[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57385-57388]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22703]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0069; FRL-9383-4]

Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; Agency Decisions and State and
Federal Agency Crisis Declarations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has granted emergency exemptions under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for use of
pesticides as listed in this notice. The exemptions were granted during
the period October 1, 2012 through March 31, 2013 to control unforeseen
pest outbreaks.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
    Potentially affected entities may include:
    [emsp14]Crop production (NAICS code 111).
    [emsp14]Animal production (NAICS code 112).
    [emsp14]Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
    [emsp14]Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0069, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    EPA has granted emergency exemptions to the following State and
Federal agencies. The emergency exemptions may take the following form:
Crisis, public health, quarantine, or specific.
    Under FIFRA section 18, EPA can authorize the use of a pesticide
when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations (commonly called
emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal agencies and are
of four types:
    1. A ``specific exemption'' authorizes use of a pesticide against
specific pests on limited acreage in a particular State. Most emergency
exemptions are specific exemptions.
    2. ``Quarantine'' and ``public health'' exemptions are emergency
exemptions issued for quarantine or public health purposes. These are
rarely requested.
    3. A ``crisis exemption'' is initiated by a State or Federal agency
(and is confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request
and obtain EPA permission for use of a pesticide in an emergency.
    EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal agency
cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses
unacceptable risks to the environment, or if EPA cannot reach a
conclusion that the proposed pesticide use is likely to

result in ``a reasonable certainty of no harm'' to human health,
including exposure of residues of the pesticide to infants and
children.
    If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity
would result in pesticide chemical residues, EPA establishes a time-
limited tolerance meeting the ``reasonable certainty of no harm
standard'' of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
    In this document: EPA identifies the State or Federal agency
granted the exemption, the type of exemption, the pesticide authorized
and the pests, the crop or use for which authorized, and the duration
of the exemption. EPA also gives the Federal Register citation for the
time-limited tolerance, if any.

III. Emergency Exemptions

A. U.S. States and Territories

Arkansas
State Plant Board
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; December 10, 2012 to December 10, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite on December 10, 2012;
Effective date: January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
California
Department of Pesticide Regulation
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of boscalid and
pyraclostrobin for post harvest use on Belgian endive to control the
fungal pathogen, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum on November 15, 2012;
Effective date: December 1, 2012 to February 15, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; December 4, 2012 to December 4, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of mancozeb on walnuts
to control walnut blight (Xanthomonas campestris pv. juglandis);
December 21, 2012 to June 15, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of flonicamid on
strawberries to control Lygus bug (Lygus hesperus); October 4, 2012 to
November 30, 2012. Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of
thiabendazole in mushrooms to control trichoderma green mold; February
1, 2013 to January 11, 2014.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of naphthaleneacetic
acid, ethyl ester on avocado for sprout inhibition on March 20, 2013;
Effective date: April 16, 2013 to:April 15, 2014.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of spirotetramat on dry
bulb onions to control thrips; February 15, 2013 to September 30, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite on December 17, 2012;
Effective date: January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
Colorado
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; November 21, 2012 to November 21, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; December 31, 2012 to
December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of spirotetramat on dry
bulb onions to control thrips; February 8, 2013 to September 30, 2013.
Delaware
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; January 8, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; March 18, 2013 to
December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of thiabendazole in
mushrooms to control trichoderma green mold; January 18, 2013 to
January 11, 2014.
Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; December 4, 2012 to December 4, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite on December 17, 2012;
Effective date: January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
Georgia
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; January 29, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; January 29, 2013 to
December 31, 2013.
Hawaii
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; February 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; January 29, 2013 to
December 31, 2013.
Idaho
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of linuron on lentils to
control the weeds, prickly lettuce and dog fennel; December 10, 2012 to
June 30, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; January 23, 2013 to
December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of spirotetramat on dry
bulb onions to control thrips on January 29, 2013; Effective date:
March 15, 2013 to September 15, 2013.
Illinois
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; January 3, 2013 to
December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; January 22, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
Indiana
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; January 22, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
Iowa
Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; February 15, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; February 5, 2013 to
December 31, 2013.
Kentucky
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; December 10, 2012 to December 10, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite

on December 10, 2012; Effective date: January 1, 2013 to December 31,
2013.
Louisiana
Department of Agriculture & Forestry
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; December 31, 2012 to
December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of pyraclostrobin to
control brown rust (Puccinia melanocephala) on sugarcane; February 12,
2013 to June 30, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of anthraquinone on rice
seed to repel blackbirds and reduce damage to rice seedlings; March 8,
2013 to June 1, 2013.
Maine
Department of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Resources
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; March 3, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; March 5, 2013 to
December 31, 2013.
Maryland
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of thiabendazole in
mushrooms to control trichoderma green mold; January 18, 2013 to
January 11, 2014.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; January 23, 2013 to
December 31, 2013.
Massachusetts
Department of Agricultural Resources
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; March 25, 2013 to
December 31, 2013.
Michigan
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; December 4, 2012 to December 4, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite on December 4, 2012;
Effective date: January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of kasugamycin on apples
to control fire blight; March 19, 2013 to May 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of spirotetramat on dry
bulb onions to control thrips; March 11, 2013 to September 30, 2013.
Minnesota
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; December 4, 2012 to December 4, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite on December 12, 2012;
Effective date: January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of spirotetramat on dry
bulb onions to control thrips; March 11, 2013 to September 15, 2013.
Mississippi
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite on November 30, 2012;
Effective date: January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; December 4, 2012 to December 4, 2013.
Missouri
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; December 31, 2012 to
December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2013.
Nebraska
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; December 31, 2012 to
December 31,
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; January 8, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
Nevada
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of spirotetramat on dry
bulb onions to control thrips; March 22, 2013 to September 30, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; March 18, 2013 to
December 31, 2013.
New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of spirotetramat on dry
bulb onions to control thrips on January 29, 2013; Effective date: May
5, 2013 to September 15, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; February 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; February 15, 2013 to
December 31, 2013.
North Dakota
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; November 21, 2012 to November 21, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite on December 17, 2012;
Effective date: January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
Ohio
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite on December 17, 2012;
Effective date: January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; February 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
Oregon
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; November 15, 2012 to November 15, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite on December 21, 2012;
Effective date: January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of quinclorac on
cranberries to control yellow loosestrife; March 1, 2013 to August 1,
2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of fenoxaprop-p-ethyl in
grasses grown for seed to control various weed species; February 13,
2013 to September 15, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of spirotetramat on dry
bulb onions to control thrips; March, 8, 2013 to September 15, 2013.

