissions that would constitute a state's significant
contribution for those NAAQS. EPA has not developed any analyses, nor
has the Commenter provided any analyses, demonstrating that a similar
threshold would be appropriate for evaluating the good neighbor
obligations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard, particularly
in light of the more localized nature of SO2 transport as
described in the December 4, 2019, NPRM. Thus, EPA disagrees with the
Commenter that it is necessary to evaluate whether Georgia is impacting
Florida and North Carolina at a level greater than one percent of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    For the reasons discussed above, EPA finds that its analysis of the
Georgia sources in the December 4, 2019, NPRM, considered alongside
other WOE factors described in that document, support the EPA's
conclusion that Georgia has satisfied CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Georgia's January 9, 2019, SIP submission as
demonstrating that emissions from Georgia will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 24, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: May 12, 2020.
Mary Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart L--Georgia

0
2. Section 52.570(e) is amended by adding a new entry for ``110(a)(1)
and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.570   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State
  Name of  nonregulatory  SIP     Applicable  geographic  submittal  date/  EPA approval date     Explanation
           provision             or  nonattainment  area  effective  date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2)                Georgia................         1/9/2019  6/23/2020,........  Addressing Prongs
 Infrastructure Requirements                                               [Insert citation     1 and 2 of
 for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.                                             of publication].    section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)
                                                                                only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-10683 Filed 6-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12946-12947]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06038]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC18-72-000.
    Applicants: Walleye Energy, LLC, FirstEnergy Generation, LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization For Disposition
and Consolidation of Jurisdictional Facilities and Acquisition of an
Existing Generation Facility, et al.
    Filed Date: 3/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20180320-5198.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG18-57-000.
    Applicants: Imperial Valley Solar 2, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Certification of Imperial Valley Solar 2,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/19/18.
    Accession Number: 20180319-5206.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: EG18-58-000.
    Applicants: Delta Solar Power I, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Delta Solar Power I, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20180320-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: EG18-59-000.
    Applicants: Delta Solar Power II, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Delta Solar Power II, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20180320-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1325-008; ER17-1968-000; ER17-1967-000; ER17-
1970-000; ER17-1971-000; ER17-1964-000; ER17-1972-000; ER17-1973-000.
    Applicants: CinCap V LLC, Duke Energy Beckjord, LLC, Duke Energy
Carolinas, LLC, Duke Energy Commercial Enterprises, Inc., Duke Energy
Florida, LLC, Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Duke Energy Renewable
Services, LLC, Duke Energy SAM, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to June 30, 2017 Updated Market Power
Analysis for the Southeast Region of CinCap V, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 3/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20180320-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-102-012.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance with 2/15/18 Order
directives re: Order No. 1000 to be effective 4/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 3/19/18.
    Accession Number: 20180319-5184.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2095-003.
    Applicants: Midwest Generation, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Reactive Service Tariff Compliance
Filing to be effective 8/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 3/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20180320-5211.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-179-002.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PPL
Electric Utilities Corporation, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: PJM Transmission Owners submit
Compliance Filing re: 2/15/18 Order in ER17-179 to be effective 12/31/
9998.
    Filed Date: 3/19/18.
    Accession Number: 20180319-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-179-003.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance per February 15, 2018
order in Docket No. ER17-179 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 3/19/18.
    Accession Number: 20180319-5189.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-661-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company.
    Description: Report Filing: 2018-03-20_Refund Report for Ameren-
Farmington 1st Rev WDS to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 3/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20180320-5025.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1138-000.
    Applicants: PPL Electric Utilities Corporation.
    Description: Request for Waiver, et al. of PPL Electric Utilities
Corporation.
    Filed Date: 3/16/18.
    Accession Number: 20180316-5220.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1142-000.
    Applicants: Imperial Valley Solar 2, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective
12/13/9998.
    Filed Date: 3/19/18.
    Accession Number: 20180319-5174.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1143-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Indiana, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018 Annual Reconciliation
Filing RS No. 253 to be effective 7/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 3/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20180320-5015.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1148-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Clean-up of Operating
Agreement, Schedule 6, sec 1.3 and 1.5 to be effective 7/18/2016.
    Filed Date: 3/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20180320-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1149-000.
    Applicants: Walleye Energy, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market Based Rate Tariff to
be effective 5/21/2018.
    Filed Date: 3/20/18.
    Accession Number: 20180320-5213.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RD18-4-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: Petition of the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation for Approval of Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-025-2.
    Filed Date: 3/16/18.
    Accession Number: 20180316-5245.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 20, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-06038 Filed 3-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43254-43258]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17312]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69987; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-026]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, Relating to Complex Orders

