[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75071-75079]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25909]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90457; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-075]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Instituting Proceedings to
Determine Whether to Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1, to Make Qualified Contingent Cross Orders
Available for FLEX Option Trading

November 18, 2020.
    On August 3, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to make Qualified Contingent Cross Orders
available for FLEX option trading. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on August 20, 2020.\3\ On
October 1, 2020, the Commission designated a longer period for
Commission action on the proposed rule change, until November 18,
2020.\4\ On October 23, 2020, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change, which replaced and superseded the proposed rule
change.\5\ The Commission has not received any comments on the
proposal. The Commission is publishing this notice and order to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1,
from interested persons and to institute proceedings pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89564 (August 14,
2020), 85 FR 51531.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90062 (October 1,
2020), 85 FR 63312 (October 7, 2020).
    \5\ Amendment No. 1 is available on the Commission's website at:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2020-075/srcboe2020075-7940531-224727.pdf.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. The Exchange's Description of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified
by Amendment No. 1

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.70 and Rule 5.72, as well as
Rule 5.33, to make Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'') Orders
available for FLEX trading. 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 Rule 5.70 and Rule 5.72, as well as
Rule 5.33, to make QCC Orders, which includes Complex QCC Orders and
QCC with Stock Orders, available for electronic FLEX trading.
Currently, QCC Orders are available only for electronic non-FLEX
trading.
    QCC Orders facilitate the execution of option orders that are part
of Qualified Contingent Trades (``QCTs''),\7\ by permitting Trading
Permit Holders (``TPHs'') to cross options orders without exposure
while effecting the trade in the equities leg in another market at a
price necessary to achieve the net price. Currently, TPHs may choose to
submit the options component

of a QCT as a FLEX Option, yet, are currently unable to execute a FLEX
Options component of a QCT on the Exchange in the same efficient,
unexposed manner as they may execute a non-FLEX option component of a
QCT on the Exchange. The Exchange now seeks to provide TPHs and their
customers with the same QCC trading capabilities for FLEX trading that
are currently available for non-FLEX trading, thus providing TPHs with
the same capability to execute the options parts of QCTs that are
comprised of FLEX Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rule 5.6(c), definition of ``Qualified Contingent Cross
or QCC'', paragraph (1), which defines a ``qualified contingent
trade'' as a transaction consisting of two or more component orders,
executed as agent or principal, where: (A) At least one component is
an NMS stock, as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the
Exchange Act; (B) all components are effected with a product or
price contingency that either has been agreed to by all the
respective counterparties or arranged for by a broker-dealer as
principal or agent; (C) the execution of one component is contingent
upon the execution of all other components at or near the same time;
(D) the specific relationship between the component orders (e.g.,
the spread between the prices of the component orders) is determined
by the time the contingent order is placed; (E) the component orders
bear a derivative relationship to one another, represent different
classes of shares of the same issuer, or involve the securities of
participants in mergers or with intentions to merge that have been
announced or cancelled; and (F) the transaction is fully hedged
(without regard to any prior existing position) as a result of other
components of the contingent trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 5.6(c) currently provides for the non-FLEX definition of a QCC
Order. Specifically, a QCC order is comprised of an originating order
to buy or sell at least 1,000 contracts (or 10,000 mini-option
contracts) that is identified as being part of a QCT coupled with a
contra-side order or orders totaling an equal number of contracts. If a
QCC Order has more than one option leg (a ``Complex QCC Order''), each
option leg must have at least 1,000 standard option contracts (or
10,000 mini-option contracts). A QCC order represents one component of
a QCT, which must be paired with a stock order. When a User enters a
QCC Order, the User is responsible for executing the associated stock
component of the QCT at or near the same time of the QCC order
execution, just as a User is ultimately responsible for complying with
execution requirements for any order a User submits. Indeed, the
Exchange requires TPHs to properly mark all QCC Orders as such, and has
a surveillance program in place which assesses TPH compliance with the
requirements applicable to QCC Orders, including the requirement that
the stock leg of the transaction be executed at or near the same time
as the options leg.\8\ To execute the associated stock, a User may
choose to either (1) separately submit an option order to the Exchange
and the stock order to a stock execution venue in time to be executed
at or near the same time of each other, or (2) submit a QCC with Stock
Order. A QCC with Stock Order is a type of QCC Order (including a
Complex QCC Order) entered with a stock component to be electronically
communicated by the Exchange to a designated broker-dealer for
execution on behalf of the submitting User and, as indicated, are
available to Users on a voluntary basis.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 15058 (June 17,
2011), 76 FR 35491 (Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change
Establishing Qualified Contingent Cross Orders) (``QCC Approval
Order'').
    \9\ See Rule 5.33(a), definition of ``QCC with Stock Order''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 5.72(e) \10\ to govern FLEX QCC
Orders. The proposed rule is simply making QCC Order available for
FLEX, and as such, the definition of FLEX QCC Orders is substantively
identical as non-FLEX QCC Orders in Rule 5.6(c) and FLEX QCC Orders
will execute in substantially the same manner with few differences
unique to trading in FLEX Trading. Proposed Rule 5.72(e) provides that
a ``FLEX QCC'' order is comprised of an originating order to buy or
sell at least 1,000 standard FLEX Option contracts (or 10,000 mini FLEX
option contracts) that is identified as being part of a QCT (as defined
in Rule 5.6(c)) coupled with a contra-side order or orders totaling an
equal number of contracts. If a FLEX QCC order has more than one option
leg (a ``Complex FLEX QCC'' order), each option leg must have at least
1,000 standard FLEX option contracts (or 10,000 mini FLEX option
contracts). This is substantively identical to the non-FLEX QCC
definition in Rule 5.6(c). The Exchange notes that Users will enter
into the System all FLEX QCC Orders as they would any other FLEX Order
pursuant to 5.72(b) (governing the order entry of FLEX Orders) and the
applicable FLEX auction rules. As such, the Exchange points out that
FLEX QCC Orders may only be submitted for series consistent with the
FLEX Rules.\11\ Like QCC Orders submitted for non-FLEX trading,\12\
FLEX QCC Orders will execute automatically upon entry without exposure
pursuant to proposed Rule 5.72(e)(1). The Exchange notes, as there is
no FLEX Order Book, the corresponding provisions in Rule 5.6(c) \13\
and 5.33(f)(2) regarding QCC Order execution requirements in connection
with yielding to prices at which Priority Customer Orders may be
resting in the Simple Book \14\ and Complex Order Book (``COB''),\15\
and in Rule 5.6(c) \16\ in connection with pricing QCC Orders at or
between the NBBO \17\ would not be applicable to QCC Orders submitted
to FLEX.\18\ Proposed Rule 5.72(e)(1) also provides that a FLEX QCC
Order is cancelled if it cannot execute, and that Rule 5.9 (related to
exposure of orders on the Exchange) does not apply to FLEX QCC orders,
both of which are consistent with the current non-FLEX QCC Rules.\19\
Like QCC Orders submitted in non-FLEX classes,\20\ QCC orders submitted
in FLEX classes must be entered in the standard increment for the
class.\21\ Therefore, the proposed rule change adds in proposed Rule
5.72(e)(2) that FLEX QCC may only be entered in the increments
applicable to FLEX Orders under Rule 5.4(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange also moves current paragraph (e) to paragraph
(f).
    \11\ See Rules 5.72(b), (c), and (d).
    \12\ See Rule 5.6(c), definition of ``Qualified Contingent Cross
or QCC'', paragraph (2).
    \13\ See id.
    \14\ See Rule 5.6(c), definition of ``Qualified Contingent Cross
or QCC'', subparagraph (2)(A)(i).
    \15\ See Rule 5.6(c), definition of ``Qualified Contingent Cross
or QCC'', subparagraph (2)(B)(i) and (iii).
    \16\ See Rule 5.6(c), definition of ``Qualified Contingent Cross
or QCC'', subparagraph (2).
    \17\ See Rule 5.6(c), definition of ``Qualified Contingent Cross
or QCC'', subparagraph (2)(A)(ii) and (B)(ii).
    \18\ This is true for any FLEX Order.
    \19\ See Rule 5.6(c), definition of ``Qualified Contingent Cross
or QCC'', subparagraph (2)(C) and (2)(C), respectively.
    \20\ See 5.6(c), definition of ``Qualified Contingent Cross or
QCC'', paragraph (3).
    \21\ See Rule 5.4(c)(4) (which sets forth minimum increments for
FLEX options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 5.72(e)(1) also provides that a FLEX QCC with Stock
order executes pursuant to Rule 5.33(l). The proposed rule change
amends Rule 5.33(1) to specify that the provisions governing QCC with
Stock include FLEX QCC with Stock. As such, pursuant to Rule 5.33(l),
for a FLEX QCC with Stock Order, a User must include the same requisite
information as they must include when submitting such orders for non-
FLEX trading pursuant to Rule 5.33(l)(3)(A),\22\ and the System will
process the option and stock components of such orders in the same
manner as it does for non-FLEX QCC orders pursuant to Rule
5.33(l)(3)(B) and (C).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Rule 5.33(l)(3)(A) requires a User to include a net price
for the stock and option components in accordance with the minimum
increments for stock-option orders and (ii) identify the designated
broker-dealer as set forth in Rule 5.33 (l)(2).
    \23\ Rule 5.33(l)(3)(B) provides that the System executes the
option component in accordance with Rule 5.6(c), but does not
immediately send the User a trade execution report, and
automatically communicates the stock component to the designated
broker-dealer for execution at a stock trading venue. If the option
component(s) of a QCC with Stock Order cannot execute, the System
cancels the QCC with Stock Order, including both the stock and
option components. Rule 5.33(l)(3)(C) provides that, if the System
receives an execution report for the stock component of a QCC with
Stock Order from the designated broker-dealer, the Exchange sends
the User the trade execution report for the QCC with Stock order,
including execution information for both the stock and option
components. If the System receives a report from the designated
broker-dealer that the stock component of a QCC with Stock Order
cannot execute, the Exchange nullifies the option component trade
and notifies the User of the reason for the nullification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange seeks to make QCC Orders available for FLEX trading
due to the growing customer demand it has received for QCC
functionality for FLEX trading. The Exchange notes that a number of
TPHs have expressed to the Exchange that use of QCC for FLEX

