[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 29287]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11129]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0368]

Practicability Review: Standards for Living Organisms in Ships'
Ballast Water Discharged in United States Waters

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of its
Practicability Review conducted for the purpose of determining whether
technology to comply with a performance standard more stringent than
that required by the Coast Guard's current regulations on Ballast Water
Discharges can be practicably implemented and whether testing protocols
that can assure accurate measurement of compliance with a more
stringent performance standard can be practicably implemented. Coast
Guard ballast water regulations require the Coast Guard to undertake
and publish the results of its Practicability Review. In the
Practicability Review, we conclude that, at this time, technology to
achieve a significant improvement in ballast water treatment efficacy
onboard vessels cannot be practicably implemented. The reason for this
determination is that, as of the date of completion of the
Practicability Review, there are no data demonstrating that ballast
water management systems can meet a discharge standard more stringent
than the existing performance standards. In light of this
determination, the Coast Guard has not evaluated whether testing
protocols exist which can accurately measure efficacy of treatment
against a performance standard more stringent than the existing
performance standards.

DATES: The Practicability Review is available on May 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The Practicability Review is available at: http://homeport.uscg.mil/ballastwater under Regulations and Policy Documents.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call CDR Meridena Kauffman, Chief, Environmental Standards Division
(CG-OES-3), Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 5, 2016.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2016-11129 Filed 5-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: November 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 74131-74132]
[DOCID:fr30no10-151]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact for the Washington
State Portion of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor Upgrades Tier-1
Environmental Assessment

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), United States Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) and the FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental
Impacts (FRA Environmental Procedures) (64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999)),
the FRA and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
prepared a Tier-1 Environmental Assessment (Tier-1 EA) that evaluates
the impacts of a corridor improvements program to the Washington State
portion of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC Program). This
notice advises the public that FRA finds that the corridor improvement
program will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human
or natural environment and has issued a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) supporting that determination. Copies of both the Tier-1
EA and FONSI are available on FRA's Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov/
rpd/freight/3011.shtml.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding
either the Tier-1 EA or FONSI please contact Melissa DuMond,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Railroad Administration,
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Stop 20, Washington, DC 20590, telephone:
(202) 493-6366.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the PNWRC Program in
Washington State is to improve intercity passenger rail service by
reducing travel times, achieving greater schedule reliability, and
creating capacity for additional trip frequencies in order to
accommodate growing intercity travel

demand. To achieve these goals WSDOT applied for Federal funding
through the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (HSIPR Program)
administered by the FRA and funded by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act). WSDOT's application under the Recovery
Act was split into three Service Blocks, and identified incremental
service benefits including increased service levels, improved on-time
performance and schedule reliability, and reduced travel times. The FRA
intends to provide funding under the HSIPR Program for projects
contained in two of the three service blocks.
    In order to comply with the requirements of the HSIPR Program
Guidance (Interim Guidance) that described the eligibility requirements
and procedures for obtaining funding under the HSIPR Program (74 FR
29901 (June 23, 2009)), WSDOT prepared a Tier-1 or ``service'' NEPA
document that included the analysis of two alternatives; the ``No
Build'' and the ``Corridor Service Expansion Alternative.'' The Tier-1
EA was completed in September 2009 and was made available for comment
between October 2, 2009 and October 23, 2009 on the WSDOT Web site.
Thirteen agencies submitted written comments. No individual written
comments were received.
    Based on the analysis in the Tier-1 EA, FRA released a draft FONSI
for public comment on July 8, 2010 for a period of 30 calendar days (75
FR 39325 (July 8, 2010)). FRA received six comments on the draft FONSI,
including comments from one federal agency, two state agencies, and
three local governments. In compliance with NEPA and the FRA's
Environmental Procedures, FRA has addressed all comments on the FONSI
and has determined that the PNWRC corridor improvements will not have a
significant impact on the quality of the human or natural environment.
Prior to release of construction funding for individual projects, WSDOT
will successfully complete applicable mitigation measures detailed in
the FONSI and complete appropriate project-level NEPA evaluations,
documentation, and required determinations for the individual project.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 19, 2010.
Joseph C. Szabo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-30021 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: October 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 66079-66080]
[DOCID:fr27oc10-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13586-000]

Bishop Tungsten Development, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

October 20, 2010.
    On November 9, 2009, Bishop Tungsten Development, LLC filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Lower Pine Creek Mine Canyon Hydroelectric Project to be located near
the town of Bishop, in Inyo County, California. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    An existing network of penstocks collect and convey the existing
Pine Creek Mine discharge water above the

project area. The mine discharge averages up to 14 cfs. The proposed
project would utilize a single, approximately 20-inch-in-diameter
conduit within the project area that would convey the discharge water
to the turbine where the pressure would be reduced. The applicant
proposes to interconnect with an existing 56-kilovolt transmission
line, maintained by Southern California Edison, which runs the length
of the canyon. The estimated annual generation of the project would be
26,300,000 kilowatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Douglas A. Hicks, Bishop Tungsten Development,
LLC, 725 9050 Pine Creek Road, Bishop, CA 93514; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Shana Murray<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and
seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13586-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27121 Filed 10-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 43 (Monday, March 6, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13665-13668]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04467]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1573; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00671-T;
Amendment 39-22353; AD 2023-04-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-22-
16, AD 2021-16-01, and AD 2022-04-03, which applied to certain Airbus
SAS Model A318, A320, and A321 series airplanes; and Model A319-111, -
112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, and -153N airplanes. AD
2020-22-16, AD 2021-16-01, and AD 2022-04-03 required revising the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. This AD
was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations are necessary. This AD continues to require
the actions in AD 2020-22-16, AD 2021-16-01, and AD 2022-04-03, and
also requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations, as specified in a European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference (IBR). The
FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective April 10, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 10,
2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of March
30, 2022 (87 FR 10064, February 23, 2022).
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of
September 28, 2021 (86 FR 47212, August 24, 2021).
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of
December 10, 2020 (85 FR 70439, November 5, 2020).

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1573; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For EASA material incorporated by reference in this AD,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You
may find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1573.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-22-16, Amendment 39-21312 (85 FR
70439, November 5, 2020) (AD 2020-22-16), AD 2021-16-01, Amendment 39-
21662 (86 FR 47212, August 24, 2021) (AD 2021-16-01), and AD 2022-04-
03, Amendment 39-21944 (87 FR 10064, February 23, 2022) (AD 2022-04-
03). AD 2020-22-16, AD 2021-16-01, and AD 2022-04-03 applied to certain
Airbus SAS Model A318, A320, and A321 series airplanes; and Model A319-
111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, and -153N
airplanes. AD 2020-22-16, AD 2021-16-01, and AD 2022-04-03 required
revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. AD
2021-16-01 specified that accomplishing the revision required by that
AD terminates the corresponding requirements of AD 2020-22-16, for the
tasks identified in the service information referred to in EASA AD
2020-0219, dated October 12, 2020, only. AD 2022-04-03 specified that
accomplishing the revision required by that AD terminates the
limitations of Task<PHONE_NUMBER>1-1-C, as required by paragraph (i) of
AD 2020-22-16, for airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate
or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before
January 17, 2020 only. The FAA issued AD 2020-22-16, AD 2021-16-01, and
AD 2022-04-03 to address safety-significant latent failure (that is not
annunciated), which, in combination with one or more other specific
failures or events, could result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure
condition.
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 6, 2022 (87
FR 74530). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0091, dated May 20, 2022,
issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Union (EASA AD 2022-0091) (referred to after this as the
MCAI). The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations have been