Pennsylvania
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of thiabendazole in
mushrooms to control trichoderma green mold; January 11, 2013 to
January 11, 2014.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; February 15, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
South Carolina
Department of Pesticide Regulation
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; February 15, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; February 15, 2013 to
December 31, 2013.
South Dakota
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; October 19, 2012 to October 19, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; January 8, 2013 to
December 31, 2013.
Texas
Department of Agriculture
    Quarantine exemption: EPA authorized the use of fipronil in an
expansion of the registered use around outside structures up to 10 feet
up and out to control a newly introduced strain or species of Caribbean
crazy ant; November 1, 2012, to November 1, 2015.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of flutriafol on cotton
to control cotton root rot; February 1, 2013 to June 30, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; March 11, 2013 to
December 31, 2013.
Utah
Department of Agriculture and Food
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of spirotetramat on dry
bulb onions to control thrips; March 18, 2013 to September 1, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; March 5, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; March 5, 2013 to
December 31, 2013.
Vermont
Agency of Agriculture Food and Markets
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; October 17, 2012 to
December 31, 2012.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; March 28, 2013 to
December 31, 2013.
Washington
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of linuron on lentils to
control the weeds, prickly lettuce and dog fennel; December 10, 2012 to
June 30, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of quinclorac on
cranberries to control yellow loosestrife; March 1, 2013 to August 1,
2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; January 22, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; January 23, 2013 to
December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of spirotetramat on dry
bulb onions to control thrips on February 8, 2013; Effective date: May
1, 2013 to October 31, 2013.
West Virginia
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; March 8, 2013 to
December 31, 2013.
Wisconsin
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
    Quarantine exemption: EPA authorized the use of pyrethrins to a
single pond, for eradication efforts of the invasive Red Swamp
Crayfish; November 26, 2012 to September 30, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; February 7, 2013 to
December 31, 2013.
Wyoming
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite on December 12, 2012;
Effective date: January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of amitraz in beehives
to control varroa mite; December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2013.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of diflubenzuron in
alfalfa to control grasshoppers and Mormon crickets; March 22, 2013 to
October 31, 2013.

B. Federal Department and Agencies

Agriculture Department
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
    Quarantine exemption: EPA authorized the use of citric acid to
control foot and mouth disease virus and African swine fever virus on
porous and non-porous food and non-food contact surfaces; October 22,
2012 to October 22, 2015.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: September 12, 2013.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-22703 Filed 9-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 108 (Monday, June 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34334-34339]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12012]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95006; File No. SR-CBOE-2022-024]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Rules Regarding Complex Orders