options would increase the efficiency of their executions of the
options component of a QCT if the options component consists of a FLEX
Option. An investor may seek to use a FLEX Option as an appropriate
hedge for a stock order but is currently unable to execute a FLEX
Option that is part of a QCT on the Exchange in the same unexposed
manner as it may execute a non-FLEX option on the Exchange. Currently,
if a TPH wants to execute a FLEX Option that is intended to be part of
a QCT, it would have to enter the FLEX Option as a FLEX Order separate
from the stock portion or as a stock-option order, which must be
exposed for at least three seconds prior to execution.\24\ Indeed, a
clean cross of the FLEX Option component of a stock-option QCT would
provide assurance to the parties to the QCT that their hedge will be
maintained.\25\ This is particularly significant for a variety of
managed funds that recognize the benefits to their investors in
employing certain hedging strategies through FLEX Options that allow
for their investors to mitigate risk and meet their objectives. For
example, a strategy may have an investment goal of protecting potential
losses down to a certain amount with the ability to participate in
return up to a certain cap in a reference asset (e.g., underlying index
or ETF) over a target outcome period that is usually a year or more
out. Such a strategy may utilize a combination of FLEX call and put
options in which expiration corresponds to the target outcome period
overlaid on an exposure to the reference asset. On the seed day (or,
the day in which the strategy is created and funded), the options
package would reflect customized strikes, necessary to target the
strategy's trading objectives a year or more in advance and for which
existing standard strikes are typically unavailable. The customized
FLEX strikes are used for the duration of the life of the strategy and
it is key that the appropriate combination of options is guaranteed to
maintain the hedge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Rule 5.72(c)(1)(F); Rule 5.73(c)(3); and Rule
5.74(c)(3).
    \25\ Amendment No. 1 adds additional explanation and detail in
support the use of QCC Orders in FLEX trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange notes that the Rules currently permit
Compression orders, which execute without exposure against another
Compression order(s) totaling an equal number of options contracts, for
trading in FLEX SPX options.\26\ That is, like the proposed FLEX QCC
Orders, FLEX Compression orders are not exposed in a FLEX Auction
pursuant to Rule 5.72.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Amendment No. 1 adds explanation regarding another order
type that may already execute without exposure in FLEX Options in
support of FLEX QCC Orders.
    \27\ See Securities Exchange Release Nos. 89707 (August 28,
2020), 85 FR 55040 (September 3, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-074) (Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating To Adopt Compression
Orders); and 90179 (October 14, 2020), 85 FR 66590 (October 20,
2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-074) (Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule
Change To Adopt Position Compression Cross (``PCC'') Orders for
SPX). As is the case with the proposed FLEX QCC orders, there would
be no NBBO or protection of customer orders for the recently
approved compression orders for FLEX Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, to qualify as a QCT, the execution of one component
is contingent upon the execution of all other components at or near the
same time. The Exchange conducts surveillance of TPHs to ensure that
TPHs execute the options component of a QCT at or near the same time as
the stock component, in accordance with the QCT exemption.\28\
Therefore, there is compliance risk for TPHs if they do not execute the
options component at or near the same time of execution of the stock
component. Providing TPHs with QCC Order functionality for FLEX Options
will reduce the compliance burden on TPHs by providing a more efficient
means of executing the options component of a QCT if the options
component consists of a FLEX Option, as QCC Orders did for non-FLEX
options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra note 1; see also infra note 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\29\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \30\ 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) \31\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposal to make the QCC Order type available
for electronic FLEX trading will facilitate TPHs' execution of the
options component of QCTs that are comprised of FLEX Options in the
same manner that TPHs may currently execute the options component of
QCTs that are comprised of non-FLEX options, thereby removing
impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market
and national market system and, in general, protecting investors. QCC
Orders for FLEX Options will execute in the same manner as QCC Orders
for non-FLEX options; the proposed rule change merely expands the
classes in which the Exchange may make QCC Orders available and
provides a specific definition of FLEX QCC Orders for clarity.
Moreover, the Exchange notes that stock-option orders (which, by
definition, must also be a QCT) \32\ are already permitted under the
Rules for FLEX Options, and thus, the FLEX Options components of QCTs
submitted as stock-option orders may currently execute at any price in
FLEX (i.e., are not subject to an NBBO or yielding to Customer orders).
The proposed rule change merely provides an alternative, more efficient
manner of execution for the option component of larger-sized QCTs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Interpretation and Policy .03 to Rule 5.33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the availability of QCC Orders for FLEX
Options will allow for a more efficient execution of the options
component of a QCT on the Exchange. As noted above, to qualify as a
QCT, the execution of one component is contingent upon the execution of
all other components at or near the same time. The Exchange conducts
surveillance to ensure a TPH executes the stock and option components
of a QCT at or near the same time.\33\ As a result, if the option
component does not execute when initially submitted to the Exchange, a
TPH may be subject to compliance risk if it does not execute the option
component at or near the same time of the execution of the stock
component. Indeed, the Exchange notes that the compliance risk of not
being able to execute a FLEX Options portion of a QCT at or near the
same time of the execution of the stock component is greater in a FLEX
auction, where it must be exposed for at least three seconds prior to
execution, than for non-FLEX option orders that must be exposed for at
least one second \34\ unless submitted