developed to address the unsafe condition on these products.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in
AD 2020-22-16, AD 2021-16-01, and AD 2022-04-03. The NPRM also proposed
to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2022-0091. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address a safety significant latent failure (that
is not annunciated), which, in combination with one or more other
specific failures or events, could result in a hazardous or
catastrophic failure condition.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1573.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA), who supported the NPRM without change.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the
comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this
AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes,
this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will
increase the economic burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2022-0091, which specifies new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations for certification maintenance
requirements.
    This AD requires EASA AD 2020-0067, dated March 23, 2020; which the
Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by
reference as of December 10, 2020 (85 FR 70439, November 5, 2020).
    This AD requires EASA AD 2020-0219, dated October 12, 2020, which
the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by
reference as of September 28, 2021 (86 FR 47212, August 24, 2021).
    This AD also requires EASA AD 2021-0108, dated April 20, 2021,
which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation
by reference as of March 30, 2022 (87 FR 10064, February 23, 2022).
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,680 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained
actions from AD 2020-22-16, AD 2021-16-01, and AD 2022-04-03 to be
$7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour) per AD.
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection
program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined
that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane
estimate.
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new actions
to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2020-22-16, Amendment 39-21312 (85
FR 70439, November 5, 2020); AD 2021-16-01, Amendment 39-21662 (86 FR
47212, August 24, 2021); AD 2022-04-03, Amendment 39-21944 (87 FR
10064, February 23, 2022); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

2023-04-06 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-22353; Docket No. FAA-2022-1573;
Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00671-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective April 10, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces the ADs specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(3) of this AD.
    (1) AD 2020-22-16, Amendment 39-21312 (85 FR 70439, November 5,
2020) (AD 2020-22-16).
    (2) AD 2021-16-01, Amendment 39-21662 (86 FR 47212, August 24,
2021) (AD 2021-16-01).
    (3) AD 2022-04-03, Amendment 39-21944 (87 FR 10064, February 23,
2022) (AD 2022-04-03).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any

category, with an original airworthiness certificate or original
export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before February 18,
2022.
    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -
151N, -153N, and -171N airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -
252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -
251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, -251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -271NX,
and -272NX airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address to address a safety significant latent
failure (that is not annunciated), which, in combination with one or
more other specific failures or events, could result in a hazardous
or catastrophic failure condition.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Revision of the Existing Maintenance or Inspection Program
From AD 2020-22-16, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2020-22-16, with no changes. For airplanes with an original
airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before January 17, 2020, except for Model
A319-171N airplanes: Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this
AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified
in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD 2020-0067, dated March 23, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0067).
Accomplishing the revision of the existing maintenance or inspection
program required by paragraph (o) of this AD terminates the
requirements of this paragraph.

(h) Retained Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0067 With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the exceptions specified in paragraph
(j) of AD 2020-22-16, with no changes.
    (1) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA
AD 2020-0067 do not apply to this AD.
    (2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0067 specifies revising ``the
AMP'' within 12 months after its effective date, but this AD
requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate the ``tasks and associated thresholds and
intervals'' specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0067 within
90 days after December 10, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2020-22-
16).
    (3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0067 is at the applicable ``associated
thresholds'' specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0067, or
within 90 days after December 10, 2020 (the effective date of AD
2020-22-16), whichever occurs later.
    (4) The provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA
AD 2020-0067 do not apply to this AD.
    (5) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0067 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Retained Restrictions on Alternative Actions and Intervals From AD
2020-22-16, With a New Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD
2020-22-16, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph
(o) of this AD, after the maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals are allowed unless they are
approved as specified in the provisions of the ``Ref. Publications''
section of EASA AD 2020-0067.

(j) Retained Revision of the Existing Maintenance or Inspection Program
From AD 2021-16-01 With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2021-16-01, with no changes. For airplanes with an original
airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before June 10, 2020, except for Model
A319-171N airplanes: Revise the existing maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, by incorporating task(s) and associated
thresholds and intervals specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-
0219, dated October 12, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0219), except you are
required to incorporate task(s) and associated thresholds and
intervals within 90 days after September 28, 2021 (the effective
date of AD 2021-16-01). Record a compliance time for the initial
tasks of either the applicable ``thresholds'' incorporated by the
requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0219 or 90 days after
September 28, 2021 (the effective date of AD 2021-16-01), whichever
would occur later. Accomplishing the revision of the existing
maintenance or inspection program required by paragraph (o) of this
AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

(k) Retained Restrictions on Alternative Actions and Intervals From AD
2021-16-01, With a New Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2021-16-01, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph
(o) of this AD, after the existing maintenance or inspection program
has been revised as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no
alternative actions (e.g., inspections) and intervals are allowed
unless they are approved as specified in the provisions of the
``Ref. Publications'' section of EASA AD 2020-0219.

(l) Retained Revision of the Existing Maintenance or Inspection Program
From AD 2022-04-03, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2022-04-03, with no changes. For airplanes with an original
airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before December 9, 2020, except for Model
A319-171N airplanes: Except as specified in paragraph (m) of this
AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified
in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2021-0108, dated April 20, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0108). Accomplishing the revision of the existing
maintenance or inspection program required by paragraph (o) of this
AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

(m) Retained Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0108, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the exceptions specified in paragraph
(h) of AD 2022-04-03, with no changes.
    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0108 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using March 30, 2022 (the effective date of AD 2022-04-
03).
    (2) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA
AD 2021-0108 do not apply to this AD.
    (3) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0108 specifies revising ``the
approved AMP'' within 12 months after its effective date, but this
AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, within 90 days after March 30, 2022 (the effective
date of AD 2022-04-03).
    (4) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0108 is at the applicable
``thresholds'' as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3)
of EASA AD 2021-0108, or within 90 days after March 30, 2022 (the
effective date of AD 2022-04-03), whichever occurs later.
    (5) The provisions specified in paragraphs (4) of EASA AD 2021-
0108 do not apply to this AD.
    (6) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0108 does not apply
to this AD.

(n) Retained Restrictions on Alternative Actions and Intervals From AD
2022-04-03, With a New Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2022-04-03, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph
(o) of this AD, after the existing maintenance or inspection program
has been revised as required by paragraph (l) of this AD, no
alternative actions (e.g., inspections) and intervals are allowed
unless they are approved as specified in the provisions of the
``Ref. Publications'' section of EASA AD 2021-0108.

(o) New Revision of the Existing Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Except as specified in paragraph (p) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with EASA AD 2022-0091, dated May 20, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-
0091). Accomplishing the revision of the existing

maintenance or inspection program required by this paragraph
terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g), (j), and (l) of this
AD.

(p) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0091

    (1) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA
AD 2022-0091 do not apply to this AD.
    (2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0091 specifies revising ``the
approved AMP'' within 12 months after its effective date, but this
AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0091 is at the applicable ``associated
thresholds'' as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3) of
EASA AD 2022-0091, or within 90 days after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (4) The provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA
AD 2022-0091 do not apply to this AD.
    (5) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2022-0091.

(q) Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (o) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) and intervals are allowed unless they
are approved as specified in the provisions of the ``Ref.
Publications'' section of EASA AD 2022-0091.