May 31, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 23, 2022, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of
the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend its Rules regarding complex orders. The text of the proposed
rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Rules regarding complex orders.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to clarify certain provisions,
codify certain functionality, and correct certain language, as well as
to retain class-by-class flexibility to keep complex order electronic
eligibility for complex orders with ratios less than one-to-three and
greater than three-to-one in classes determined by the Exchange (i.e.,
the same as it currently is with respect to those classes).
    In February of 2022, the Commission approved the Exchange's
proposal to permit complex orders with ratios less than one-to-three
and greater than three-to-one to trade in penny increments and be
eligible for electronic processing.\5\ Prior to that, complex orders
with these ratios were only able to trade on the Exchange's trading
floor in open outcry (and in the standard increments for the applicable
class).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94204 (February 9,
2022), 87 FR 8625 (February 15, 2022) (SR-CBOE-2021-046). The
Exchange has not yet implemented this change and intends to after
this proposed rule change becomes operative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change makes three changes to the definition of
complex order in Rule 1.1: (1) It deletes the sentence that narrows the
definition of complex orders for purposes of electronic processing to
those with ratios greater than or equal to one-to-three and less than
or equal to three-to-one; (2) it clarifies that the term complex order
includes Index Combo orders unless the context otherwise requires; and
(3) it provides the Exchange with flexibility to determine on a class
basis whether to permit complex orders with ratios less than one-to-
three and greater than three-to-one to be eligible for electronic
processing. First, currently, the definition of complex order indicates
that for purposes of Rules 5.33 (which relates to electronic trading of
complex orders) and 5.85(b)(1) (which relates to open outcry trading of
complex orders), the term ``complex order'' means a complex order with
any ratio equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or
equal to three-to-one (3.00), an Index Combo order, a stock-option
order, or a security future-option order. Pursuant to this provision,
only complex orders with a ratio equal to or greater than one-to-three
(.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) (in addition to
Index Combo Orders, stock-option orders, and security future-option
orders) may trade electronically.\6\ The Exchange proposes to delete
this sentence because, in accordance with a rule filing previously
approved by the Commission,\7\ the Exchange intends to modify its
System to permit complex orders of any ratio to trade electronically
(except in classes determined by the Exchange, as further discussed
below), so the term complex order generally will have the same meaning
with respect to both open outcry and electronic trading, which
eliminates the need to have a separate definition for electronic
trading.\8\ Therefore, the Exchange proposes to delete the provision
that indicates complex order means complex orders with that ratio
restriction for purposes of Rule 5.33.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For the purpose of applying these ratios to complex orders
comprised of legs for both mini-options and standard options, ten
mini-option contracts represent one standard option contract. For
the purpose of applying these ratios to complex orders comprised of
legs for both micro-options and standard options, 100 micro-option
contracts represent one standard option contract.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94204 (February 9,
2022), 87 FR 8625 (February 15, 2022) (SR-CBOE-2021-046).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94204 (February 9,
2022), 87 FR 8625 (February 15, 2022) (SR-CBOE-2021-046).
    \9\ Similarly, the Exchange proposes to delete the reference to
Rule 5.85(b)(1), as the ratios relevant for purposes of open outcry
priority as described in Rule 5.85(b)(1) are already set forth in
that provision, making this reference redundant and thus
unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the complex order definition currently states that unless
the context otherwise requires, the term complex order includes stock-
option orders and security future-option orders. Specifically, the
proposed rule change provides that ``[u]nless the context otherwise
requires, the term complex order includes Index Combo orders,\10\
stock-option orders and security future-option orders.'' The proposed
rule change adds ``Index Combo orders'' to that sentence, because as
discussed above the proposed rule change is deleting the immediately
following sentence. That sentence includes the term ``Index Combo'' as
a type of complex order for purposes of electronic and open outcry
processing. Despite deletion of that sentence, an Index Combo is still
a type of complex order (as set forth in Rule 5.33) and thus this
proposed change retains that concept in the complex order definition.
This change merely clarifies in the definition of complex order that an
Index Combo order will generally be considered a ``complex order'' for
purposes of the Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ An ``Index Combination'' is a purchase (sale) of an index
option call and sale (purchase) of an index option put with the same
underlying index, expiration date, and strike price, and a ``delta''
is the positive (negative) number of Index Combinations that must be
sold (purchased) to establish a market neutral hedge with one or
more series of the same index option. An Index Combo order may not
have a ratio greater than eight options to one Index Combination
(8.00) and will be subject to all provisions applicable to complex
orders (excluding the one-to-three/three-to-one ratio) in the Rules.
Rule 5.33(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, as noted above, the Commission previously approved a
proposed rule change that would permit complex orders with all ratios
to be eligible for electronic processing, as opposed to just complex
orders with ratios greater than or equal to one-to-three (.333) or less
than or equal to three-to-one (3.00).\11\ Prior to implementing that
change, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to retain flexibility
to determine on a class-by-class basis whether to maintain the status
quo--specifically whether to permit complex orders with ratios less
than one-to-three (.333) or greater than three-to-one (3.00) to be
eligible for electronic processing. Certain classes have significant
volume executed in open outcry trading on the Exchange's trading floor.
The Exchange and its customers continue to believe the trading floor is
an important source of liquidity, which is provided efficiently by a
large pool of accessible Market-Makers and floor brokers. However,
Market-Makers and floor brokers expend resources to have a presence on
the trading floor, which they do because a certain level of order flow
routes to the floor. The Exchange believes it is beneficial to provide
investors with flexibility to have their complex order interest execute
either electronically or in open outcry. However, the Exchange also
believes it is important to balance that flexibility with the need to
ensure significant order flow continues to route to the trading floor,
providing an ongoing incentive for liquidity providers to populate the
floor. This is particularly important in classes with high open outcry
volume. Therefore, the proposed rule change adds to the definition of
complex order in Rule 1.1 that the Exchange determines on a class-by-
class basis whether complex orders with ratios less than one-to-three
(.333) or greater than three-to-one (3.00) are eligible for electronic
processing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94204 (February 9,
2022), 87 FR 8625 (February 15, 2022) (SR-CBOE-2021-046). The
Exchange has yet to implement this change and plans to do so after
this proposed rule change is operative.
    \12\ The proposed rule change also makes conforming changes to
Rules 5.6 (definition of complex order), 5.30(a)-(c), 5.33, and
5.83(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change next corrects an error in the definition
of