into an auction with a shorter exposure period. The Exchange believes
the proposed rule change will reduce this compliance risk for TPHs
executing FLEX Options that are components of QCTs, which will protect
investors and the public interest. Since the purpose of a QCT order is
for all components to trade at or near the same time, the Exchange
believes it is appropriate to provide TPHs with a mechanism to
facilitate immediate execution of FLEX Options that comprise the
options component of a QCT to reduce the compliance burden on TPHs when
effecting QCTs with a FLEX Option component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See QCC Approval Order.
    \34\ See Rule 5.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that proposed Rule 5.72(e), while
substantially the same in almost all aspects to Rule 5.6(c) governing
non-FLEX QCC, will provide clarity to TPHs regarding the submission of
their QCC FLEX Options. The only difference between the FLEX and non-
FLEX QCC Orders is that FLEX QCC Orders are not subject to the NBBO or
prices of customers in the book. The Exchange notes this difference
exists for any order type in non-FLEX trading versus FLEX trading.\35\
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule changes do not alter any of
the current increments applicable to FLEX Options but merely provide
additional detail within the specific provision covering QCC Orders
regarding the standard increments already permissible for FLEX Options
that will also apply to QCC FLEX Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The Exchange also notes that the requirement that a QCC
order execute at a price at or better than the NBBO is not a unique
execution requirement--every option order type approved by the
Commission must execute at a price at or better than the NBBO in
accordance with the linkage plan. See Rule 5.66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission has previously found,\36\ the execution of QCTs
is beneficial to the market as a whole as it contributes to the
efficient functioning of the securities markets and the price discovery
process. Pursuant to the QCT Release, the options portion of a QCT may
consist of non-FLEX or FLEX Options [sic]. However, as noted above,
without the availability of QCC Orders for FLEX Options, TPHs are
subject to higher compliance risk with respect to QCTs with a FLEX
Option component than TPHs who execute QCTs with a non-FLEX option
component. The Exchange submits this proposed rule change in response
to demand from TPHs and their institutional customers \37\ to be able
to execute the options components of QCTs comprised of a FLEX Option in
the same manner that they are currently able to execute the options
components of QCTs comprised of non-FLEX options. Therefore, the
proposed rule change will provide TPHs whose hedging strategies involve
FLEX Options with the same functionality currently available to TPHs
whose hedging strategies involve non-FLEX Options. The Exchange
believes this will provide investors with additional flexibility
regarding execution of their hedging strategies related to stock
positions, which flexibility ultimately benefits investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57620 (April 4,
2008), 73 FR 19271 (April 9, 2008) (``QCT Release''); and see QCC
Approval Order.
    \37\ Amendment No. 1 specifies the customer base for FLEX
trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Commission has stated that, while it believes that
order exposure is generally beneficial to options markets, it
recognizes that contingent trades can be useful trading tools for
investors and other market participants, particularly those who trade
the securities of issuers involved in mergers, different classes of
shares of the same issuers, convertible securities, and equity
derivatives such as options and that those who engage in contingent
trades can benefit the market as a whole by studying the relationships
between prices of such securities and executing contingent trades when
they believe such relationships are out of line with what they believe
to be fair value.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See QCC Approval Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirement that a non-FLEX QCC must execute at a price at or
between the NBBO merely incorporates an execution requirement
applicable to all option order types, as all options must execute at
price at or better than the NBBO in accordance with linkage rules.\39\
Therefore, this execution requirement is not a heightened execution
requirement for an unexposed option order. The additional requirement
that a QCC order not execute at the same price as a Priority Customer
incorporates the general principle of customer protection in the
options markets.\40\ If the market model for a class does not include
customer priority, this is a heightened execution requirement for
execution of an unexposed order.\41\ Even without this additional
protection, the Exchange believes the proposed FLEX QCC order will
protect investors, as it will provide Users of FLEX Options with the
same functionality as Users of non-FLEX options. While the Exchange
again notes that there is no FLEX book in which Customer orders (or any
FLEX orders) may rest, and therefore the principles of customer
priority are not currently applicable to FLEX trading, the Exchange
observed the top of Book orders in non-FLEX symbols as a comparison
point.\42\ In a random sample of data drawn from orders resting at the
top of the Book,\43\ the Exchange observed that, on average, only 0.34%
of all orders resting at the top of the Book were Customer orders. As
such, the Exchange believes that, even if there was a book for FLEX
Options, there would be minimal risk of executing a FLEX QCC at the
same price as a Customer order in the Book. Additionally, primarily
broker-dealers and institutional investors engage in FLEX trading.
Indeed, executions in FLEX Options are generally larger and held long-
term for strategies utilized by broker-dealers and institutional
investors, as opposed to the smaller, more frequent trades with shorter
expiration durations typically executed by retail investors. The
Exchange also understands that many large retail brokerage firms do not
accept FLEX Options or otherwise have high minimums which may
discourage retail trading in FLEX Options.\44\ Therefore, there are
minimal retail customer orders submitted into the FLEX market and thus
it would be unlikely any would be resting at the top of a FLEX book if
one existed for a de minimis (if any) amount