(r) Terminating Action for Certain Requirements of AD 2020-22-16

    (1) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (j) of this
AD terminates the corresponding requirements of AD 2020-22-16, for
the tasks identified in the service information referred to in EASA
AD 2020-0219 only.
    (2) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (l) of this
AD terminates the limitations of Task<PHONE_NUMBER>1-1-C, as required
by paragraph (i) of AD 2020-22-16, for airplanes with an original
airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before January 17, 2020 only.

(s) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (t) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(t) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International
Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(u) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
April 10, 2023.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0091,
dated May 20, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
December 10, 2020 (85 FR 70439, November 5, 2020).
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0067,
dated March 23, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (5) The following service information was approved for IBR on
September 28, 2021 (86 FR 47212, August 24, 2021).
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0219,
dated October 12, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (6) The following service information was approved for IBR on
March 30, 2022 (87 FR 10064, February 23, 2022).
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0108,
dated April 20, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (7) For EASA ADs 2022-0091, 2020-0067, 2020-0219, and 2021-0108,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; website
easa.europa.eu. You may find these EASA ADs on the EASA website at
ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (8) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (9) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on February 16, 2023.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-04467 Filed 3-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 150)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 45184-45185]
[DOCID:fr04au08-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0501; FRL-8698-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a request submitted by the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management on May 22, 2008, to revise the
Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP). The submission revises the
Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) by amending and updating the
definition of ``References to Code of Federal Regulations,'' to refer
to the 2007 edition.
    In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is
approving the SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior
proposal, because EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and
anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval
is set forth in the direct final rule. If we do not receive any adverse
comments in response to these direct final and proposed rules, we do
not contemplate taking any further action in relation to this proposed
rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, we will withdraw the direct
final rule and will respond to all public comments in a subsequent
final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on
this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2008-0501 by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: John Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
     Hand Delivery: John Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule, and if that provision may be
severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located
in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: July 21, 2008.
Walter W Kovalick Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
 [FR Doc. E8-17704 Filed 8-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 187 (Thursday, September 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54269-54275]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21211]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93122; File No. SR-CBOE-2021-041]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
No. 2, To Amend Certain Rules To Accommodate the Listing and Trading of
Micro FLEX Index Options and To Make Other Clarifying and Non-
Substantive Changes

September 24, 2021.
    On July 23, 2021, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
accommodate the listing and trading of flexible exchange (``FLEX'')
index options with an index multiplier of one (``Micro FLEX Index
Options'') and to make other clarifying and non-substantive changes.\3\
The proposed rule change was published in the Federal Register on
August 12, 2021.\4\ On September 22, 2021, the Exchange submitted
partial Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposed rule change. The Commission is
approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ On August 4, 2021, the Exchange filed partial Amendment No.
1 to the proposed rule change. The Exchange withdrew partial
Amendment No. 1 on August 6, 2021.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Release No. 92599 (August 6, 2021), 86
FR 44411 (August 12, 2021) (``Notice'').
    \5\ In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange stated that, currently, the
Exchange lists non-FLEX options on 12 (not 13, as stated in the
Exchange's original filing) broad-based indexes with a value of at
least 100, and the proposed rule change would authorize the Exchange
to list Micro FLEX Options on the same 12 indexes, which are all
broad-based and all have a value of at least 100. The Exchange
stated that it delisted options on FTSE 100 Mini-Index (UKXM). The
Exchange also made a conforming change to its representation under
the heading ``Capacity.'' Because Amendment No. 2 does not
materially alter the substance of the proposed rule change,
Amendment No. 2 is not subject to notice and comment. Amendment No.
2 is available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2021-041/srcboe2021041.htm.

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

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
No. 2

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to permit the trading of
FLEX index options with an index multiplier of one on broad-based
indexes for which the value of the underlying is at least 100. The
Commission recently approved a rule change that provided the Exchange
with the authority to list options with an index multiplier of one on
broad-based indexes for which the value of the underlying is at least
100 on the Exchange's standardized, non-FLEX market.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See CBOE Rule 4.11 (providing for the listing of non-FLEX
options with a multiplier of one (``micro-options''). See Securities
Exchange Release No. 91528 (April 9, 2021), 86 FR 19933 (April 15,
2021). According to the Exchange, currently, the Exchange lists non-
FLEX options on 12 broad-based indexes with a value of at least 100:
S&P 500 Index, Mini-S&P 500 Index (XSP), Russell 2000 Index (RUT),
Mini-Russell 2000 Index (MRUT), Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJX),
S&P 100 Index (OEX and XEO), S&P 500 ESG Index (SPESG), MSCI EAFE
Index (MXEA), MSCI Emerging Markets Index (MXEF), Russell 1000
Growth Index (RLG), Russell 1000 Value Index (RLV), and Russell 1000
Index (RUI). The Exchange states that the proposed rule change will
authorize the Exchange to list Micro FLEX Index Options on the same
12 indexes, which are all broad-based and all have a value of at
least 100. In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange stated that it may
authorize for trading a FLEX option class on any index if it may
authorize for trading a non-FLEX option class on that index, even if
the Exchange does not list that non-FLEX option class for trading.
Currently, the Exchange is authorized to (but does not) list for
trading options on six additional broad-based indexes with values of
at least 100. The Exchange stated that the Exchange's system
currently prevents FLEX trading on these indexes (and other
underlying securities and indexes on which the Exchange does not
list non-FLEX options even though authorized to under its rules). If
the Exchange updates its system in the future to permit FLEX trading
on underlying securities or indexes on which the Exchange does not
list non-FLEX options, Micro FLEX Index Options on these six indexes
(assuming they still satisfied the Exchange's maintenance listing
criteria in Rule 4.10 and had values of at least 100) would be
permitted to be listed and traded. See infra note 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, CBOE Rule 4.21(b)(1) states the index multiplier for
FLEX index options is 100. The Exchange proposes to add to the rule
that the index multiplier for FLEX index options on broad-based indexes
for which the value of the underlying is at least 100 \7\ may also be
one in addition to the current index multiplier of 100. The proposed
rule change amends CBOE Rule 4.21(b)(1) to state that if a FLEX Trader
\8\ specifies an index on a FLEX Order,\9\ the FLEX Trader must also
include whether the index option has an index multiplier of 100 or 1
when identifying the class of FLEX Order.\10\ The Exchange states that,
to the extent the Exchange lists a Micro FLEX Index Option on an index
on which it also lists a standard FLEX index option, it will be listed
with a different trading symbol than the standard index option with the
same underlying index to reduce any potential confusion.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ These are the same indexes on which the Exchange may list
micro-options.
    \8\ A ``FLEX Trader'' is a Trading Permit Holder the Exchange
has approved to trade FLEX options on the Exchange.
    \9\ A ``FLEX Order'' is an order submitted in FLEX options. The
submission of a FLEX Order makes the FLEX option series in that
order eligible for trading. See CBOE Rule 5.72(b).
    \10\ When submitting a FLEX Order, the submitting FLEX Trader
must include all required terms of a FLEX option series. These terms
include, in addition to the underlying equity security or index, the
type of options (put or call), exercise style, expiration date,
settlement type, and exercise price. See CBOE Rule 4.21(b). Pursuant
to CBOE Rule 4.21(b)(1), the submitting FLEX Trader must include the
underlying equity security or index on the FLEX Order. The Exchange
states that, therefore, each FLEX index option series in a Micro
FLEX Index Option class will include the same flexible terms as any
other FLEX option series, including strike price, settlement,
expiration date, and exercise style as required by CBOE Rule
4.21(b).
    \11\ The Exchange states that, for example, a standard FLEX
index option for index ABC with an index multiplier of 100 may have
symbol 4ABC, while a Micro FLEX Index Option for index ABC with a
multiplier of one may have symbol 4ABC9 and a non-FLEX option on
index ABC with an index multiplier of 100 may have symbol ABC, while
a non-FLEX micro-option would have a different symbol (such as
ABC9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its proposal, the Exchange stated that its rules permit trading
in a put or call FLEX option series only if it does not have the same
exercise style, same expiration date, and same exercise price as a non-
FLEX option series on the same underlying security or index that is
already available for trading.\12\ The Exchange proposes to add to the
introductory paragraph of CBOE Rule 4.21(b) that a FLEX index option
with an index multiplier of one may not be the same type (put or call)
and may not have the same exercise style, expiration date, settlement
type, and exercise price as a non-FLEX index option overlying the same
index listed for trading (regardless of the whether the index
multiplier of the non-FLEX index option is one or 100). As a result, a
Micro FLEX Index Option may not have the same terms as a non-FLEX index
option or non-FLEX micro-option. The Exchange states that this will
prevent a Micro FLEX Index Option from being listed with terms
identical to those of a non-FLEX index option with a multiplier of 100
or a non-FLEX micro-option with a multiplier of one on the same index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See CBOE Rule 4.21(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that a Micro FLEX Index Option would become
fungible \13\ with a non-FLEX micro-option with the same terms pursuant
to CBOE Rule 4.22(a), but would not be fungible with a non-FLEX option
overlying the same index with a multiplier of 100 with the same
expiration date, settlement, and exercise price. The Exchange states
that because the proposed rule change would not permit a Micro FLEX
Index Option to be listed with the same terms as a non-FLEX index
option regardless of the index multiplier, proposed CBOE Rule
4.22(b)(2) will provide that if a non-FLEX index option series with an
index multiplier of 100 and the same terms as a Micro FLEX Index Option
overlying the same index is listed for trading, a position established
under the FLEX trading procedures may be closed using the FLEX trading
procedures in Chapter 5, Section F against another closing only FLEX
position during the time period that non-FLEX index option series is
listed for trading. During the time that non-FLEX index option series
is listed for trading, pursuant to CBOE Rule 5.72, no FLEX Orders may
be submitted into an electronic auction or represented for open outcry
trading for a FLEX index option series with a multiplier of one with
the same terms as the non-FLEX index option series overlying the same
index with an index multiplier of 100, unless the FLEX Order is a
closing order.\14\ This proposed ``closing only'' process is similar to
the current ``closing only'' process for non-FLEX option American-style
series added intraday, as set forth in current CBOE Rule 4.22(b).\15\
The Exchange states that this proposed change would prevent new Micro
FLEX Index Option positions from being opened when a non-FLEX Index
Option with a multiplier of 100 with the same terms is listed for
trading.\16\ In addition, as proposed, CBOE Rule 4.22(b) would require
that the Exchange notifies FLEX