July 15, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On March 28, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend its rules governing the
trading of complex orders on the Exchange to adopt a new order type
called ``leg orders.'' On April 11, 2013, the Exchange filed Amendment
No. 1 to the proposal. The proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the Federal Register on
April 17, 2013.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters regarding
the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1. On June 26,
2013, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposal.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on Amendment
No. 2 from interested persons and is approving the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69364 (April 11,
2013), 78 FR 22326.
    \4\ See infra Section II.B for a description of Amendment No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

A. Leg Orders

    CBOE proposes to adopt CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv) relating to the
generation and execution of leg orders. A leg order would be a limit
order on the CBOE electronic book (``EBook'') that represents one leg
of a non-contingent complex order resting on the complex order book
(``COB'') if the ratio of that leg to the other legs of the complex
order is equal to or can be reduced to one (e.g., 1:1, 1:2, or 1:3).\5\
A leg order

would be a firm order that may be included in the Exchange's displayed
best bid or offer (``Exchange BBO'') on the EBook.\6\ According to
CBOE, leg orders are designed to increase opportunities for complex
orders resting on the COB to leg into the CBOE individual options
market and execute.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53(x). See also Notice, 78 FR
22928, n. 4 for an explanation of conforming ratios as applied to
the generation of leg orders.
    \6\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53(x).
    \7\ See Notice, 78 FR 22928.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Generation of Leg Orders
    CBOE proposes that leg orders may be automatically generated on
behalf of complex orders so that they are represented in the individual
leg markets.\8\ CBOE proposes that a leg order would be automatically
generated for a leg of a complex order resting on the top of the COB:
(1) If the price of the complex order is inside the ``derived net
market,'' which is based on the derived net price of the best-priced
orders or quotes (other than leg orders) in the EBook; and (2) at a
price at which the net price execution of the complex order can be
achieved if the other leg(s) of the complex order executes against the
best-priced orders or quotes (other than leg orders).\9\ To determine
whether leg orders may be generated or displayed in accordance with
proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(1)(A)-(C), CBOE would evaluate the COB
when a complex order enters the COB, when the Exchange BBO changes, and
at a regular time interval to be determined by the Exchange (which
would not exceed one second).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(1).
    \9\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c) (iv)(1)(A); Notice, 78 FR
22928, Example A, for an illustration of how leg orders would be
generated and priced.
    \10\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE states that the derived net market and the price of leg orders
would be based on the best-priced non-leg orders in the other leg
series, as those are the orders against which a complex order may
execute.\11\ CBOE proposes that the size of a leg order would be the
lesser of (1) the size of the complex order, and (2) the maximum size
available in the EBook for the other leg(s) of the complex order
(divided by the leg ratio, if applicable).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, 78 FR 22928, n. 6.
    \12\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(1)(C); Notice, 78 FR
22930, Example D for an illustration of the maximum size limit as
applied to the generation of leg orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE proposes that it may, on an objective basis, limit the number
of leg orders generated.\13\ According to CBOE, leg orders may be made
available on a class-by-class basis and may not be available for all of
its systems.\14\ CBOE believes that this would help the Exchange manage
the number of leg orders generated to ensure that leg orders do not
negatively impact the Exchange's system capacity and performance.\15\
CBOE represents that it would not limit the generation of leg orders on
the basis of the entering participant or the participant category of
the order (i.e., professional, professional customer, or public
customer).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(1).
    \14\ See id.
    \15\ See Notice, 78 FR 22928, n. 5. See also infra Section II.C.