of time that would require additional protection. As discussed above,
the Exchange believes the benefits of exposure on an order on the
Exchange are outweighed by the benefits offered by immediate execution
of these contingent order types. The Exchange does not believe market
participants that engage in hedging strategies involving FLEX Options
should not have access to the same functionality as market participants
with hedging strategies involving non-FLEX options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Rule 5.66. In other words, if the definition of a QCC
order did not include the provision that it must execute at a price
at or better than the NBBO, QCC orders would still be required to
execute at a price at or better than the NBBO. The Exchange believes
inclusion of this explicit requirement for QCC orders was intended
to highlight the difference between execution of the options
component and the stock component, which may execute at any price,
but was not a unique price requirement necessary for execution of an
unexposed order. Every order type on the Exchange approved for non-
FLEX trading and FLEX trading has this same distinction.
    \40\ If there was not a customer order resting at the top of the
book, then the second pricing requirement for QCC orders is simply
ignored. As there is no book in the FLEX market, the proposed FLEX
QCC order is equivalent to a non-FLEX QCC order submitted when there
is no customer order resting at the top of the book.
    \41\ The Exchange has enabled customer priority for all equity
option classes that trade on the Exchange (and thus for all classes
in which TPHs may submit QCC orders). Therefore, all QCC orders
submitted on the Exchange are subject to the same execution pricing
requirements as non-QCC orders.
    \42\ Amendment No. 1 adds a description of the top of Book data
sample and the Exchange's observations in connection with the data
sample in support of QCC for FLEX trading and that, as proposed,
FLEX QCC orders are consistent with the protection of investors.
    \43\ The random sample was drawn over three days (September 25,
September 30, and October 1, 2020) from a different Match Engine
each sample day (one of which includes SPY). The sampling of data
across different Match Engines is representative of the symbols that
trade on the Exchange.
    \44\ Amendment No. 1 adds additional detail regarding the de
minimis amount of retail customer orders submitted into the FLEX
market that would require additional protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe the propose rule change raises price
protection concerns that market participants may submit FLEX QCC Orders
for a FLEX series with slightly different terms than a non-FLEX series
in order to get better pricing. Such risk, if any, exists today with
respect to all FLEX trading. The Exchange again points out that the
linkage rules and customer priority are currently not applicable to any
orders submitted to FLEX, wherein there is no order book. The Exchange
has observed no trends of TPHs submitting FLEX orders in order to avoid
trading in the non-FLEX market. The Exchange believes the risk (if any)
of a market participant trading a FLEX Option rather than a non-FLEX
option with slightly different terms to use the FLEX market as a
substitute for the non-FLEX market and achieve such a result is
minimal. This possibility exists today with respect to all options the
Exchange lists for FLEX and non-FLEX trading. The Exchange has not
observed market participants attempting to trade in the FLEX market
rather than the non-FLEX market for this purpose in classes in which
this is possible today and believes there would be minimal, if any,
benefit to do so. The Exchange compiled a dataset of all FLEX series
listed on the Exchange in the last year \45\ that matched non-FLEX
series on the underlying, expiration date, put/call and exercise-style,
but had different strikes. From the dataset, the Exchange was able to
observe the differences in strike prices between FLEX series and listed
series.\46\ The Exchange found that 99.90% of all SPX and SPXW FLEX
series created were over $1.00 away from the matching SPX/SPXW listed
series strikes, and that 90.10% of these were over $100.00 away from
the matching listed series strikes. It also found that 97.61% of all
equity and ETP FLEX series created were over $1.00 away from the
matching listed series strikes, and that 83% of these were over $10.00
away from the matching listed series strikes and 44.97% of these were
over $100.00 away from the matching listed series strikes. As a result,
the Exchange believes that there is minimal (if any) risk that market
participants desire or attempt to use the FLEX market as a substitute
to avoid trading in the non-FLEX market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ From October 14, 2019 through October 9, 2020.
    \46\ Amendment No. 1 provides additional data in support of QCC
Orders for FLEX trading, particularly demonstrating that there is
minimal risk of trading in the FLEX market as a substitute for
trading an economically equivalent option in the non-FLEX market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes attempting to execute an order in the FLEX
market as a substitute for the non-FLEX market would minimize execution
opportunities for that order. Such trading would be inefficient for
market participants and could introduce price and execution risk to
market participants' trading strategies given the reduced liquidity,
participation, and price discovery in the FLEX market compared to the
non-FLEX market.\47\ Additionally, series with different terms have
different prices and serve different investment purposes, so trading a
``similar'' FLEX series may not achieve the same investment objective
as the non-FLEX series a TPH initially sought to trade. The Exchange
notes if a FLEX QCC Orders execute at a price through the book of the
``similar'' non-FLEX series, while that would be a better price for one
transaction participant, it would be a worse price for the participant
on the opposite side, and thus it may be more difficult for the TPH to
find sufficient contra party interest. For example, suppose the market
for Aug ABC 800 call with a multiplier of 100 is 10.20-11.00. If a
market participant sought interest from counterparties to execute a
FLEX QCC Order to buy an Aug ABC 795 call with at 10.00, it is unlikely
another market participant would sell at that price if they were
looking to sell the Aug ABC 800 call, given that participant could sell
the ``similar'' non-FLEX option series at 10.20, which would be a
better price for that seller. Given the likely difficulties (such as
reduced liquidity and potentially longer timeframe to receive
execution) of trading in the FLEX market as a substitute for trading an
economically equivalent option in the non-FLEX market (such as to
obtain a better execution price), the Exchange believes the risk of
this occurring is de minimis. The Exchange believes that any such risk
is even lower for FLEX QCC Orders given the additional requirements
that apply to FLEX QCC Orders, even without the heightened execution
price requirement that a QCC Order cannot execute at the same price as
a Priority Customer. The benefits of QCC Orders apply to FLEX options
in the same manner as they do for non-FLEX options, which benefits the
Exchange believes significantly outweigh any price protection risk that
may exist in the FLEX market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Sections VII and X of the ODD regarding risks
associated with FLEX Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ultimately, as noted above, QCC Orders in FLEX Options will execute
in a substantially similar manner as QCC Orders in non-FLEX options. In
addition to this, the Exchange notes that the Rules currently permit
Compression orders in FLEX SPX options which, like QCC Orders for FLEX
trading, may execute immediately without exposure as opposed to being
submitted to a FLEX Auction despite there being no NBBO or customer
priority in the FLEX market. Finally, the Exchange notes that QCC
functionality is a widely adopted industry order type wherein multiple
other options exchanges currently have QCC functionality in place.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See e.g. Nasdaq Phlx Rules Options 3, Section 12
(electronic QCC orders), and Options 8, Section 32(e) (open outcry
QCC orders); Nasdaq ISE Options 3, Section 12; BOX Options Rule
7110(c)(6); MIAX Options Rule 516(j); and NYSE Arca Options Rule
6.90-O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe 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 QCC functionality is
already available for non-FLEX options. The Exchange is simply
proposing to make QCC Orders available for additional classes (FLEX
Option classes). The Exchange notes that the proposed order type will
be available to all Users on a voluntary basis, and Users are not
required to use QCC Orders when executing QCTs. Users may continue to
execute the options component of QCTs that are comprised of FLEX
Options in the same manner as they do today. The proposed rule change
will provide FLEX Traders with the same functionality that is currently
available to non-FLEX Traders with respect to execution of option
components of QCTs. The Exchange believes all TPHs should have access
to this functionality so they can all execute option components of QCTs
in the same manner, regardless of whether they choose to hedge the
stock portions of QCTs with FLEX or non-FLEX options.