COA-eligible and Do-Not-COA orders in rule 5.33(c)(5). The Exchange's
System currently determines whether an order is ``COA-eligible'' by
comparing the price of an order to resting interest on the same side as
the order in the Simple Book and in the Complex Order Book (``COB'').
However, the current definition inadvertently inversed the relevant
terms and compares the price of a buy complex order to the synthetic
best offer (``SBO'') and sell complex orders and compares the price of
a sell complex order to the synthetic best bid (``SBB'') and buy
complex orders, which would be opposite-side interest. The proposed
rule change corrects this error and revises the definition to provide
that whether a complex order is COA-eligible will be determined by
comparing the order's price to same-side interest, which is consistent
with current System functionality. Specifically, a ``COA-eligible''
complex order is a buy (sell) complex order with User instructions to
(or which default to) initiate a COA that is priced (i) equal to or
higher (lower) than the SBB (SBO) (provided that if any of the bids or
offers on the Simple Book that comprise the SBB (SBO) is represented by
a Priority Customer order, the complex order must be priced at least
one minimum increment higher (lower) than the SBB (SBO) and (ii) higher
(lower) than the price of buy (sell) complex orders resting at the top
of the COB. This is consistent with the provisions that will cause a
COA to terminate early, pursuant to which a COA will end early because
of incoming same-side interest.\13\ Additionally, the proposed rule
change is consistent with another exchange's definition of ``COA-
eligible'' order.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Specifically, Rule 5.33(d)(3) provides that the COA
response time interval terminates early (a) when the System receives
a non-COA-eligible order on the same side as the COA-eligible order
that initiated the COA but with a price better than the COA price,
in which case the System terminates the COA and processes the COA-
eligible order pursuant to Rule 5.33(d)(5) and enters the new order
in the COB; (b) when the System receives a non-Priority Customer
Order in a leg of the complex order that would improve the SBBO on
the same side as the COA-eligible order that initiated the COA to a
price better than the COA price, in which case the System terminates
the COA and processes the COA-eligible order pursuant to Rule
5.33(d)(5), enters the new order in the Simple Book, and updates the
SBBO; or (c) if the System receives a Priority Customer Order in a
leg of the complex order that would join or improve the SBBO on the
same side as the COA-eligible order that initiated the COA to a
price equal to or better than the COA price, in which case the
System terminates the COA and processes the COA-eligible order
pursuant to Rule 5.33(d)(5), enters the new order in the Simple
Book, and updates the SBBO.
    \14\ See Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. Rule 5.33(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also makes non-substantive changes to Rule
5.33(f)(2)(A). Specifically, the proposed rule change combines
subparagraph (ii) with (v) (and renumbers the subparagraphs), as the
provisions ultimately mean the same thing. Specifically, Rule
5.33(f)(2)(A)(i) provides that the System does not execute a complex
order pursuant to Rule 5.33 at a net price worse than the SBBO or equal
to the SBBO when there is a Priority Customer order at the SBBO, except
all-or-none (``AON'') complex orders may only execute at prices better
than the SBBO. Therefore, if there is a Priority Customer Order
comprising part of the SBBO, a complex order could only execute by
improving the SBBO, which would require improvement of component
prices. This is what current Rule 5.33(f)(2)(A)(v) requires.
Specifically, that provision states that the System does not execute a
complex order pursuant to Rule 5.33 at a net price that would cause any
component of the complex strategy to be executed at a price ahead of a
Priority Customer Order on the Simple Book without improving the BBO of
(a) at least one component of the complex strategy, if the complex
order has a ratio equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less
than or equal to three-to-one (3.00), or is an Index Combo order; or
(b) each component of the complex strategy with a Priority Customer
Order at the BBO, if the complex order has a ratio less than one-to-
three (.333) or greater than three-to-one (3.00). Because these two
provisions are interrelated, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to
combine them into proposed Rule 5.33(f)(2)(A)(iv).\15\ The proposed
rule change has no impact on complex order priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The proposed rule change makes other nonsubstantive changes
to the sentence structure as a result of the combination of
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also clarifies that for complex order
priority for complex orders with ratios equal to or greater than one-
to-three and less than or equal to three-to-one, complex order priority
in open outcry is slightly different than complex order priority for
these complex orders in electronic trading. Specifically, in electronic
trading, these complex orders may not execute when there is a Priority
Customer order on any leg on the SBBO while in open outcry trading,
these orders can trade at the SBBO unless there is a Priority Customer
order on every leg comprising the SBBO. Current Rule 5.85(b)(1) states
that a complex order with any ratio equal to or greater than one-to-
three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) or that is
an Index Combo order may be executed at a net debit or credit price
without giving priority to equivalent bids (offers) in the individual
series legs that are represented in the trading crowd or in the Book if
the price of at least one leg of the order improves the corresponding
bid (offer) of a Priority Customer order(s) in the Book by at least one
minimum trading increment as set forth in Rule 5.4(b). The proposed
rule change clarifies that this provision means that one component of
the complex order must improve the price of one component leg in the
Book if there is a Priority Customer order at the top of the Book for
each leg of the Priority Customer order (rather than just at least one
leg, which is the case for electronic trading complex order priority,
as discussed above). Because open outcry and electronic complex order
priority differ with respect to complex orders with any ratio equal to
or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-
one (3.00) and Index Combo orders, the Exchange believes it is
appropriate to clarify that in the Rules. Therefore, the proposed rule
change adds to Rule 5.85(b)(1) a sentence stating that, in other words,
if there is a Priority Customer order at the top of the Simple Book on
each leg comprising the SBBO for the complex strategy, at least one
component of the complex order must execute at a price that improves
the price of the Priority Customer order on the Simple Book for that
component.\16\ The proposed rule change has no impact on open outcry
complex order priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Complex order priority with respect to complex orders with
ratios less than one-to-three (.333) and greater than three-to-one
(3.00) (except for Index Combo orders) is the same in both
electronic and open outcry trading. Therefore, the proposed rule
change adds to Rule 5.85(b)(2) the same language from proposed Rule
5.33(f)(2)(iv)(b), which states that for complex order with those
ratios, if there is a Priority Customer order on any leg(s)
comprising the SBBO, the component(s) of the complex order for the
leg(s) with a Priority Customer order at the BBO must execute at a
price that improves the price of that Priority Customer order(s) on
the Simple Book by at least one minimum increment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed rule change updates Rule 5.33(g) to reflect
that the System accepts for electronic processing complex orders with
more than four legs. Current Rule 5.33(g) states that a complex order
may execute against orders and quotes resting in the Simple Book
pursuant to Rule 5.33(d)(5)(A) and (e) if it can execute in full or in
a permissible ratio and if it has no more than a maximum number of
legs, which the Exchange determines on a class-by-class basis and may
be two, three or four, subject to certain restrictions, including that
non-Customer complex orders with two option legs that are both