    \16\ See Notice, 78 FR 22930, n. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, CBOE proposes not to generate a leg order if the price of
the leg order would lock or cross the national best bid or offer
(``NBBO'').\17\ CBOE also proposes to not generate leg orders for
stock-option orders.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(1)(A).
    \18\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy
.06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Display and Nondisplay of Leg Orders; Aggregation of Size
    CBOE's proposed rule change specifies when a leg order would be
displayed and when it would be nondisplayed. A leg order would only be
displayed on the EBook if the price of the leg order matches or
improves the Exchange BBO pursuant to proposed CBOE Rule
6.53C(c)(iv)(1)(B).\19\ A leg order would not be displayed on the Ebook
if the price of the leg order does not match or improve the Exchange
BBO.\20\ If multiple resting complex orders in different strategies
generate leg orders for the same price on the same side of an options
series and both leg orders are eligible for display (i.e., both leg
orders match or improve the Exchange BBO), then the leg order with the
largest size would be displayed and the other leg orders would not be
displayed.\21\ If such leg orders are for the same size, then the first
leg order generated would be displayed and the other leg order(s) would
not be displayed.\22\ If multiple resting complex orders in the same
strategy generate leg orders for the same price on the same side of an
options series, then the sizes of the leg orders would be aggregated
and treated as a single order until execution.\23\ If such an
aggregated order matched or improved the Exchange BBO, the aggregated
order would be displayed.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(1)(B).
    \20\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policies
.12 and proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(1)(B).
    \21\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(1)(B); Notice, 78 FR
22929-22930, n. 10-11, and Example C for an illustration of this
concept.
    \22\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(1)(B).
    \23\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(1)(C).
    \24\ See Notice, 78 FR 22930, n. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE represents that nondisplayed leg orders, including leg orders
that were displayed but subsequently become nondisplayed, would remain
in the EBook and would be eligible for execution under proposed CBOE
Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(2), but would not be visible in the EBook depth,
which, according to CBOE, contains resting orders and quotes not at the
BBO.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policies
.12; Notice, 78 FR 22929, Example B, for an illustration of the
generation of nondisplayed leg orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Priority and Execution of Leg Orders; Cancellation and Removal
    CBOE represents that the generation of a leg order would not affect
the existing priority, or execution opportunities, currently provided
to market participants in the regular market in any way.\26\ In this
regard, CBOE proposes that leg orders (including nondisplayed leg
orders) would execute only after all other executable orders and quotes
(including any nondisplayed size) at the same price are executed in
full and that a leg order may not execute against another leg
order.\27\ Leg orders at the same price would execute pursuant to the
priority and execution rules for complex orders on the COB, except that
displayed leg orders would have execution priority over nondisplayed
leg orders.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Notice, 78 FR 22930.
    \27\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(2)(A); Notice, 78 FR
22928, n. 6.
    \28\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE proposes that when a leg order executes against an incoming
order or quote, the other leg(s) of the complex order represented by
the leg order would automatically execute against the best-priced
resting orders or quotes (other than leg orders) so that the complex
order would be executed in full or in a permissible ratio).\29\ Prior
to the execution of the complex order, any leg orders on the opposite
side of the legs of the executing complex order would be canceled.\30\
Upon execution of the complex order, any leg orders that represent
other legs of the executing complex order would be canceled.\31\
According to CBOE, after the complex order executes, new leg orders may
be generated to ``replace'' any leg orders representing other complex
orders resting on the COB that were canceled as a result of the
execution of the complex order, assuming such resting complex orders
meet the requirements for the generation of leg orders under

CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(1).\32\ In such an instance, CBOE states that
the newly generated leg order(s) would have the same priority as the
leg order(s) it replaced with respect to any other leg orders at the
same price representing complex orders in the same strategy because the
priority of the new leg order(s) (which would be aggregated) would be
based on the priority of the complex orders they represent (which would
remain unchanged regardless of cancellations of leg orders).\33\ If
execution of the complex order is partial, CBOE would be able to
generate and display leg orders for the remaining size of the complex
order assuming the conditions of Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(1) are
satisfied.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(2)(B).
    \30\ See id.
    \31\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(2).
    \32\ See Notice, 78 FR 22930, n. 17.
    \33\ See id.
    \34\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(2)(B); Notice 78 FR
22931, Example F, for an illustration of a partial execution of a
complex order through its leg orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE proposes that a leg order would also be canceled if: (1)
Execution at the price of the leg order would no longer achieve the net
price of the complex order when the other leg(s) executes against the
best-priced orders or quotes (other than leg orders); (2) the complex
order executes in full or in part against another complex order; or (3)
the complex order from which the leg order was generated is canceled or
modified.\35\ CBOE proposes that a leg order would be removed from
display in the EBook if the price of the leg order is no longer at the
Exchange BBO or if a complex order in a different strategy generates a
larger-sized leg order at the same price.\36\ Any leg order that is
removed from display in the EBook would be nondisplayed, but would
still be eligible for execution.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ CBOE may also cancel a leg order that might trade ahead of
a non-leg order against an all-or-none order. See proposed CBOE Rule
6.53C(c)(iv)(2)(C).
    \36\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(3)(A); Notice 78 FR
22932, Example H for an illustration of cancellation and removal of
leg orders generated from complex orders in different strategies.
    \37\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(3)(A); Notice 78 FR
22931-22932, Examples G and H, for illustrations of how leg orders
are canceled and removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Leg Orders and CBOE Auctions
    CBOE proposes to amend certain provisions of CBOE Rule 6.53C,
Interpretation and Policies, to provide for how leg orders would
interact with the various auction functions available on the Exchange.
First, CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and
Policy .04(b) to provide that if a leg order has been generated for a
complex order resting in the COB, the complex order would not be
eligible for the automated complex order request for responses
(``RFR'') auction process (``COA'').\38\ CBOE believes that this
provision is appropriate because leg orders would more effectively
create opportunities for the execution of complex orders resting in the
COB than having those complex orders participate in a COA after the
complex order has reached the COB.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy
.04.
    \39\ See Notice, 78 FR 22932.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, CBOE proposes to add CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and
Policy .07 to determine whether CBOE would generate a leg order if a
simple order auction \40\ is occurring in a leg series at the time that
a leg order in that series would otherwise be generated pursuant to
CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv). CBOE proposes that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ CBOE's simple order auctions include the Hybrid Agency
Liaison (``HAL'') auction described in CBOE Rule 6.14A and Automated
Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'') auction described in CBOE Rule
6.74A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If the leg order would be on the same side of the market
as the auctioned order with a price worse than the initial auction
price of the auctioned order, then the leg order would be generated and
the auction would continue.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy
.07(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If the leg order would be on the same side of the market
as the auctioned order with a price equal to or better than the initial
auction price of the auctioned order, then no leg order would be
generated and the auction would continue. A leg order may later be
generated after execution of the auctioned order.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy
.07(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If the leg order would be on the opposite side of the
market as the auctioned order with a price that locks or crosses the
initial auction price of the auctioned order, then no leg order would
be generated and the auction would continue. A leg order may later be
generated after execution of the auctioned order.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy
.07(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If the leg order would be on the opposite side of the
market as the auctioned order with a price that does not lock or cross
the initial auction price of the auctioned order, then the leg order
would be generated and the auction would continue.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy
.07(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE notes that a leg order would not participate in an auction if
a leg order would (a) be displayed in an options series at the time an
auction order enters the system and (b) be at the same price as the
starting price of the auction order and on the opposite side of the
auction order.\45\ According to CBOE, the auction order would instead
trade with other resting interest at that price and/or any contra order
that stopped the auctioned order, while the leg order could continue to
be displayed during the auction.\46\ According to the Exchange, this
result occurs because leg orders only trade after all other executable
orders and quotes are executed first.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Notice, 78 FR 22933.
    \46\ See id.
    \47\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE believes the proposal would ensure that leg orders would not
interact with simple order auctions in order to avoid the system
complexities that would result from combining the execution of complex
orders with the already complex auction processes.\48\ The Exchange
believes that market participants would continue to have the same
opportunities for execution and potential price improvement through
simple order auctions as they would if there were no leg orders
present.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Notice, 78 FR 22932.
    \49\ See Notice, 78 FR 22933.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Amendment No. 2 to the Proposed Rule Change