    The Exchange does not believe 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 is merely making functionality currently available
on the Exchange to additional option classes. As noted above, QCC Order
functionality is currently available at other options exchanges, which
may determine make QCC functionality available to additional option
classes as well, including flexible options. To the extent the proposed
rule change makes the Exchange a more attractive trading venue for
market participants on other exchanges, those market participants may
elect to become Exchange market participants.
    Overall, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair
and orderly markets to assure, among other things, the economically
efficient execution of securities transactions.

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.

II. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-CBOE-
2020-075, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, and Grounds for Disapproval
Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \49\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, should be approved or
disapproved. Institution of such proceedings is appropriate at this
time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the proposal.
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved.
Rather, as stated below, the Commission seeks and encourages interested
persons to provide comments on the proposed rule change to inform the
Commission's analysis of whether to approve or disapprove the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act also
provides that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a
proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days of the date
of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change.
See id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended
for up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for such
extension and publishes its reasons for so finding. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\50\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with the Act, and,
in particular, with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Id.
    \51\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal would expand the use of QCC Orders to
electronic FLEX options. A QCC Order is comprised of an originating
order to buy or sell at least 1,000 standard option contracts (or
10,000 mini-option contracts) that is identified as being part of a
qualified contingent trade (``QCT'') coupled with a contra-side order
or orders totaling an equal number of contracts and meeting the other
conditions described below. As the Exchange stated in its proposal, QCC
Orders facilitate the execution of option orders that are part of a
QCT,\52\ by permitting TPHs to cross non-FLEX options orders without
exposure to the market while effecting a trade in the NMS stock
component of the order at a price necessary to achieve a net price. The
Commission granted an exemption for QCTs that meet certain requirements
from Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS (``QCT Exemption Order'').\53\ The
QCT Exemption Order enables each NMS stock component of a QCT trade to
be exempt from Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS for any trade-
throughs.\54\ As the Commission previously stated in the QCC Approval
Order, QCC Orders are permitted if the QCC Order is (1) part of a QCT
under Regulation NMS; (2) for at least 1,000 contracts; (3) executed at
a price at or between the NBBO; and (4) cancelled if there is a public
customer on the electronic book.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ A QCT is a transaction consisting of two or more component
orders that involve both an option and equity stock component where
the execution of one component is contingent upon the execution of
all the other components at or near the same time. See supra note 7
(defining a QCT, which requires, among other things, that ``at least
one component must be an NMS stock, as defined in Rule 600 of
Regulation NMS . . .'').
    \53\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57620 (April 4,
2008), 73 FR 19271 (April 9, 2008) (``QCT Exemption Release''),
which modifies a release initially granting the QCT exemption,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54389 (August 31, 2006), 71 FR
52829 (September 7, 2006) (``Original QCT Exemption Release'').
    \54\ See id.
    \55\ See QCC Approval Order, supra note 8, 76 FR at 35492. See
also CBOE Rule 5.6(c)(2), which states, among things, that a ``QCC
Order with one option leg may execute automatically upon entry
without exposure if the execution price: (i) Is not at the same
price as a Priority Customer order resting in the Book; and (ii) is
at or between the NBBO.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also stated in the QCC Approval Order that the four
required elements of the QCC Order ``strikes an appropriate balance for
the options market in that it is narrowly drawn and establishes a
limited exception to the general principle of exposure and retains the
general principle of customer priority in the options markets.'' \56\
The Exchange has stated that due to the structure of the FLEX options
market, such as the lack of a customer order book and that FLEX options
have no NBBO, that the applicable QCC Order requirements as to these
matters are not applicable to FLEX orders and therefore are not
applicable to the proposed FLEX QCC Order. The requirements for a QCC
Order to execute at or between the NBBO and that a QCC Order cannot be
executed at the same price as a customer order on the book are intended
to mitigate the risks to market quality in both the options and
underlying equity markets. The Exchange, however, has not detailed why
such protections, and the underlying rationale for such protections,
are unnecessary considering that FLEX options market participants would
be granted an exception to the FLEX options electronic auction order
exposure requirements, as well as the equity market trade-through
rules, when executing a FLEX QCC Order under its proposal. The
Commission therefore believes, as discussed in more detail below, that
the Exchange's proposal raises questions as to whether its proposal is
consistent with the protection of investors and other requirements of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in addition to the maintenance of fair and
orderly markets.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See QCC Approval Order, supra note 8, 76 FR at 35492.
    \57\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Electronic FLEX options trading differs from electronic non-FLEX
options because they allow TPHs to customize terms of the option
contract (e.g., exercise style, expiration date, and strike price).
Notably, FLEX options lack an order book and a requirement to yield to
public customer interest. Electronic FLEX option transactions are also
conducted through auctions which require an exposure interval that may