buy or both sell and that are both calls or both puts may not leg into
the Simple Book and all complex orders with three or four option legs
that are all buy or all sell may not leg into the Simple Book. The
proposed rule change modifies the parenthetical regarding legging
restrictions to indicate that the maximum number the Exchange may
determine on a class-by-class basis may be up to 16, as the Exchange's
System currently accepts complex orders with up to that many legs for
electronic processing.\17\ The proposed rule change makes no changes to
which or how complex orders may leg into the Simple Book but rather
updates this provision to reflect current functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Cboe Notice C2021060800, Cboe Options Introduces 16-Leg
Maximum for Non-FLEX Complex Orders (June 8, 2021), available at
Cboe Options Introduces 16-Leg Maximum for Non-FLEX Complex Orders;
see also Cboe US Options Complex Book Process (technical
specifications last updated April 20, 2022), Section 2.3.2,
available at US Options Complex Book Process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\18\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \19\ 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) \20\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change makes no changes to how
complex orders are processed or executed, but rather updates the Rules
to reflect more accurately current System functionality and to make
clarifying and simplifying changes, which the Exchange believes will
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. As noted above, the Commission previously
approved a proposed rule change that would permit complex orders with
all ratios to be eligible for electronic processing, as opposed to just
complex orders with ratios greater than or equal to one-to-three (.333)
or less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00).\21\ The proposed rule
change to delete the part of the complex order definition in Rule 1.1
that restricts electronic processing to complex orders with ratios
greater than or equal to one-to-three and less than or equal to three-
to-one is consistent with the Exchange's prior proposed rule change to
permit complex orders of all ratios to be eligible for electronic
processing--this language was previously inadvertently not deleted.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94204 (February 9,
2022), 87 FR 8625 (February 15, 2022) (SR-CBOE-2021-046). The
Exchange has yet to implement this change and plans to do so after
this proposed rule change is operative.
    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94204 (February 9,
2022), 87 FR 8625 (February 15, 2022) (SR-CBOE-2021-046).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the proposed rule change to permit the Exchange to
determine on a class basis whether to permit these larger/smaller ratio
complex orders to be eligible for electronic processing \23\ will
further remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system by permitting the Exchange to
balance the flexibility of permitting complex orders to trade in open
outcry or electronically with the need to ensure that significant order
flow continues to route to the trading floor, providing an ongoing
incentive for liquidity providers to populate the floor. The Exchange
believes this will further protect investors who rely on liquidity on
the trading floor, particularly for complex orders. While the Exchange
generally believes any increase in electronic order flow will not be
significant enough to impact liquidity available on the trading floor,
the Exchange believes it is still appropriate to retain this
flexibility in the Rules to provide it with authority to act swiftly if
it appears floor liquidity has been or may be impacted.\24\ With
respect to any class for which the Exchange does not permit larger/
smaller ratio complex orders to be eligible for electronic processing,
that results in no change for these orders, as these orders currently
can only trade in open outcry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See proposed Rule 1.1 (definition of complex order) and
corresponding changes in Rules 5.6(c) (definition of complex order),
5.30(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4), 5.33(a) (definition of complex
order), and 5.83(b).
    \24\ The Exchange would announce any changes to classes in which
complex orders with ratios less than one-to-three or greater than
three-to-one were eligible or no longer eligible for electronic
processing in accordance with Rule 1.5, providing Trading Permit
Holders with sufficient advanced notice of any such change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change to the definition of COA-eligible order in Rule
5.33(b)(5)(A) merely conforms the provision to the System, which
compares the price of the order to same-side interest rather than
opposite-side interest. The current language inadvertently inverted the
terms; the proposed rule change corrects this, which makes the rule
text consistent with the System and thus provides additional
transparency, ultimately benefiting investors. This is consistent with
the provisions that will cause a COA to terminate early, pursuant to
which a COA will end early because of incoming same-side interest.\25\
Additionally, the proposed rule change is consistent with another
exchange's definition of ``COA-eligible'' order.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Specifically, Rule 5.33(d)(3) provides that the COA
response time interval terminates early (a) when the System receives
a non-COA-eligible order on the same side as the COA-eligible order
that initiated the COA but with a price better than the COA price,
in which case the System terminates the COA and processes the COA-
eligible order pursuant to Rule 5.33(d)(5) and enters the new order
in the COB; (b) when the System receives a non-Priority Customer
Order in a leg of the complex order that would improve the SBBO on
the same side as the COA-eligible order that initiated the COA to a
price better than the COA price, in which case the System terminates
the COA and processes the COA-eligible order pursuant to Rule
5.33(d)(5), enters the new order in the Simple Book, and updates the
SBBO; or (c) if the System receives a Priority Customer Order in a
leg of the complex order that would join or improve the SBBO on the
same side as the COA-eligible order that initiated the COA to a
price equal to or better than the COA price, in which case the
System terminates the COA and processes the COA-eligible order
pursuant to Rule 5.33(d)(5), enters the new order in the Simple
Book, and updates the SBBO.
    \26\ See Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. Rule 5.33(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change to update the provisions regarding complex
order priority in Rules 5.33(f)(2) and 5.85(b)(1) is a nonsubstantive
change intended to simplify the rule text regarding when legs of
complex orders must improve prices of orders on the Simple Book.
Similarly, the proposed rule change to clarify complex order priority
in open outcry is merely a clarification of the current priority. The
Exchange believes this will benefit investors, particularly since it is
different than electronic complex order priority with respect to
complex orders with ratios greater than or equal to one-to-three (.333)
and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00). These proposed rule
changes have no impact on electronic or open outcry complex order
priority.

    Finally, the proposed rule change to the provision regarding
complex order legging in Rule 5.33(g) will protect investors, as it
merely updates the provision to reflect that the System accepts for
electronic processing complex orders with more than four legs. The
proposed rule change makes no changes to which or how complex orders
may leg into the Simple Book but rather updates this provision to
reflect current functionality.

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 proposed rule change is
not intended for competitive purposes, but rather to clarify certain
provisions, codify certain functionality, and correct certain language,
as well as to retain class-by-class flexibility to keep complex order
electronic eligibility the same as it currently.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because all
changes will apply in the same manner to all investors. To the extent
the Exchange determines to not permit higher/lower ratio complex orders
to be eligible for electronic processing in any class, that will result
in maintaining the status quo for complex orders in that class, as the
Exchange currently does not permit complex orders with those ratios to
be processed electronically. Additionally, manual handling and open
outcry processing will be available for all complex orders with such
ratios from all investors. The other proposed rule changes have no
impact on trading and thus will not change how any investors' complex
orders are processed or executed on the Exchange. As noted above, the
proposed rule change makes no changes to electronic or open outcry
complex order priority, which orders can initiate a COA, or how complex
orders may leg into the Simple Book.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because the
proposed rule change has no impact on how complex orders trade, as it
makes primarily clarifying updates, corrections, and other
nonsubstantive changes. The Exchange is unaware of any other options
exchanges that permit complex orders with ratios less than .333 or
greater than 3.00 to trade electronically. Therefore, to the extent the
Exchange does not make complex orders with those ratios in a class
eligible for electronic processing, the Exchange would be permitting
complex orders to trade in the same manner as other options exchanges.
Other options exchanges are welcome to modify their systems to permit
higher/lower ratio orders to execute electronically or on their trading
floors.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not (a)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (b) impose any significant burden on competition; and (c)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \27\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \28\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of
the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \29\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\30\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. As discussed above,
the proposal will allow the Exchange to determine on a class-by-class
basis whether complex orders with ratios less than one-to-three and
greater than three-to-one will be eligible for electronic processing.
The Exchange states that this flexibility will allow the Exchange to
balance the benefits of permitting the electronic processing of these
complex orders with the need to ensure that significant order flow
continues to route to the Exchange's trading floor, thereby providing
an ongoing incentive for liquidity providers to maintain a presence on
the floor. The Exchange further states that waiver of the operative
delay will benefit investors by allowing the Exchange to broaden the
availability of electronic complex order processing in many option
classes as soon as possible. In addition, the Exchange states that the
proposed amendments to the complex order priority provisions in
Exchange Rules 5.33(f)(2) and 5.85(b)(1) are non-substantive changes
designed to simply and clarify those rules. The proposal also corrects
errors in the definition of COA-eligible order and updates Exchange
Rule 5.33(g) to reflect that the Exchange's System accepts for
electronic processing complex orders with up to 16 legs. The Commission
finds that waiving the operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow
the Exchange to make available without delay the electronic processing
of complex orders with ratios less than one-to-three and greater than
three-to-one in classes determined by the Exchange. The ability to
trade these orders electronically, as well as on the trading floor,
will provide investors with additional flexibility in determining how
their complex orders are executed. The proposed changes to correct,
update, and add clarity to the Exchange's rules will benefit investors
by helping to ensure that the Exchange's rules are clear and accurate.
For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposal operative
upon filing.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \31\ For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 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 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2022-024.