Traders when a FLEX option series is restricted to closing only
transactions.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Under CBOE Rule 4.22(a), if the Exchange lists for trading
a non-FLEX option series with identical terms as a FLEX option
series, all existing open positions established under the FLEX
trading procedures are fully fungible with the non-FLEX option
series, and any further trading in the series would be as non-FLEX
options subject to non-FLEX trading procedures and rules.
    \14\ The Exchange states that, to the extent the non-FLEX index
option is later delisted, then opening trades of the Micro FLEX
Index Option may resume after that occurs.
    \15\ The Exchange plans to renumber current CBOE Rule 4.22(b) as
CBOE Rule 4.22(b)(1), accompanied by non-substantive punctuation
mark changes to reflect proposed CBOE Rule 4.22(b)(2).
    \16\ As proposed, if the Exchange lists a non-FLEX index option
with a multiplier of one with identical terms as a Micro FLEX Index
Option, then current CBOE Rule 4.22(a) applies to the fungibility of
those options (or proposed CBOE Rule 4.22(b)(1) if it is an
American-style series added intraday) and the FLEX Micro Index
Option would no longer be a FLEX option, but instead be traded as a
standard micro-option.
    \17\ The Exchange proposes to move this provision to make it
clear it will apply to the entire paragraph (b) as proposed to be
amended, and to make changes that it states would modernize this
provision. Currently, CBOE Rule 4.22(b) states that a FLEX Official
announces to FLEX Traders when such a FLEX option series is
restricted to closing only transactions. The Exchange states that
this was true when FLEX options were traded only in open outcry and
a verbal announcement was made to the trading floor. The Exchange
states that currently, because FLEX options are available for
electronic and open outcry trading, the Exchange notifies FLEX
Traders when a FLEX option series is restricted to closing only
transactions. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to revise Rule
4.22(b) to state that the Exchange notifies FLEX Traders when a FLEX
Option series is restricted to closing only transactions. The
Exchange also states that, in accordance with CBOE Rule 1.5, the
Exchange currently notifies FLEX Traders of restricted FLEX option
series by electronic message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trading Hours

    Pursuant to CBOE Rule 5.1(b)(3)(A) and (c)(1), Micro FLEX Index
Options will be available for trading during the same hours as non-FLEX
Index Options pursuant to CBOE Rule 5.1(b)(2). Accordingly, Regular
Trading Hours for Micro FLEX Index Options will generally be 9:30 a.m.
to 4:15 p.m. Eastern time.\18\ To the extent an index option is
authorized for trading during Global Trading Hours, the Exchange states
it may also list Micro FLEX Index Options during that trading session
as well, the hours for which trading session are 3:00 a.m. to 9:15 a.m.
Eastern time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Certain indexes close trading at 4:00 p.m. Eastern time.
See CBOE Rule 5.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expiration, Settlement, and Exercise Style

    In accordance with CBOE Rule 4.21(b), FLEX Traders may designate
the type (put or call), exercise style, expiration date, and settlement
type of Micro FLEX Index Options.

Exercise Prices

    The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rule 4.21(b)(6) to state that
the exercise price for a FLEX index option series in a class with a
multiplier of one is set at the same level as the exercise price for a
FLEX index option series in a class with a multiplier of 100. To
illustrate the deliverable exercise price for index options with
different multipliers as well as physically settled equity options, the
proposed rule change adds the following examples to CBOE Rule
4.21(b)(6) regarding how the deliverable for a Micro FLEX Index Option
will be calculated (as well as for a FLEX index option with a
multiplier of 100 and a FLEX equity option, for additional clarity and
transparency): If the exercise price of a FLEX option series is a fixed
price of $50, it will deliver: (A) 100 shares of the underlying
security at $50 (with a total deliverable of $5,000) if a FLEX equity
option; (B) cash equal to 100 (i.e., the index multiplier) times 50
(with a total deliverable value of $5,000) if a FLEX index option with
a multiplier of 100; and (C) cash equal to 1 (i.e., the index
multiplier) times 50 (with a total deliverable value of $50) if a Micro
FLEX Index Option. If the exercise price of a FLEX option series is 50%
of the closing value of the underlying security or index, as
applicable, on the trade date, it will deliver: (A) 100 shares of the
underlying security at a price equal to 50% of the closing value of the
underlying security on the trade date (with a total deliverable of 100
times that percentage amount) if a FLEX Equity Option; (B) cash equal
to 100 (i.e., the index multiplier) times a value equal to 50% of the
closing value of the underlying index on the trade date (with a total
deliverable of 100 times that percentage amount) if a FLEX index option
with a multiplier of 100; and (C) cash equal to 1 (i.e., the index
multiplier) times a value equal to 50% of the closing value of the
underlying index on the trade date (with a total deliverable of one
times that percentage amount) if a Micro FLEX Index Option. The
Exchange states that the descriptions of exercise prices for FLEX
equity options and FLEX index options with a multiplier of 100 are true
today, and that the examples merely add clarity to the rules.