not be less than three seconds prior to execution.\58\ As the
Commission has stated in the past, order exposure in the options
markets provides an incentive to options market makers to provide
liquidity and therefore plays an important role in ensuring competition
and price discovery in the options markets.\59\ The proposed FLEX QCC
Order would permit TPHs to execute a FLEX options component of a QCT
without the regular FLEX auction exposure requirement. Therefore, when
applying the unique characteristics of the FLEX options market to the
current QCC Order framework, the Commission believes there are
questions as to whether the Exchange's proposal is consistent with the
guidance in the QCC Approval Order and the principles underlying the
order, and whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See CBOE Rule 5.72(c)(1)(F).
    \59\ See QCC Approval Order, supra note 8, 76 FR at 35492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Commission is concerned that the proposed design
of the QCC FLEX Order may negatively impact market quality in the
options market by removing certain constraints required under the QCC
Approval Order. The Exchange states that stock-option orders are
already permitted to include FLEX options and ``the FLEX Options
components of QCTs submitted as stock-option orders may currently
execute at any price in FLEX (i.e., are not subject to an NBBO or
yielding to [c]ustomer orders on the book).'' However, the Exchange
fails to address that FLEX options that are currently part of a stock-
option order are able to achieve potential price improvement through
the electronic FLEX auction exposure process,\60\ while the proposed
FLEX QCC Orders eliminates the exposure requirement. As a result, the
proposal to allow FLEX QCC Orders will eliminate the opportunity for
any price improvement for the option component, thereby allowing the
TPH to set the price at which the FLEX options component of the QCT
will cross without being subject to any limits such as an NBBO.
Furthermore, the elimination of the exposure requirement reduces the
overall transparency of the price discovery process within the FLEX
market, which potentially harms a wider range of participants, for
example, if participants are less able to use historical FLEX option
prices to inform about the prices of other, similar FLEX options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See CBOE Rule 5.72(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed FLEX QCC Order also raises concerns about its impact
to market quality in the underlying stock leg of a QCC Order. In
general, trade-throughs not only harm the individual participants who
may receive worse prices, but they also increase wait times and
execution risk for limit orders on the book, thereby reducing
incentives for market participants to submit limit orders. In this
respect, the Commission has previously recognized that any exemption to
equity trade-through protection needs to be narrowly drawn. The QCT
Exemption Order, in determining the scope of the exemption, states that
defining the set of exemptions to trade-through protection too broadly
``could unduly detract from the objectives of Rule 611''; \61\ these
objectives include assuring ``that markets effect trades at the best
available prices,'' but also ``encourag[ing] the display of limit
orders by increasing the likelihood that they will receive an execution
in a timely manner.'' \62\ Thus, the Commission has determined that the
exemption to trade-through prohibition should only be granted if
strictly necessary so as to promote these equity market quality goals.
In the FLEX market, the Exchange has not provided justification for why
the exemption to equity trade-through protection is strictly necessary.
Note that, to qualify as a QCT, only ``the spread between the prices of
the component orders'' needs to be defined, not the prices
themselves.\63\ In the non-FLEX market, if the facilitator of a QCT
would be constrained to price both the option and stock legs at their
respective NBBOs, the spread between the prices of the two legs would
be pre-defined according to the spread between the option NBBO and the
stock NBBO. However, in the FLEX market, given the flexibility in
determining the price of the FLEX option leg (particularly if not
subject to exposure), the Exchange has not explained why a broker could
not simply determine a spread, and subsequently adjust the price of the
option leg according to the realized price of the stock leg, thus
avoiding the need to trade-through the equity market. Likewise, and
potentially more concerning, since neither leg of the proposed FLEX QCC
Order is constrained to execute at an NBBO, the Exchange has not
explained what would prevent a facilitator from determining a spread
and setting the price for the FLEX option leg such that the
corresponding stock leg price results in a trade-through.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See Original QCT Exemption Release, supra note 53, 71 FR at
52830.
    \62\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37505 (June 29, 2005) (Regulation NMS).
    \63\ See QCT Exemption Release, supra note 53, 73 FR at 19272.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the significant concerns discussed above regarding
the proposal's consistency with the guidance in the QCC Approval Order,
and the principles underlying the order, that need to be addressed, the
Exchange provided data on retail orders and market participation in
FLEX and non-FLEX options in support of its proposal. The Exchange
believes that the limited retail customer participation in the FLEX
options market would mitigate the requirement for additional customer
protections that exist for QCC Orders in the non-FLEX options market.
Specifically, the Exchange states that ``there are minimal retail
customer orders submitted into the FLEX market and thus it would be
unlikely any would be resting at the top of a FLEX book if one existed
for a de minimis (if any) amount of time that would require additional
protection.'' The Commission is concerned that the proposal does not
address how the lack of additional customer protections would be
appropriate. The Commission notes that the Exchange did not provide
specific data on the level of retail participation or whether that
conclusion was based solely on the size of the orders in the FLEX
options market. In addition, the Commission notes that the Exchange has
stated previously in proposing certain changes to the FLEX options
market that they were intended to broaden the base of investors that
use FLEX options, including more retail participation.\64\ The
Commission believes the Exchange has not provided sufficient data to
support the conclusion that additional customer protections are
unnecessary under the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66934 (May 7,
2012), 77 FR 27822, 27824 (May 11, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-040) (Notice
of Proposed Rule Change Related to Permanent Approval of its Pilot
on FLEX Minimum Value Sizes) (stating that ``eliminating the minimum
value size requirement would further broaden the base of investors
that use FLEX [o]ptions to manage their trading and investment risk,
including investors that current trade in OTC market for customized
options, where similar size restrictions do not apply. The Exchange
also believes that this may open up FLEX [o]ptions to more retail
investors.''). The pilot was permanently approved in Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 67624 (August 8, 2012), 77 FR 48580 (August
14, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-040) (Order Granting Approval of Proposed
Rule Change Related to Permanent Approval of its Pilot on FLEX
Minimum Value Sizes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also stated that it believes that the risk of market
participants trading in the FLEX market as a substitute for the non-
FLEX market is minimal. The Exchange has provided a summary of data
that showed the

number of customer orders resting in non-FLEX options at the top of the
book and differences in strike prices in terms of dollar values between
the FLEX and non-FLEX options that had similar terms. However, the data
provided still raises questions as to whether the proposal would
incentivize market participants to use FLEX options as a substitute for
non-FLEX options in order to circumvent price and public customer
priority constraints under the QCC Approval Order. For example, the
data on strike prices for index options only compared SPX and SPXW
listed series with SPX and SPXW FLEX series without considering a
broader set of FLEX index options that would apply to the proposed FLEX
QCC Order, including less liquid index options. In addition, the data
sample on FLEX option strike price values would be more appropriately
considered if the price differences between the FLEX and non-FLEX
options market were described in proportion to the stock price rather
than in dollar values. Moreover, the Exchange's proposal does not
provide any information on the market share between FLEX and non-FLEX
index options and FLEX and non-FLEX equity and ETP options and its
variation over time, which could help inform on whether traders have
been steadily migrating between the non-FLEX and FLEX market.
    Furthermore, the Exchange stated that the proposed FLEX QCC Order
would ``reduce compliance burden on TPHs by providing a more efficient
means of executing the options component of a QCT if the options
component consists of a FLEX [o]ption.'' The Exchange asserted in its
proposal that the compliance risk of not being able to execute a FLEX
options portion of a QCT at or near the same time of the execution of
the stock component is greater in a FLEX auction where the FLEX order
must be exposed for at least three second prior to execution. However,
the Exchange has not provided any evidence or data on the number of
violations or compliance issues that occurred as a result of needing to
execute the FLEX option component after the minimum three second
exposure period. Accordingly, the Commission requests data to support
the Exchange's assertion on compliance issues, including any
information on the overall number of FLEX orders that are part of a
stock-option order and the number of compliance issues occurring,
including those in relation to the timing of execution of the stock and
FLEX option component of the order.
    Based on the above, the Commission believes there are questions as
to whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
and the requirements that the rules of the exchange be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and in general, to protect investors
and the public interest, and whether the proposal is consistent with
the maintenance of fair and orderly markets under the Act.
    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is rule change is consistent
with the [Act] and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is
on the [SRO] that proposed the rule change.'' \65\ The description of a
proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a
legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative
Commission finding,\66\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this
information may result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis
to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\67\
Moreover, ``unquestioning reliance'' on an SRO's representations in a
proposed rule change would not be sufficient to justify Commission
approval of a proposed rule change.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
    \66\ See id.
    \67\ See id.
    \68\ See Susquehanna Int'l Group, LLP v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 866 F.3d 442, 446-47 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (rejecting the
Commission's reliance on an SRO's own determinations without
sufficient evidence of the basis for such determinations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission believes it is
appropriate to institute proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of
the Act to determine whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved.

III. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
concerns identified above, as well as any others they may have with the
proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of
interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, is inconsistent with Section 6(b)(5) \69\
or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulation
thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to
approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral
presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will
consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act, any request for an
opportunity to make an oral presentation.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \70\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, should be approved or disapproved by December 15,
2020. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's
submission must file that rebuttal by December 29, 2020.
    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and
merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposed rule
change, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about
the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission seeks comment
on the statements of the Exchange contained in Amendment No. 1, and any
other issues raised by the proposed rule change.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2020-075 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-075. 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-2020-075 and should be submitted by
December 15, 2020. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by December
29, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-25909 Filed 11-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71734-71735]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28991]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

Proposed Modification of the Miami, FL, Class B Airspace Area;
and the Ft Lauderdale, FL, Class C Airspace Area; Public Meetings

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces three fact-finding informal airspace
meetings to solicit information from airspace users and others,
concerning a proposal to revise the Class B airspace at Miami, FL, and
the Class C airspace at Ft Lauderdale, FL. The purpose of these
meetings is to provide interested parties an opportunity to present
views, recommendations, and comments on the proposal. All comments
received will be considered prior to any issuance of a notice of
proposed rulemaking.

DATES: The informal airspace meetings will be held on Monday, January
28, 2013; Tuesday, January 29, 2013; and Wednesday, January 30, 2013.
One meeting session will be held on January 28, beginning at 6:00 p.m.
Two sessions will be held on January 29 and January 30, beginning at
2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Comments must be received on or before March 4,
2013.

ADDRESSES: (1) The meeting on Monday, January 28, 2013, will be held at
the Wings Over Miami Air Museum, Kendall-Tamiami Executive Airport,
14710 SW 128th St., Miami, FL 33196 [Call<PHONE_NUMBER> for directions];
(2) The meeting on Tuesday, January 29, 2013, will be held at the Miami
Dade College, 2460 NW 66th Avenue, Bldg. 701, Room 213, Miami, FL 33122
[Call<PHONE_NUMBER> for directions]; and (3) The meeting on Wednesday,
January 30, 2013, will be held at the Miramar Town Center, 2050 Civic
Center Place. Miramar, FL 33025 [Call<PHONE_NUMBER> for directions].
    Comments: Comments on the proposal may be submitted by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: Barry Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Area, Air Traffic
Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta,
GA 30320.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tony Russo, Support Manager, Miami
ATCT/TRACON, 6400 NW. 22nd St., Miami, FL 33122; Telephone: 305-869-
5403.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Meeting Procedures

    (a) The meetings will be open to all persons on a space-available
basis. There will be no admission fee or other charge to attend and
participate.
    (b) The meetings will be informal in nature and will be conducted
by one or more representatives of the FAA Eastern Service Area. Each
participant will be given an opportunity to make a presentation,
although a time limit may be imposed. Each person wishing to make a
presentation to the FAA panel will be asked to sign in so those time
frames can be established. The meetings may be adjourned at any time if
all persons present have had an opportunity to speak.
    (c) Position papers or other handout material relating to the
substance of these meetings will be accepted. Participants submitting
handout materials should present an original and two copies to the
presiding officer. There should be an adequate number of copies for
distribution to all participants.
    (e) These meetings will not be formally recorded. However, a
summary of comments made at the meetings will be filed in the docket.

Agenda for the Meetings

--Sign-in.
--Presentation of Meeting Procedures.
--Informal Presentation of the planned Airspace Modifications.
--Public Presentations and Discussions.
--Closing Comments.

There will be one session (beginning at 6:00 p.m.) on January 28 and
two sessions (beginning at 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.) on both January 29
and January 30. FAA presentations will begin at the times listed. Each
presentation will be the same, so attendees need not be present for
both sessions. Attendees may arrive at any time at their convenience,
and will not need to remain until the end. Following each FAA
presentation there will be time for questions and presentations by
attendees. Written comments may be submitted at any time during the
meeting or via mail or email by March 4, 2013.

    Information gathered through these meetings will assist the FAA in
drafting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The public will be
afforded the opportunity to comment on any NPRM published on this
matter.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 14, 2012.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2012-28991 Filed 12-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37978-37980]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15167]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8287]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying
the current participation status of a community can be obtained from
FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective date of each community's
scheduled suspension is the third date (``Susp'') listed in the third
column of the following tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact David Stearrett, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale
of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR
Part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the
effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of
these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of
legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is
published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of
NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such
communities will be published in the Federal Register.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the
fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance
(except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be
provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for
more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against
certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities
listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental
Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Effective date
                                                 authorization/
                                   Community    cancellation of   Current effective  map   Date certain Federal
       State and location             No.        sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                  insurance in                              available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Region I

Massachusetts: Agawam, Town of,        250133  June 25, 1973,     July 16, 2013.........  July 16, 2013
 Hampden County                                 Emerg; February
                                                1, 1978, Reg;
                                                July 16, 2013,
                                                Susp.
    Brimfield, Town of, Hampden        250135  N/A, Emerg;        ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    November 9,
                                                1998, Reg; July
                                                16, 2013, Susp.
    Chester, Town of, Hampden          250136  December 18,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1984, Emerg;
                                                December 18,
                                                1984, Reg; July
                                                16, 2013, Susp.
    Chicopee, City of, Hampden         250137  January 14, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; September
                                                29, 1978, Reg;
                                                July 16, 2013,
                                                Susp.
    East Longmeadow, Town of,          250138  March 3, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     Hampden County.                            Emerg; September
                                                15, 1978, Reg;
                                                July 16, 2013,
                                                Susp.
    Granville, Town of, Hampden        250139  August 12, 2008,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; April 1,
                                                2011, Reg; July
                                                16, 2013, Susp.
    Hampden, Town of, Hampden          250140  September 6,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1974, Emerg;
                                                November 15,
                                                1978, Reg; July
                                                16, 2013, Susp.