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-CBOE-2022-024. 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-CBOE-2022-024, and should be submitted
on or before June 27, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12012 Filed 6-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1625-1627]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00538]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPA-2007-0584; FRL-9941-25-OLEM]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Oil
Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
(SPCC) Plans

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), ``Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans'' (EPA ICR No. 0328.17, OMB
Control No. 2050-0021) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public
comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as
described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through May 31, 2016. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPA-
2007-0584, online using

www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Tarrab, Regulations
Implementation Division, Office of Emergency Management, Mail Code
5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER> fax number: (202)
564-2625; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: The authority for EPA's oil pollution prevention
requirements is derived from section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water
Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. EPA's regulation is
codified at 40 CFR part 112. An SPCC Plan will help an owner or
operator identify the necessary procedures, equipment, and resources to
prevent an oil spill and to respond to an oil spill in a timely manner.
If implemented effectively, the SPCC Plan is expected to prevent oil
spills and reduce the impact and severity of oil spills. Although the
owner or operator is the primary data user, EPA may also require the
owner or operator to submit data to the Agency in certain situations to
ensure facilities comply with the SPCC regulation and to help allocate
response resources. State and local governments may use the data, which
are not generally available elsewhere and can assist local emergency
preparedness planning efforts. EPA does not require an owner or
operator to submit SPCC Plans, but may request the SPCC Plan during a
facility inspection or an oil spill incident for review. The SPCC
regulation requires the owner or operator maintain a complete copy of
the Plan at the facility if the facility is normally attended at least
four hours per day or at the nearest field office if the facility is
not so attended. The rule also requires that the Plan be available to
the Regional Administrator for on-site review during normal working
hours (40 CFR 112.3(e)).
    SPCC Plan Preparation. Under section 112.3(a) or (b), the owner or
operator or onshore or offshore facility subject to this section must
prepare in writing and implement an SPCC Plan in accordance with
section 112.7 and any other applicable sections in the regulation.
Section 112.7 requires that the Plan be prepared in accordance with
good engineering practices. The section also requires the Plan have the
full approval of management at a level of authority to commit the
necessary resources to fully implement the Plan. Specific provisions in
this section, among others, require the owner or operator to predict
the direction, rate of flow, and total quantity of oil which could be
discharged from the facility as result of each type of major equipment
failure (section 112.7(b)); provide for appropriate containment and/or
diversionary structures or equipment to prevent a discharge (section
112.7(c)); provide for PE certification or a qualified facility
certification (section 112.7(d)); and conduct inspections and tests and
maintain records (section 112.7(e)).
    Plan Certification. Under section 112.3(d), a SPCC Plan must,
except as provided by 40 CFR 112.6, Qualified Facilities Plan
Requirements, be reviewed and certified by a licensed Professional
Engineer (PE) for it to be effective to satisfy the requirements. Under
section 112.6, the owner or operator of a qualified facility may self-
certify the Plan if the facility meets the eligibility criteria in
section 112.3(g).
    SPCC Plan Maintenance. Under section 112.5, the owner or operator
must complete a review and evaluation of the SPCC Plan at least once
every five years. As a result of this review and evaluation, the owner
or operator must amend the Plan within six months of the review to
include more effective prevention and control technology if the
technology has been field-proven at the time of the review and will
significantly reduce the likelihood of a discharge of oil.
    Recordkeeping. Under section 112.7(e), an owner or operator must
conduct inspections and tests and maintain records. The inspections and
tests must be conducted in accordance with written procedures the
facility or the certifying engineer developed for the facility. The
written procedures and a record of the inspections and tests must be
signed by the appropriate supervisor or inspector and kept with the
SPCC Plan for a period of three years. Records of inspections and tests
may be kept under usual and customary business practices.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are the owners or operators of facilities that are required
to have a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan
under the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation (40 CFR part 112). The
applicability, definitions, and general requirements for all facilities
and all types of oil are located in section 112.1 of the regulations
and apply to any owner or operator of a non-transportation-related
onshore or offshore facility engaged in drilling, producing, gathering,
storing, processing, refining, transferring, distributing, using or
consuming oil and oil products, which due to its location, could
reasonably be expected to discharge oil into navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines in quantities that may be harmful. (See 40 CFR
112.1(a) through (d) for further information about the applicability of
the oil pollution prevention regulations.)
    The private industry sectors subject to this action include but are
not limited

to: (1) Oil and Gas Extraction (NAICS 211); (2) Farms (NAICS 111, 112);
(3) Electric Utility Plants (NAICS 2211); (4) Petroleum Refining and
Related Industries (NAICS 324); (5) Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 325);
(6) Food Manufacturing (NAICS 311, 312); (7) Manufacturing Facilities
Using and Storing Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils (NAICS 311, 325); (8)
Metal Manufacturing (NAICS 331, 332); (9) Other Manufacturing (NAICS
31-33); (10) Real Estate Rental and Leasing (NAICS 531, 533); (11)
Retail Trade (NAICS 441-446, 448,451-454); (12) Contract Construction
(NAICS 23); (13) Wholesale Trade (NAICS 42); (14) Other Commercial
(NAICS 492, 541, 551, 561-562); (15) Transportation (NAICS 481-488);
(16) Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation (NAICS 711-713); (17) Other
Services (Except Public Administration) (NAICS 811-813); (18) Education
(NAICS 611); (19) Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals (NAICS 4247);
(19) Fuel Oil Dealers (NAICS 45431); (20) Hospitals & Other Health Care
(NAICS 621-624); (21) Accommodation and Food Services (NAICS 721,722);
(22) Fuel Oil Dealers (NAICS 45431); (23) Gasoline Stations (NAICS
4471); (24) Information Finance and Insurance (NAICS 51, 52); (25)
Mining (NAICS 212, 213); (26) Warehousing and Storage (NAICS 493); (27)
Pipelines (NAICS 4861, 48691); (28) Government (NAICS 92); (29)
Military Installations (NAICS 928110); and (30) Religious Organizations
(NAICS 813110).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory, pursuant to 40 CFR
112.3(e).
    Estimated number of respondents: 683,000 (total).
    Frequency of response: Less than once per year.
    Total estimated burden: 9,200,000 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,034,000,000 (per year), includes
$198,100,000 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: The number of respondents, burden, and costs
stated above are from the current approved ICR, 0328.16. EPA may adjust
these estimates based on public comments received or other information
gained by the Agency prior to submitting the ICR renewal package to
OMB.