Bids and Offers

    Pursuant to CBOE Rule 5.4(c), the Exchange states that it will
determine the minimum increment for bids and offers on Micro FLEX Index
Options (as it does for all other FLEX options) on a class-by-class
basis, which may not be smaller than (1) $0.01, if the exercise price
for the FLEX option series is a fixed price, or (2) 0.01%, if the
exercise price for the FLEX option series is a percentage of the
closing value of the underlying equity security or index on the trade
date.\19\ The proposed rule change amends CBOE Rule 5.3(e)(3) to
describe the difference between the expression of bids and offers for
FLEX equity options, FLEX index options with a multiplier of 100, and
Micro FLEX Index Options. Currently, that rule states that bids and
offers for FLEX options must be expressed in (a) U.S. dollars and
decimals if the exercise price for the FLEX option series is a fixed
price, or (b) a percentage, if the exercise price for the FLEX option
series is a percentage of the closing value of the underlying equity
security or index on the trade date, per unit.\20\ As noted above, a
FLEX option contract unit consists of 100 shares of the underlying
security or 100 times the value of the underlying index, as they
currently have a 100 contract multiplier.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The System (as defined in CBOE Rule 1.5(aa)) rounds bids
and offers to the nearest minimum increment.
    \20\ The Exchange states that the proposed rule change
reorganizes the language in this provision to make clear that the
phrase ``if the exercise price for the FLEX option series is a
percentage of the closing value of the underlying equity security or
index on the trade date'' applies to the entire clause (B) of
5.3(e)(3). The proposed rule change also adds a cross-reference to
CBOE Rule 5.4 to provide that bids and offers in U.S. dollars and
decimals and percentages of the closing values of the underlying
equity security or index on the trade date must be in the applicable
minimum increment as set forth in CBOE Rule 5.4.
    \21\ See current CBOE Rule 4.21(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change states that bids and offers for Micro FLEX
Index Options must be expressed in (a) U.S. dollars and decimals if the
exercise price for the FLEX option series is a fixed price, or (b) a
percentage per unit (if a FLEX equity option or a FLEX index option
with a multiplier of 100) or per 1/100th unit (if a FLEX index option
with a multiplier of one) of the underlying security or index, as
applicable, if the exercise price for the FLEX option series is a
percentage of the closing value of the underlying equity security or
index on the trade date. Additionally, the proposed rule change adds
examples describing how FLEX options bids and offers must be expressed.
The proposed rule will state that, if the exercise price of a FLEX
option series is a fixed price, a bid of ``0.50'' represents a bid of
(A) $50 (0.50 times 100 shares) for a FLEX equity option; (B) $50 (0.50
times an index multiplier of 100) for a FLEX index option with a
multiplier of 100; and (C) $0.50 (0.50 times an index multiplier of
one) for a Micro FLEX Index Option. If the exercise price of a FLEX
option series is a percentage of the closing value of the underlying
equity security, a bid of ``0.50'' represents a bid of (A) 50% (0.50
times 100 shares) of the closing value of the underlying equity
security on the trade date if a FLEX equity option; (B) 50% (0.50 times
an index multiplier of 100) of the closing value of the underlying
index on the trade date if a FLEX index option with a multiplier of
100; and (C) 0.50% (0.50 times an index multiplier of one) of the
closing value of the underlying index on the trade date if a Micro FLEX
Index Option. The Exchange states that it believes the proposed rule
language identifies a clear, transparent

description of the differences between FLEX index options with a
multiplier of 100 and Micro FLEX Index Options and provides clarity
regarding how bids and offers of FLEX equity options and FLEX index
options with a multiplier of 100 will be required to be expressed.

Contract Size Limits

    The Exchange states that the proposed rule change updates various
other provisions in the following rules to reflect that 100 Micro FLEX
Index Options overlying an index will be economically equivalent to one
contract for a standard index option overlying the same index:
     Rule 5.74: CBOE Rule 5.74 describes the Exchange's FLEX
Solicitation Auction Mechanism (``FLEX SAM''). An order, or the
smallest leg of a complex order, must be for at least the minimum size
designated by the Exchange (which may not be less than 500 standard
option contracts or 5,000 mini-option contracts). The proposed rule
change adds that 50,000 Micro FLEX Index Options is the corresponding
minimum size for orders submitted into FLEX SAM Auctions.
     Rule 5.87: CBOE Rule 5.87(f) describes when a Floor Broker
is entitled to cross a certain percentage of an order, subject to the
requirements in that paragraph. Under that rule, the Exchange may
determine on a class-by-class basis the eligible size for an order that
may be transacted pursuant to that paragraph; however, the eligible
order size may not be less than 50 standard option contracts (or 500
mini-option contracts or 5,000 for micro-options). The proposed rule
change adds that 5,000 FLEX index option contracts with an index
multiplier of one is the corresponding minimum size for orders that may
be crossed in accordance with this provision. Additionally, CBOE Rule
5.87, Interpretation and Policy .07(a) provides that CBOE Rule 5.86(e)
\22\ does not prohibit a Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') from buying or
selling a stock, security futures or futures position following receipt
of an order, including an option order, but prior to announcing such
order to the trading crowd, provided that the option order is in a
class designated as eligible for ``tied hedge'' transactions and within
the eligibility size parameters, which are determined by the Exchange
and may not be smaller than 500 standard option contracts (or 5,000
mini-option contracts or 50,000 micro-options). The proposed rule
change adds that 50,000 FLEX index option contracts with a multiplier
of one is the corresponding minimum size for orders that may qualify as
tied hedge transactions and not be deemed a violation of CBOE Rule
5.86(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Exchange states that CBOE Rule 5.86(e) provides that it
will be considered conduct inconsistent with just and equitable
principles of trade for any TPH or person associated with a TPH, who
has knowledge of all material terms and conditions of an original
order and a solicited order, including a facilitation order, that
matches the original order's limit, the execution of which are
imminent, to enter, based on such knowledge, an order to buy or sell
an option of the same class as an option that is the subject of the
original order, or an order to buy or sell the security underlying
such class, or an order to buy or sell any related instrument until
either (1) all the terms and conditions of the original order and
any changes in the terms and conditions of the original order of
which that TPH or associated person has knowledge are disclosed to
the trading crowd or (2) the solicited trade can no longer
reasonably be considered imminent in view of the passage of time
since the solicitation. An order to buy or sell a ``related
instrument,'' means, in reference to an index option, an order to
buy or sell securities comprising ten percent or more of the
component securities in the index or an order to buy or sell a
futures contract on any economically equivalent index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Position and Exercise Limits \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Exchange states that, to the extent the Exchange lists
Micro FLEX Index Options on other indexes in the future, they would
be subject to the same position and exercise limits set forth in the
applicable rules, and similarly aggregated with standard options on
the same indexes, as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change amends CBOE Rule 8.35(a) regarding
position limits for FLEX options to describe how Micro FLEX Index
Options will be counted for purposes of determining compliance with
position limits.\24\ Because 100 Micro FLEX Index Options are
equivalent to one FLEX index option with a multiplier of 100 overlying
the same index due to the difference in contract multipliers, proposed
CBOE Rule 8.35(a)(7) states that for purposes of determining compliance
with the position limits under CBOE Rule 8.35, 100 Micro FLEX Index
Option contracts equal one FLEX index option contract with a multiplier
of 100 with the same underlying index. The proposed rule change makes a
corresponding change to CBOE Rule 8.35(b) to clarify that, like
reduced-value FLEX contracts, Micro FLEX Index Option contracts will be
aggregated with full-value contracts and counted by the amount by which
they equal a full-value contract for purposes of the reporting
obligation in that provision (i.e., 100 Micro FLEX Index Options will
equal one FLEX index option contract with a multiplier of 100 overlying
the same index).\25\ The proposed rule change also adds that Micro FLEX
Index Options on certain broad-based indexes for which FLEX index
options with a multiplier of 100 have no position limits will also have
no position limits. The proposed rule change amends CBOE Rule 8.42(g)
to make corresponding changes regarding the application of exercise
limits to Micro FLEX Index Options. This is consistent with the current
treatment of other reduced-value FLEX index options with respect to
position and exercise limits. The margin requirements set forth in
Chapter 10 of the Exchange's Rules will apply to Micro FLEX Index
Options (as they currently do to all FLEX options).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The proposed rule change also corrects an administrative
error in CBOE Rule 8.35(a). Currently, there are two subparagraphs
numbered as (a)(5). The proposed rule change amends paragraph (a) to
renumber the second subparagraph (a)(5) to be subparagraph (a)(6).
    \25\ The Exchange states that, as it does today with respect to
reduced-value indexes, the Exchange will count Micro FLEX Index
Options as a percentage of a FLEX index option with a multiplier of
100 when calculating positions to determine compliance with position
limits.
    \26\ According to the Exchange, pursuant to CBOE Rule 8.43(j),
FLEX index options with a multiplier of one will be aggregated with
non-FLEX index options on the same underlying index in the same
manner as all other FLEX index options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capacity