    Holland, Town of, Hampden          250141  July 18, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; July 5,
                                                1984, Reg; July
                                                16, 2013, Susp.
    Holyoke, City of, Hampden          250142  May 20, 1974,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; August
                                                15, 1979, Reg;
                                                July 16, 2013,
                                                Susp.
    Longmeadow, Town of,               250143  August 8, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     Hampden County.                            Emerg; September
                                                1, 1978, Reg;
                                                July 16, 2013,
                                                Susp.
    Ludlow, Town of, Hampden           250144  October 17, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; May 19,
                                                1981, Reg; July
                                                16, 2013, Susp.
    Monson, Town of, Hampden           250145  May 1, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; June 1,
                                                1981, Reg; July
                                                16, 2013, Susp.
    Palmer, Town of, Hampden           250147  June 20, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; November
                                                4, 1981, Reg;
                                                July 16, 2013,
                                                Susp.
    Russell, Town of, Hampden          250148  August 8, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; December
                                                15, 1990, Reg;
                                                July 16, 2013,
                                                Susp.
    Southwick, Town of, Hampden        250149  December 29,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1975, Emerg;
                                                July 16, 1984,
                                                Reg; July 16,
                                                2013, Susp.
    Springfield, City of,              250150  February 9, 1973,  ......do..............   Do.
     Hampden County.                            Emerg; February
                                                1, 1980, Reg;
                                                July 16, 2013,
                                                Susp.
    Wales, Town of, Hampden            250152  August 11, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; July 2,
                                                1981, Reg; July
                                                16, 2013, Susp.
    West Springfield, Town of,         250155  December 30,       ......do..............   Do.
     Hampden County.                            1971, Emerg;
                                                September 30,
                                                1977, Reg; July
                                                16, 2013, Susp.
    Westfield, City of, Hampden        250153  May 10, 1973,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; May 1,
                                                1978, Reg; July
                                                16, 2013, Susp.
    Wilbraham, Town of, Hampden        250154  August 21, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; March 1,
                                                1979, Reg; July
                                                16, 2013, Susp.

            Region V

Minnesota: Redwood County,             270644  May 23, 1974,      ......do..............   Do.
 Unincorporated Areas                           Emerg; December
                                                4, 1985, Reg;
                                                July 16, 2013,
                                                Susp.
    Redwood Falls, City of,            270393  May 13, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Redwood County.                            Emerg; June 22,
                                                1984, Reg; July
                                                16, 2013, Susp.
    Sanborn, City of, Redwood          270394  July 22, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; July 3,
                                                1985, Reg; July
                                                16, 2013, Susp.
    Seaforth, City of, Redwood         270602  N/A, Emerg;        ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    February 9,
                                                2011, Reg; July
                                                16, 2013, Susp..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* -do- = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

    Dated: June 7, 2013.
David L. Miller,
Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-15167 Filed 6-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 230 (Tuesday, December 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75087-75088]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30388]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER15-762-003; ER15-760-003.
    Applicants: Sierra Solar Greenworks LLC, Western Antelope Blue Sky
Ranch A LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Sierra
Solar Greenworks LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 11/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151118-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1579-002.
    Applicants: 67RK 8me LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: 67RK 8me LLC MBR Tariff to be
effective 6/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151118-5076.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1582-003.
    Applicants: 65HK 8me LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: 65HK 8me LLC MBR Tariff to be
effective 6/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151118-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1896-002.
    Applicants: Eden Solar LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Eden Solar LLC MBR Tariff to be
effective 8/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151118-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2613-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: PJM Response to Deficiency Letter
dated 11/2/15 in Docket No. ER15-2613-000 to be effective 9/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20151117-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2616-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2015-11-17 MISO-PJM JOA M2M FFE
Deficiency Response to be effective 9/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20151117-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-289-001.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Errata to COTP CIRS Appendix F
Filing to be effective 1/6/2016.
    Filed Date: 11/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151118-5004.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-343-000.
    Applicants: RE Astoria 2 LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for MBR to be
effective 1/19/2016.
    Filed Date: 11/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151118-5055.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-344-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-11-18_Attachment J
Revisions to be effective 1/17/2016.
    Filed Date: 11/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151118-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-345-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2050 OMPA PTP Notice of
Cancellation to be effective 9/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151118-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-346-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Market participant
resubmission of risk management policies to be effective 1/17/2016.
    Filed Date: 11/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151118-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-347-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-11-18_PSCo-TSGT-Ft
Lupton E&P-420-0.0.0-Filing to be effective 11/19/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151118-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/15.

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

    Dated: November 18, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-30388 Filed 11-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17841-17842]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06049]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0057; FRL-10834-01-OMS]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment
Request; NSPS for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon Oxygen
Decarburization Vessels (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Steel Plants: Electric
Arc Furnaces and Argon Oxygen Decarburization Vessels (EPA ICR Number
1060.20, OMB Control Number 2060-0038), to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through March 31, 2023. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register on April 8, 2022 during a
60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for
public comments.

DATES: Comments may be submitted on or before April 24, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0057, to EPA online using https://www.regulations.gov/ (our
preferred method), or by email to [email protected], 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.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and
Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through March 31, 2023. An Agency may
neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
    Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register
(87 FR 20847) on April 8, 2022 during a 60-day comment period. This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. 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 https://www.regulations.gov or in person at the
EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-
566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit:
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Steel
Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon Oxygen Decarburization Vessels
(40 CFR part 60, subpart AA) were proposed on October 21, 1974,
promulgated on September 23, 1975, and most-recently amended on
February 22, 2005. These regulations apply to electric arc furnaces and
dust-handling systems that commenced construction, modification, or
reconstruction either after October 21, 1974 or on/or before August 17,
1983 at steel plants that produce carbon, alloy, or specialty steels.
In addition, the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for these
regulations (40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa) were proposed on August 17,
1983, promulgated on October 31, 1984, and most recently-amended on
February 22, 2005. These

latter regulations apply to electric arc furnaces, argon-oxygen
decarburization vessels, and dust-handling systems that commenced
construction, modification, or reconstruction after August 17, 1983 at
steel plants that produce carbon, alloy, or specialty steels. New
facilities include those that commenced construction, modification or
reconstruction after the date of proposal. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and
AAa. EPA proposed revisions to Subparts AA and AAa and proposed a new
Subpart AAb on May 16, 2022 (87 FR 29710). The burden for these
requirements is not included in this renewal and will be accounted for
once the rule is finalized. In general, all NSPS standards require
initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the
owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup,
shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or
any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These
notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining
compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to
NSPS.
    Form numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Steel plants that produce carbon,
alloy, or specialty steels.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subparts AA and AAa).
    Estimated number of respondents: 90 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 56,700 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $7,000,000 (per year), which includes
$198,000 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance
costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is an adjustment decrease in the
total estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved Burdens. This decrease is not due to any program changes. The
change in the burden and cost estimates is due to a decrease in the
average number of respondents per year subject to subparts AA and AAa
based on information gathered by EPA for a proposed rulemaking.
Although there was a decrease in the average number of respondents per
year, there was an increase in the number of new sources each year.
This resulted in an adjustment increase to the total capital/startup
cost. There is an adjustment decrease in the operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs as calculated in section 6(b)(iii) compared with the costs
in the previous ICR due to the decreased number of respondents based on
more recent information provided by EPA.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-06049 Filed 3-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P