    In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange proposes to make two changes to
proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv). First, Amendment No. 2 adds a
provision to proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv) to provide that leg orders
will only be generated in the minimum increment of the leg series, and
the price of a leg order will be rounded down (bid) or up (offer) to
the nearest minimum increment if it would otherwise be priced in a
smaller increment than the minimum.\50\ CBOE represents in Amendment
No. 2 that leg orders rounded pursuant to this provision will be
ranked, displayed, and eligible to execute with incoming orders at the
rounded price. According to Amendment No. 2, a leg order rounded to the
nearest increment will function in the same manner as a non-rounded leg
order at the rounded increment. Second, Amendment No. 2 eliminates
proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(2)(C), which governed the interaction
of leg orders with all-or-none orders. The Exchange originally proposed
that an all-or-none order \51\ would only execute against a leg order
if it was at least the same size as the all-or-none order and there
were no non-leg orders at the Exchange BBO.\52\

Under proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(2)(C), as originally proposed, if
a leg order and a non-leg order(s) were at the Exchange BBO, then the
all-or-none order would have either (a) executed against the non-leg
order(s) if it was at least the same size as the all-or-none order or
(b) the leg order would have been cancelled and the all-or-none order
would have been handled pursuant to CBOE's existing rules governing
all-or-none orders.\53\ Pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(2)(C), no
new leg orders in the applicable options series would have been
generated until the all-or-none order was executed or cancelled.\54\ As
amended, proposed CBOE Rule 6.53(c)(iv)(2)(C) will be eliminated in its
entirety and, as a result, a marketable all-or-none order could execute
against a leg-order and a non-leg order displayed at the Exchange BBO
if such orders were together sufficient to fill the marketable all-or-
none order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(iv)(1)(A).
    \51\ See CBOE Rule 6.53(i) defining an all-or-none order as: ``a
market or limit order which is to be executed in its entirety or not
at all.''
    \52\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(2)(C).
    \53\ See id. See generally CBOE Rule 6.44 Interpretations and
Policies .01-.03.
    \54\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. CBOE Trading System Capacity

    CBOE represents that it maintains a rigorous capacity planning
program that monitors system performance and projected capacity demands
and that, as a general matter, considers the potential system capacity
impact of all new initiatives.\55\ CBOE represents that it has analyzed
the potential impact on system capacity that may result from the
proposed rule change and has concluded that the Exchange has sufficient
system capacity to handle the generation of leg orders without
degrading the performance of its systems or reducing the number of
complex order instruments it currently supports.\56\ The Exchange
represented that it would closely monitor the generation of leg orders
and its effect on CBOE's systems, and would carefully manage and
curtail the number of leg orders being generated, to ensure that they
do not negatively impact system capacity and performance.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See Notice, 78 FR 22933.
    \56\ See id.
    \57\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\58\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\59\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \59\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that leg orders could facilitate the
execution of complex orders resting on CBOE's COB by increasing the
opportunities for eligible complex orders to execute against interest
in the leg market on CBOE's EBook, thereby benefitting investors
seeking to execute complex orders. In addition, the Commission believes
that leg orders could benefit participants in the leg market by
providing additional liquidity, and potentially more favorable
executions, for leg market interest. The Commission notes that it
previously approved proposals by other options exchanges to implement
leg orders.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 66234 (January 25,
2012), 77 FR 4852 (January 31, 2012) (order approving File No. SR-
ISE-2011-82) and 69419 (April 19, 2013), 78 FR 24449 (April 25,
2013) (order approving File No. SR-BOX-2013-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Leg orders will be firm orders that represent one leg of a non-
contingent complex order resting on the COB if the ratio of that leg to
the other legs of the complex order is equal to or can be reduced to
one.\61\ The Commission notes that, on CBOE, leg orders will only be
generated in the minimum increment of the leg series, and the price of
the leg order will be rounded down (bid) or up (offer) to the nearest
minimum increment if it would otherwise be priced in a smaller
increment than the minimum.\62\ As noted above, the Exchange represents
that a leg order rounded to the nearest increment will be ranked,
displayed, and eligible to execute with incoming orders at the rounded
price and that rounded leg orders will function in the same manner as
non-rounded leg orders.\63\ Under CBOE's proposal, leg orders will not
be generated if the price of the leg order would lock or cross the
NBBO.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See supra Section II.A.
    \62\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(iv)(1)(A). See also supra
Section II.B.
    \63\ See supra Section II.B.
    \64\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(1)(A). See also supra
note 17 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that a leg order will be executed only after
all other executable orders and quotes (including any nondisplayed size
of any non-leg orders) at the same price are executed in full and that
a leg order may not execute against another leg order.\65\ Accordingly,
CBOE represents that the generation of a leg order would not affect the
existing priority, or execution opportunities, currently provided to
market participants in the regular market in any way.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See proposed CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(2)(A); Notice, 78 FR
22928, n. 6. See also supra notes 27 and 46 and accompanying text.
    \66\ See Notice, 78 FR 22930. See also infra note 26 and
accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the proposal provides for when a leg
order will be displayed and when it would be nondisplayed. The Exchange
represents that nondisplayed leg orders will function in the same
manner as displayed leg orders except that displayed leg orders will
have priority over nondisplayed leg orders.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See Notice, 78 FR 22929.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, CBOE represents that it will carefully manage and
curtail the number of leg orders being generated so that they do not
negatively impact system capacity and performance.\68\ CBOE represents,
further, that it will curtail the number of leg orders on an objective
basis, such as by limiting the number of leg orders generated in a
particular class, and that it will not limit the generation of leg
orders on the basis of the entering participant or the participant
category of the order (i.e., professional, professional customer, or
public customer).\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See supra Section II.C.
    \69\ See Notice, 78 FR 22930, n. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 2
is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2013-026 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission,