    The Exchange represents that it believes the Exchange and Options
Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary systems
capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing
of new series that may result from the introduction of the Micro FLEX
Index Options. Because the proposed rule change is limited to broad-
based index options, which currently represent only 12 of the indexes
on which the Exchange listed on the Exchange, the Exchange states that
believes any additional traffic that may be generated from the
introduction of Micro FLEX Index Options will be manageable.\27\ The
Exchange states that it also understands that the OCC will be able to
accommodate the listing and trading of Micro FLEX Index Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The Exchange states that if it updates its system to permit
FLEX trading on underlying securities and indexes on which it does
not list non-FLEX options, including Micro FLEX Index Options
trading on broad-based indexes with a value of at least 100, the
Exchange would do so only if it had sufficient capacity to permit
such additional trading. See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Changes

    The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rule 4.21(b)(6) to state that
the exercise price may be in increments no smaller than: \28\ (1) For a
FLEX equity option or FLEX index option that is not Cliquet-settled,
(a) $0.01, if the exercise price for the FLEX option series is
expressed as a fixed price in terms of

dollars and decimals or a specific index value, as applicable, or (b)
0.01%, if the exercise price for the FLEX option series is expressed as
a percentage of the closing value of the underlying equity security or
index on the trade date, as applicable. The proposed rule change also
adds to CBOE Rule 4.21(b)(6) after subparagraph (B) that the Exchange
may determine the smallest increment for exercise prices of FLEX
options on a class-by-class basis. The Exchange states that these
changes codify long-standing interpretations of the current rule, which
references the minimum increment for bids and offers as set forth in
CBOE Rule 5.4.\29\ The Exchange states that it believes this will make
the rule regarding permissible exercise prices for FLEX options more
transparent and thus may eliminate potential confusion regarding
permissible exercise prices.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The Exchange states that this language is taken from CBOE
Rule 5.4(c)(4).
    \29\ The Exchange states that the proposed rule change makes
non-substantive changes to the structure of this sentence to
accommodate the addition of the specific minimum increments for the
exercise price.
    \30\ The Exchange also states that it believes flexibility for
the Exchange to determine the smallest increment for exercise prices
of FLEX options on a class-by-class basis is appropriate to permit
the Exchange to make determinations based on the market
characteristics of different classes. The Exchange notes the rules
of another options exchange similarly permit that exchange to
determine on a class-by-class basis both minimum increments for
exercise prices and premiums (i.e., bids and offers) stated using a
percentage-based methodology. See, e.g., NYSE Arca, Inc. Rule 5.32-
O(e)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change moves the parenthetical regarding the
system rounding the exercise price to the nearest minimum increment for
bids and offers in the class (as set forth in CBOE Rule 5.4) from the
introductory clause in CBOE Rule 4.21(b)(6) to the end of subclause
(A)(ii) so that it applies only to that subclause, as rounding would
only apply to exercise prices expressed as a percentage. The proposed
rule change also adds to the parenthetical in CBOE Rule
4.21(b)(6)(A)(ii) that the system rounds the ``actual'' exercise price
to the nearest fixed price minimum increment to provide additional
clarity to the provision, as the dollar value of an exercise price
expressed as a percentage determined after the closing value is
available would be rounded to the nearest minimum dollar value
increment, which dollar value would represent the ultimate, ``actual''
exercise price.
    In addition, the proposed rule change clarifies in CBOE Rule
5.3(e)(3) and 5.4(c)(4) that, following application of the designated
percentage to the closing value of the underlying security or index,
the system rounds the final transaction prices (rather than bids and
offers) of FLEX options to the nearest fixed price minimum increment
for the class as set forth in CBOE Rule 5.4(c)(4)(A). The Exchange
states that this is consistent with current functionality and is merely
a clarification in the CBOE Rules to more accurately reflect how the
System currently works.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to add a parenthetical in the
first paragraph of CBOE Rule 5.3(e)(3)(B) to state that bids and offers
would be in the applicable minimum increment as set forth in CBOE Rule
5.4. The Exchange states that this is true today and merely
incorporates a cross-reference to CBOE Rule 5.4, which describes
permissible minimum increments for bids and offers. The Exchange states
that it believes the addition of this cross-reference will provide
additional transparency and clarity to this rule.
    The proposed rule change also codifies in CBOE Rules 5.72(c)(3)(A)
and (d)(2), 5.73(e), and 5.74(e) how FLEX Auction response bids and
offers (as well as Initiating Orders \31\ and Solicited Orders \32\
with respect to FLEX AIM Auctions and FLEX SAM Auctions, respectively)
are ranked during the allocation process following each type of FLEX
Auction (i.e., electronic FLEX Auction, open outcry FLEX Auction, FLEX
AIM Auction, and FLEX SAM Auction, respectively). The Exchange states
that FLEX Orders will always first be allocated to responses at the
best price, as applicable.\33\ The proposed rule change clarifies that
the term ``price'' refers to (1) the dollar and decimal amount of the
order or response bid or offer or (2) the percentage value of the order
or response bid or offer, as applicable. The Exchange states that these
are non-substantive changes, as they reflect how ranking following FLEX
Auctions occurs today, and the Exchange believes these changes will
provide additional transparency in the CBOE Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ ``Initiating Order'' is defined in CBOE Rule 5.37.
    \32\ ``Solicited Order'' is defined in CBOE Rule 5.39.
    \33\ The proposed rule change also clarifies this in CBOE Rule
5.72(d)(2) by adding a cross-reference to CBOE Rule 5.85(a)(1),
which states that, with respect to open outcry trading on the
Exchange's trading floor, bids and offers with the highest bid and
lowest offer have priority. This is a non-substantive change that is
currently true for open outcry FLEX Auctions, and the proposed rule
change merely makes this explicit in CBOE Rule 5.72(d)(2), which
cross-reference was previously inadvertently omitted from the CBOE
Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in CBOE Rule 4.22(b), the proposed rule change modernizes
the provision regarding how FLEX Traders are notified when a FLEX
option series becomes restricted. The Exchange also proposes to move
this provision to make it clear it will apply to the entire paragraph
(b) as proposed to be amended. Currently, CBOE Rule 4.22(b) states a
FLEX Official \34\ announces to FLEX Traders when such a FLEX option
series is restricted to closing only transactions. The Exchange states
that this was true when FLEX options were traded only in open outcry
and a verbal announcement was made to the trading floor. The Exchange
states that currently, because FLEX options are available for
electronic and open outcry trading, the Exchange notifies FLEX Traders
when a FLEX option series is restricted to closing only transactions.
In accordance with CBOE Rule 1.5, the Exchange currently notifies FLEX
Traders of restricted FLEX option series by electronic message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ ``FLEX Official'' is defined in CBOE Rule 5.75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposal and the comments received, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\35\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\36\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ In approving this proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 2, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15
U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FLEX options market was designed to accommodate flexibility in
setting the specific terms of an options contract for the purpose of
satisfying particular investment objectives that could not be met by
the Exchange's standardized non-FLEX options market.\37\ By permitting
traders to adjust