    Dated: December 23, 2105.
Reggie Cheatham,
Director, Office of Emergency Management.
[FR Doc. 2016-00538 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 23, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10776-10780]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03572]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0705; Product Identifier 2019-NM-098-AD; Amendment
39-21396; AD 2021-02-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900
series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in the bear
strap from station (STA) 290 to STA 296, and between stringers S-8R and
S-9R, sometimes common to fasteners in the gap cover and emanating from
rough sanding marks found on the surface of the bear strap. This AD
requires inspections of the fuselage skin and bear strap at the forward
galley door between certain stations for cracks, and applicable on-
condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 30, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 30,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0705.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0705; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Bumbaugh, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing
Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 1, 2019 (84 FR
52047). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracks in the bear strap
between certain stations, sometimes common to fasteners in the gap
cover and emanating from rough sanding marks found on the surface of
the bear strap. The NPRM proposed to require inspections of the
fuselage skin and bear strap at the forward galley door between certain
stations for cracks, and applicable on-condition actions.
    The FAA issued a supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39
by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model
737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. The SNPRM
published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2020 (85 FR 25348). The FAA
issued the SNPRM to revise certain inspections to provide the correct
thickness callouts for the fuselage skin and bear strap.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking of the bear strap,
which could result in severing of the bear strap, possibly leading to
uncontrolled decompression and loss of structural integrity of the
airplane.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the SNPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the SNPRM

    United Airlines stated that it has no technical objection to the
SNPRM and that it concurs with the proposed rulemaking.

Request for an Alternative Method of Compliance for a Certain Repair

    Southwest Airlines (SWA) requested that the Boeing 737-700/-800
Structural Repair Manual (SRM) 53-10-01, Repair 6, be approved as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to certain corrective actions
specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB,
Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020. SWA contended that this repair
covers the affected inspection zone, and that this SRM repair should be
a terminating action to the inspections specified in Boeing Alert
Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision 1, dated February 19,
2020, because the entire inspection area covered is common to the
repair given in Boeing 737-700/-800 SRM 53-10-01, Repair 6. SWA
asserted that operators should be able to accomplish this SRM repair
without contacting Boeing, provided there are no deviations and that
the findings meet the criteria listed in the Boeing 737-700/-800 SRM
53-10-01, Repair 6. SWA also noted that the SRM was published after
Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision 1, dated
February 19, 2020, so there was no way to reference the SRM repair
within it.
    The FAA disagrees with the request because the referenced SRM
repair has not yet been approved for the specified conditions. However,
under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, the FAA will consider
requests for approval of an AMOC if a proposal is submitted that is
supported by technical data indicating that the proposed repair will
provide an acceptable level of safety. If the referenced SRM repair is
determined to be acceptable to address the specified conditions, the
FAA may approve, and Boeing may issue, a global AMOC for the SRM
repair. The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of this comment.

Request for an Altered Compliance Time for Condition 1, Action 1, of
the Service Information

    Southwest Airlines requested that where table 1 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB,
Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020, states a compliance time of
``Before further flight'' for certain on-condition actions, the
proposed AD should specify this compliance time as ``Before 15,000
total flight cycles or within 6,000 flight cycles after the original
issue of the AD, whichever occurs later.'' Southwest Airlines also
requested that the FAA clarify the requirement of Condition 1, Action
1, and Condition 3 and Condition 4.1.1, within Boeing Alert
Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision 1, dated February 19,
2020, paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' in Tables 1 and 2, to do the
alternative inspections and applicable on-condition action(s) before
further flight. SWA asserted that there is an equivalent level of
safety between an airplane without a repair reaching the compliance
time threshold to perform the Boeing service bulletin inspection and an
airplane with a repair reaching the compliance time threshold before an
action is required. Therefore, the compliance times for obtaining the
alternative inspection(s) for the existing repairs should align with
the compliance times allowed for

the initial service bulletin general visual inspection in lieu of
``before further flight.'' SWA proposed that this allowance be listed
within paragraph (h) of the proposed AD, similar to the allowance
provided by paragraph (i) of the proposed AD.
    The FAA agrees that allowing the AD compliance time for an airplane
with an existing repair to be the same as an aircraft without an
existing repair will provide an acceptable level of safety. Any
alternative inspection program including compliance times must be done
in accordance with an approved AMOC. The FAA has added paragraph (h)(3)
of this AD to address this change.

Request To Clarify Authority for Approval of Alternative Inspection
Programs

    Southwest Airlines requested that the FAA clarify who has the
authority to approve an alternative inspection program for any repair
found during Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB,
Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020, paragraph 1.E, ``Compliance,''
Table 1, Condition 1, Action 1. Paragraph (j)(1) of the proposed AD
clearly indicated that the manager of the Seattle ACO Branch has that
authority; paragraph (j)(3) of the proposed AD provided the path to
obtain an AMOC by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) as delegated only for a repair, modification, and
alteration. SWA requested clarification whether paragraph (j)(3) of the
proposed AD encompasses both existing repairs and repairs installed as
a result of inspection findings. SWA asserted that it is unclear
whether the reference to the repair is for an existing repair that is
located in the inspection area or for a repair that is installed as a
result of any crack finding.
    The FAA agrees to clarify. The Boeing Company ODA has authority to
approve AMOCs as authorized and delegated for repairs installed prior
to the AD and repairs due to a crack finding, as well as repairs not
due to a crack finding. An operator would need to provide The Boeing
Company ODA with all details and geometry needed to design and analyze
the repair data.