100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-026. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090 on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
CBOE-2013-026, and should be submitted on or before August 9, 2013.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 2

    The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change, as amended by Amendment No. 2, prior to the 30th day after the
date of publication of notice in the Federal Register. Amendment No. 2
revises the proposal, to, among other things, eliminate proposed CBOE
Rule 6.53C(c)(iv)(2)(C) in its entirety because the provision would be
inconsistent with Section 11A of the Act \70\ and Rule 602(a) of
Regulation NMS (``Quote Rule'').\71\ For this reason, the Commission
finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change, as amended, on
an accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \71\ 17 CFR 242.602(a). See 17 CFR 242.602(a)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\72\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2013-26), as amended,
be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\73\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-17312 Filed 7-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73312-73314]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25269]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90394; File No. SR-PEARL-2020-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Certificate of Formation, Amended and Restated Limited
Liability Company Agreement, and the By-Laws

November 10, 2020.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on October 28, 2020, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX
PEARL'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the Exchange's
Certificate of Formation (the ``Certificate of Formation''), Amended
and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement (the ``LLC
Agreement''), and the By-Laws (the ``By-Laws'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl at MIAX
PEARL's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
Changes to the Certificate of Formation
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Certificate of Formation to make
several non-substantive, administrative and clarifying changes. The
Exchange first proposes to amend the title of the document in order to
accurately reflect the amended document title as the ``Amended and
Restated Certificate of Formation of MIAX PEARL, LLC,'' in accordance
with the proposed amendments described below.
    On February 11, 2016, the Exchange executed the original
Certificate of Formation. The Exchange proposes delete the entire
sentence in the first paragraph and insert a sentence to clarify that
the Certificate of Formation has been executed in accordance with
Section 18-208 of the Limited Liability Company Act, and that this
document is being amended to restate the original Certificate of
Formation. With the proposed changes, the first paragraph of the
Certificate of Formation will be as follows:

    This filing has been executed and filed in accordance with
Section 18-208 of the Limited Liability Company Act. This document
is being executed for the purpose of amending and restating the
original Certificate of Formation, filed on February 11, 2016, under
file number: 5880323.