the flexible terms (e.g., strike price, expiration date, and exercise
style), market participants can trade customized options on the
Exchange that are not available in the non-FLEX options market.\38\ As
discussed above, the Exchange may list options with an index multiplier
of one on broad-based indexes for which the value of the underlying
index is at least 100.\39\ By permitting Micro FLEX Index Options on
such indexes, the proposal will permit FLEX Traders to customize the
flexible terms of such options that are authorized for trading on the
non-FLEX market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 31920 (February 24,
1993), 58 FR 12280 at 12281 (March 3, 1993) (original order
approving a CBOE proposal to list and trade FLEX options on the S&P
100 and 500 Index options).
    \38\ The FLEX options market operates under a separate structure
than the standardized non-FLEX options market (``non-FLEX options
market'') and does not offer the same level of transparency as the
non-FLEX options market. Among the differences between the market
structure for FLEX options and non-FLEX options is that the FLEX
options market does not have a public customer order book and there
is no national best bid or offer (``NBBO'').
    \39\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of its proposal, the Exchange states that the proposed
rule change will expand investor choice and flexibility.\40\ In
particular, the Exchange states that listing and trading of Micro FLEX
Index Options could benefit investors by providing them additional
granularity with respect to the prices at which they may execute and
exercise index options on the Exchange.\41\ The Exchange states that,
in particular, it believes that Micro FLEX Index Options would provide
institutional investors with an additional exchange-traded tool to
manage the positions and associated risk in their portfolios more
precisely based on notional value, which currently may equal a fraction
of a standard contract.\42\ The Exchange states that, given the various
trading and hedging strategies employed by investors, this additional
granularity may provide investors with more control over the trading of
their investment strategies and management of their positions and risk
associated with option positions in their portfolios.\43\ The Exchange
further states that this flexibility is currently available on the OTC
market, and believes that the proposed rule change may shift liquidity
from the OTC market onto the Exchange, which the Exchange believes
would increase market transparency as well as enhance price discovery
through increased order flow.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Notice, supra note 4, 86 FR at 44416.
    \41\ See id. In the Notice, the Exchange provided examples of
the trading of a Micro FLEX Index Options as compared to a FLEX
index option with a multiplier of 100 and the potential benefits for
investors. See id. at 44418-19.
    \42\ See id. at 44416-17.
    \43\ See id. at 44417.
    \44\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes this proposal, which permits Micro FLEX
Index Options only on broad-based indexes where the value of the
underlying is at least 100, strikes a reasonable balance between the
Exchange's desire to offer a wider array of investment opportunities
and the need to avoid unnecessary proliferation of FLEX options series.
However, the Commission expects the Exchange to monitor the trading of
Micro FLEX Index Options to evaluate whether any issues develop.
    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Act because it would provide investors with additional
investment choices in FLEX options, while also implementing certain
protections designed to avoid concerns related to price protections on
the non-FLEX market and market fragmentation. In particular, the
proposed rule requiring that terms of the Micro FLEX Index Option
differ from those of a non-FLEX index option or non-FLEX micro-option
can help to address concerns that FLEX options would act as a surrogate
for the trading of non-FLEX options.\45\ This is important given
certain investor protections stated above that exist in the non-FLEX
options market that are not present in the FLEX options market.\46\ The
proposed rule change states that a FLEX index option with an index
multiplier of one may not be the same type (put or call) and may not
have the same exercise style, expiration date, settlement type, and
exercise price as a non-FLEX index option overlying the same index
listed for trading (regardless of the index multiplier of the non-FLEX
index option).\47\ A Micro FLEX Index Option therefore may not have the
same terms as a non-FLEX index option or non-FLEX micro-option. This
will prevent a Micro FLEX Index Option from being listed with terms
identical to those of a non-FLEX index option (with an index multiplier
of 1 or 100) on the same index, and is thus designed to avoid price
protection and market fragmentation concerns that could arise from
trading options with identical terms on the FLEX and non-FLEX markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See supra note 13 and 16.
    \46\ See supra note 38.
    \47\ See proposed CBOE Rule 4.21(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission believes that the fungibility
provisions under CBOE Rule 4.22 will facilitate this change by
preventing new Micro FLEX Index Option positions from being opened when
a non-FLEX index option with a multiplier of 100 with the same terms is
listed for trading and by only permitting closing transactions in this
situation.\48\ Further, pursuant to CBOE Rule 4.22(a), a Micro FLEX
Index Option with the same terms as a subsequently added non-FLEX
micro-option would become fungible with the non-FLEX micro-option.
Accordingly, once a non-FLEX micro-option is added with the same terms
as an outstanding Micro FLEX Index Option, the Micro FLEX Index Option
would no longer trade in the FLEX options market and instead would
become a standardized, non-FLEX option and trade under the same rules
that apply to any other standard non-FLEX micro-option.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See CBOE Rule 4.22. To facilitate this, the Exchange is
providing that if an identical non-FLEX index option with an index
multiplier of 100 is added with the same terms as a Micro FLEX Index
Option overlying the same index with a multiplier of one, a position
established under the FLEX trading procedures may be closed using
the trading procedures against another closing only FLEX position
during the time period that non-FLEX index option series is listed
for trading. See proposed CBOE Rule 4.22(b)(2); see also supra notes
14-16 and accompanying text. In addition, as proposed, CBOE Rule
4.22 would state that the Exchange notifies FLEX Traders when a FLEX
options series is restricted to closing only transactions. See
proposed CBOE Rule 4.22(b)(2). The Commission believes that
permitting such closing only transactions will help investors close
out an outstanding Micro FLEX Index Option should a non-FLEX index
option with a multiplier of 100 with the same terms subsequently be
added.
    \49\ See CBOE Rule 4.22(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that the proposal is consistent with
the Act, in particular the protection of investors and the public
interest, as it includes several aspects designed to reduce potential
investor confusion. In particular, the Commission believes that the
proposed treatment of exercise prices, bids and offers, size
requirements for FLEX SAM auctions and for crossing orders, and
position and exercise limits for Micro FLEX Index Options is consistent
with the Act, as these proposed changes should make clear how Micro
FLEX Index Options would be quoted and traded \50\ and are consistent
with the treatment of certain reduced-value index options and micro-
options.\51\ Additionally, the Commission believes that the use of
different trading symbols for Micro FLEX Index Options should help