Request To Clarify the Use of ``Covers'' in the Service Information

    SWA commented that Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383
RB, Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020, paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' Table 1, note (b), omits the inspection in areas where
a repair covers the affected zone, provided conditions 1 and 2 are met.
A similar note is included in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' Table 2,
note (c). SWA would like clarification of the word ``covers'' as it
relates to repairs in the area. Since the configuration has changed
because of the repair, SWA stated that the repair's damage tolerance
program provides an equivalent level of safety for this area.
    The FAA has coordinated with Boeing to clarify the intent of the
wording in this section. Note (b) in Table 1 and note (c) in Table 2 of
Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision 1, dated
February 19, 2020, paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' apply to the area
``covered by'' a repair, but not for the area ``common to'' a repair. A
repair that is ``common to'' the area, meaning physically in the same
area as the NPRM-proposed repair, but that was not meant to address the
issue specified in the NPRM (i.e., ``covered'' areas), could
potentially be obscuring the inspections that would detect crack growth
which this AD is meant to mitigate. Therefore, if a repair was not done
as a corrective action for a crack in the bear strap, and the operator
does not perform the inspections specified in the Boeing Alert
Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision 1, dated February 19,
2020, it may result in the unsafe condition. The FAA has not changed
this AD as a result of this comment.

Request To Include Inspection Programs

    SWA commented that paragraph (j)(3) of the proposed AD (in the
SNPRM) stated that an AMOC may be used for any required repair,
modification, or alteration if approved by The Boeing Company ODA. SWA
stated that inspection programs should be included in this list of
conditions for which The Boeing Company ODA can provide an AMOC, as
paragraph (h)(2) explicitly states it is acceptable to accomplish
alternative inspections approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (j) of the proposed AD.
    The FAA agrees with the assertion that the inspection program may
be part of the AMOC because the inspection program for the repaired
area may be part of the repair, which in turn is part of the AMOC.
However, the FAA disagrees with changing this AD because an AMOC issued
for a repair will include the inspection program. The request to add
certain inspection programs to The Boeing Company ODA-authorized list
of AMOC approvals is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore,
the FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule with the change described previously
and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
SNPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the SNPRM.
    The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB,
Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020. This service information describes
procedures for inspecting for cracks of the fuselage skin and bear
strap at the forward galley door between certain stations, through the
use of two alternative inspection methods for the initial inspections:
(1) Internal and external general visual inspections and internal
surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections, and (2)
external general visual and external eddy current inspections. This
service information also describes procedures for applicable on-
condition actions including inspections for cracks, HFEC inspections
for cracks, low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspections for cracks,
and repair, depending on the inspection method selected. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 752 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                 Estimated Costs for Required Actions: Option 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal general visual            11 work-hours x $85              $0  $935...............  $703,120.
 inspection.                        per hour = $935.
External general visual            1 work-hour x $85                 0  85.................  63,920.
 inspection.                        per hour = $85.
Internal Surface HFEC inspections  3 work-hours x $85                0  255 per inspection   191,760 per
                                    per hour = $255                      cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Estimated Costs for Required Actions: Option 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
External general visual            1 work-hour x $85                $0  $85................  $63,920.
 inspection.                        per hour = $85.
External LFEC and HFEC             18 work-hours x $85               0  1,530 per            1,150,560 per
 inspections.                       per hour = $1,530                    inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the
agency to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified
in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2021-02-13 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-21396; Docket No. FAA-
2019-0705; Product Identifier 2019-NM-098-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 30, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes, certificated in any category,
as identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB,
Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions
required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE
is installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with
the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in the bear strap from
station (STA) 290 to STA 296, and between stringers S-8R and S-9R,
sometimes common to fasteners in the gap cover and emanating from
rough sanding marks found on the surface of the bear strap. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address cracking of the bear strap, which
could result in severing of the bear strap, possibly leading to
uncontrolled decompression and loss of structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision 1, dated
February 19, 2020, do all applicable actions identified in, and in
accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision 1, dated February 19,
2020.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g):  Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1383, Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020, which is referred
to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision 1,
dated February 19, 2020.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB,
Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020, uses the phrase ``the original
issue date of Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB,'' this AD
requires using ``the effective date of this AD,'' except where
Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision 1, dated
February 19,

2020, uses the phrase ``the original issue date of Requirements
Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB'' in a note or flag note.
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB,
Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020, specifies contacting Boeing for
repair instructions or for alternative inspections: This AD requires
doing the repair, or doing the alternative inspections and
applicable on-condition actions, using a method and compliance time
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(j) of this AD.
    (3) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A13833 RB,
Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020, in Tables 1 and 2, Condition 1
(Action 1), Condition 3, and Condition 4.1.1 (Action 1), specifies a
compliance time of ``before further flight'': This AD requires
compliance before 15,000 total flight cycles or within 6,000 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD, using Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
737-53A1383 RB, dated May 9, 2019, except for airplanes on which
Option 2, Condition 4, has been done. For airplanes on which Option
2, Condition 4, has been done, credit is given for Boeing Alert
Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, dated May 9, 2019, provided
operators do the external low frequency eddy current (LFEC)
inspection of the forward galley door bear strap and external high
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection of the fuselage skin for
any crack in accordance with Figure 4 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB,
Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020. The compliance time for
accomplishing these actions is at the later of the times specified
in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this AD. Except as specified in
paragraph (h)(3), do all applicable on-condition actions identified
in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision 1, dated
February 19, 2020, at the applicable times specified in the
``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-
53A1383 RB, Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020.
    (1) Before 15,000 total flight cycles.
    (2) Within 6,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Michael
Bumbaugh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:
206-231-3522; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (l)(3) and (4) of this AD.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision
1, dated February 19, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on January 14, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-03572 Filed 2-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P