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the signature line for the
Certificate of Formation by deleting the current signature line and
inserting, as the signatory, ``Barbara J. Comly, EVP, General Counsel &
Corporate Secretary.''
    The purpose of the proposed changes to the Certificate of Formation
are to ensure that the Exchange's Certificate of Formation accurately
reflects correct, current information, including the name of the
amended document, in order to reduce potential investor or market
participant confusion.
Changes to the LLC Agreement
    The Exchange proposes to amend the LLC Agreement to make several
non-substantive, administrative and clarifying changes. On March 7,
2016, the Exchange executed the original Limited Liability Company
Agreement (the ``original LLC Agreement''). On December 5, 2016, the
Exchange executed the Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company
Agreement (the ``Amended LLC Agreement''), which restated the original
LLC Agreement. The first paragraph of the LLC Agreement also refers to
the document as the ``Operating Agreement.'' \3\ The Exchange now
proposes to amend the first paragraph of the LLC Agreement to reflect
the current amended document, which will be the ``Second Amended and
Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement'' (the ``Second LLC
Agreement''). Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to update the text in
the first paragraph of the LLC Agreement to reflect this change,
thereby deleting reference to the name and date of the original LLC
Agreement, and inserting the name and date of the Amended LLC Agreement
as being amended and restated by the Second LLC Agreement. The Exchange
also proposes to delete the reference to the ``Operating Agreement,''
for purposes of clarity and uniformity.\4\ With the proposed changes,
the first paragraph of the LLC Agreement will be as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See LLC Agreement.
    \4\ See id.

    Miami International Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the
sole member (the ``LLC Member'') of MIAX PEARL, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (the ``Company''), pursuant to and in
accordance with the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act, 6 Del.C.
Sec.  18-101, et seq. (the ``LLC Act''), hereby declares the
following to be the Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability
Company Agreement (the ``LLC Agreement'') of the Company which
amends and restates in its entirety the Amended and Restated Limited
Liability Company Agreement dated December 5, 2016 of the Company.
Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
meanings set forth on Schedule A to this LLC Agreement.

    Next, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 3 of the LLC Agreement
to amend the address referenced therein for the Exchange's principal
place of business. The Exchange has increased its office space at its
current address of 7 Roszel Road, Princeton, New Jersey 08540.\5\ The
new mailing and principal address for the Princeton, New Jersey office
is now 7 Roszel Road, Suite 1A, Princeton, New Jersey 08540.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 3 of the LLC
Agreement to reflect the change in mailing address from ``5th Floor''
to ``Suite 1A.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See id., Section 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 4 of the LLC Agreement to
update the address of the Exchange's registered office in the State of
Delaware, as well as the Exchange's

registered agent. In particular, the Exchange proposes to delete the
address and company name of the registered office and registered agent,
respectively, as contained in the current LLC Agreement. The Exchange
proposes to insert in Section 4 of the LLC Agreement the updated
address of its registered office and the name of the Exchange's
registered agent. With the proposed changes, Section 4 of the LLC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreement will be as follows:

    The registered office of the Company required by the LLC Act to
be maintained in the State of Delaware shall be 1209 Orange Street
in the City of Wilmington, County of New Castle, ZIP Code 19801 or
such other office as the Board of Directors may designate from time
to time. The registered agent for the Company shall be The
Corporation Trust Company, or such other registered agent as the
Board of Directors may designate from time to time.