investors and other market participants to distinguish those options
from the related non-FLEX options with a multiplier of 100 and micro-
options as well as FLEX index options with a multiplier of 100,
reducing potential investor confusion.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The Commission also believes that the examples that the
Exchange proposes to add to the rules provide clarity to the
operation of the proposed rules. See CBOE Rule 4.21(b)(6) (exercise
prices), CBOE Rule 5.3(e)(3) (bids and offers).
    \51\ The Exchange has made changes to provisions in its rules to
reflect that 100 Micro FLEX Index Options will be economically
equivalent to one contract for non-FLEX index option with a
multiplier of 100 overlying the same index. See CBOE Rule 5.74
(order size for FLEX SAM), CBOE Rule 5.87 (crossing orders), CBOE
Rule 8.35(a)(7) (position limits), CBOE Rule 8.42(g) (exercise
limits).
    \52\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes it is appropriate for Micro FLEX Index
Options to trade pursuant to existing FLEX rules governing the listing
and trading of FLEX index options. In addition, the Exchange states
that it and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle the
additional traffic associated with the listing of new series that may
result from the introduction of Micro FLEX Index Options.\53\ The
Exchange also states that the OCC will be able to accommodate the
listing and trading of Micro FLEX Index Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See supra note 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a national securities exchange, the Exchange is required, under
Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\54\ to enforce compliance by its members
and persons associated with its members with the provisions of the Act,
Commission rules and regulations thereunder, and its own rules. The
Exchange states that its existing surveillance and reporting safeguards
are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior that
might arise from listing and trading Micro FLEX Options. In addition,
Micro FLEX Index Options will be traded under the Exchange's existing
regulatory regime for FLEX index options, which includes, among other
things, the Exchange's existing rules regarding customer protection,
safeguards related to position and exercise limits, as applicable,\55\
and reporting requirements. In particular, Micro FLEX Index Option
orders entered by TPHs on behalf of customers, including institutional
and retail customers, will be subject to all Exchange rules regarding
doing business with the public, including those within Chapter 9 of the
Exchange's Rules.\56\ The Commission believes that it is consistent
with the Act to apply Exchange rules governing, among other things,
customer accounts, margin requirements, and trading halt procedures to
the proposed Micro FLEX Index Options that are otherwise applicable to
other FLEX index options. Further, the Commission believes that trading
the Micro FLEX Index Options pursuant to the Exchange's current rules
governing the trading of FLEX index options is consistent with the
protection of investors and should provide market participants with the
same flexibility to customize certain terms of the options while
allowing investors to trade a smaller sized options contract that may,
according to the Exchange, better meet their hedging needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \55\ There are, however, no position limits or exercise limits
for certain broad-based FLEX index options. See CBOE Rule 8.35(b)
and CBOE Rule 8.42(g).
    \56\ The Commission notes that these rules require, among other
things, that: (i) A TPH may not accept an option order, including a
Micro FLEX Index Option order, from a customer unless that
customer's account has been approved for options transactions in
accordance with CBOE Rule 9.1; (ii) TPHs that conduct customer
business, including institutional and retail customer business, must
ensure they provide for appropriate supervisory control over that
business and maintain customer records in accordance with CBOE Rule
9.2; and (iii) TPHs will also need to provide customers that trade
Micro FLEX Index Option (and any other option) with a copy of the
ODD and amendments to the ODD in accordance with CBOE Rule 9.9 so
that customers are informed of any risks associated with trading
options, including Micro FLEX Index Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes the proposed changes that the Exchange
is making regarding codifying how percentage-based FLEX orders and
auction responses will be ranked are consistent with the Act.\57\ The
Exchange states that such ranking provides FLEX Traders willing to pay
more (or receive less) with priority.\58\ The Exchange further states
that providing priority to FLEX Traders that submit more aggressive
responses will encourage FLEX Traders to submit competitive responses,
which the Exchange believes will benefit investors.\59\ In addition,
the Exchange states that such ranking is consistent with the Exchange's
current practice, as well as the way the Exchange ranks dollar-priced
premiums.\60\ For the foregoing reasons, the Commission believes that
the proposed rule change regarding the ranking of percentage-based FLEX
orders and options responses is consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See proposed amendments to CBOE Rule 4.21(b)(6), CBOE Rule
5.3(e)(3), and CBOE Rule 5.4(c)(4). As discussed above, following
the application of the designated percentage to the closing value of
the underlying security or index, the system rounds the final
transaction prices to the nearest minimum fixed price increment for
the class as set forth in Rule 5.4. See CBOE Rule 5.3(e)(3) and CBOE
Rule 5.4(c)(4).
    \58\ See Notice, supra note 4 at 44420.
    \59\ See id.
    \60\ See id. at 44419.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission believes that the other non-substantive and
clarifying changes will help protect investors and the public interest
by providing clarity and transparency to the rules by making them
easier to read and understand.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See, e.g., proposed amendments to CBOE Rule 4.21(b)(6)
(stating the minimum increments for exercise prices); CBOE Rule
4.22(b) (changing the terminology related to notification of when a
FLEX option series is restricted to closing only transactions). See
also proposed amendments to CBOE Rule 5.72(c)(3)(A); CBOE Rule
5.73(e); CBOE Rule 5.74(e) (codifying that FLEX auction response
bids and offers as well as Initiating Orders and Solicitation Orders
with respect to FLEX AIM Auctions and FLEX SAM Auctions,
respectively, are ranked during the allocation process based on the
dollar and decimal amount of the order or response bid or offer, or
the percentage value of the order or response bid or offer, as
applicable).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act \62\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\63\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2021-041), as modified
by Amendment No. 2, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-21211 Filed 9-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 242 (Monday, December 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74737-74738]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30238]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2001-10214]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated June 15, 2012, the Minnesota Northern Railroad (MNN) has
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension
of Waiver Docket Number FRA-2001-10214.
    Specifically, MNN seeks to extend a waiver for Caboose MNN 019 from
49 CFR 223.13--Requirements for existing cabooses, which requires
safety glazing for existing cabooses.
    MNN states that the circumstances at the time of the original
waiver have not changed. The caboose is still only used on special
occasions as an office car for

officials and private persons for railroad business purposes.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by January 31, 2013 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
    Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70;
Pages 19477-78) or online at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 10, 2012.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2012-30238 Filed 12-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P