    Next, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 6 of the LLC Agreement
to clarify that Miami International Holdings, Inc. (``MIH'') is the
sole LLC Member \6\ of the Exchange and to update the address for MIH,
as described above. The Exchange also proposes to delete the reference
to ``Schedule B'' and the following sentence: ``The LLC Member was
admitted to the Company as an LLC Member of the Company upon its
execution of a counterpart signature page to the Operating Agreement at
which time it acquired 100% of the limited liability company interests
of the Company.'' The purpose of these changes is for administrative
ease and to provide uniformity throughout the LLC Agreement. The
Exchange also proposes to delete ``Schedule B'' from the LLC Agreement,
which simply states that the LLC Member is MIH. This is duplicative
information as the term ``LLC Member'' is defined in Schedule A to the
LLC Agreement.\7\ Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to delete Schedule
B and move the information regarding the LLC Member into Section 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``LLC Member'' means Miami International Holdings, Inc., as
the sole member of the Company. See LLC Agreement, Schedule A,
Definitions.
    \7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 9 of the LLC Agreement
to delete the last sentence of Section 9(a), which states, ``The
Directors as of the date of this LLC Agreement are set forth on
Schedule C attached hereto.'' Schedule C of the LLC Agreement provides
the names and classifications of the Board of Directors of the Exchange
as of December 5, 2016. The Exchange proposes to delete Schedule C, and
all references to Schedule C, as further described below, from the LLC
Agreement. The names and classifications of the Board of Directors of
the Exchange are publicly available information through the
Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval
(``EDGAR'') website.\8\ The purpose of these changes is for
administrative ease and to provide uniformity throughout the LLC
Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html
and https://www.sec.gov/oiea/Article/edgarguide.html for EDGAR
filing information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the first sentence of Section
9(c) to clarify that the By-Laws \9\ of the Exchange have been adopted,
thereby deleting the phrase ``hereby adopt the,'' in order to clarify
that this has already occurred. Further, the Exchange proposes to
delete the reference to ``Exhibit A'' in Section 9(c). Exhibit A
currently provides that the By-Laws of MIAX PEARL are a separate
document from the LLC Agreement. The Exchange provides the By-Laws as
publicly available information on its website. Accordingly, additional
reference to the By-Laws in Exhibit A is duplicative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``By-Laws'' has the meaning set forth in Section 9(c). See
LLC Agreement, Schedule A, Definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 29 of the LLC
Agreement to delete the reference to ``Schedule B'' and provide a
cross-reference to Section 6 for the address of the LLC Member, as
described above. These proposed changes will provide clarity and
uniformity throughout the LLC Agreement.
    The Exchange next proposes to amend ``Schedule A, Definitions'' to
the LLC Agreement to delete the definition for ``Operating Agreement.''
As described above, the Exchange is amending and restating the LLC
Agreement for the second time and as such, is removing the reference in
the first paragraph of the LLC Agreement to the ``Operating
Agreement.''
Changes to the By-Laws
    The Exchange proposes to amend the By-Laws to make several non-
substantive, administrative and clarifying changes. First, the Exchange
proposes to amend the title of the By-Laws to insert the phrase
``Amended and Restated.'' The Exchange proposes to amend the first
paragraph of the By-Laws to make several non-substantive,
administrative changes. In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend
the first paragraph of the By-Laws to insert the phrase ``Amended and
Restated'' in front of the first time the word ``By-Laws'' appears and
to delete the phrases ``Amended and Restated'' and ``dated as of
December 5, 2016,'' both of which refer to the LLC Agreement.\10\ The
purpose of these changes is for administrative ease and to provide
uniformity among the titles of each of the Exchange's corporate
documents. With the proposed changes, the first paragraph of the By-
Laws will be as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See By-Laws.

    These Amended and Restated By-Laws have been established as the
By-Laws of MIAX PEARL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
(the ``Company''), pursuant to the Limited Liability Company
Agreement of the Company (as amended from time to time, the ``LLC
Agreement''), and, together with the LLC Agreement, constitute the
limited liability company agreement of the Company within the
meaning of the LLC Act (as defined in the LLC Agreement). In the
event of any inconsistency between the LLC Agreement and these By-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laws, the provision of the LLC Agreement shall control.

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to make technical and conforming
changes to the time and date of effectiveness on the signature pages of
each of the Certificate of Formation, LLC Agreement and By-Laws. The
Exchange also proposes to amend the signature line of the LLC Agreement
to insert the full title of the signatory as ``Thomas P. Gallagher,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.''
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\11\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \12\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the Certificate
of

Formation, LLC Agreement and By-Laws are designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable
principles of trade, foster cooperation and coordination with persons
engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with
respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes are
non-substantive, administrative changes and will reduce potential
investor or market participant confusion regarding the Exchange's
corporate documents. Further, the Exchange believes the proposed
changes are not material and will have no impact on the governance,
ownership, or operations of the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes its proposal to amend the Certificate of
Formation, LLC Agreement and By-Laws are consistent with the Act as the
changes are to maintain accurate information regarding, among other
things, the Exchange's address, registered agent and registered office.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intra-market
and inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed changes are
not intended to address competitive issues but rather are
administrative, non-substantive changes that are concerned solely with
updating the Certificate of Formation, LLC Agreement and By-Laws to
reflect current, accurate information.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \16\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \17\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. As
the proposed rule change raises no novel issues and promotes accuracy
and consistency within the Exchange's Certificate of Formation, LLC
Agreement, and By-Laws, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-
day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the
operative delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon
filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-PEARL-2020-23 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2020-23. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2020-23, and should be submitted
on or before December 8, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-25269 Filed 11-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P