[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 92 (Thursday, May 12, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29043-29045]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10181]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0245]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; International Special Operations Exercise, Seddon
Channel, Tampa, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
waters of Seddon Channel in Tampa Bay, in Tampa, Florida, during the
International Special Operations Exercise. The safety zone is needed to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential
hazards created by airborne and waterborne activities occurring during
the exercise. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) St. Petersburg or a
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 12 p.m. until 3 p.m., on May 17,
2022, through May 18, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0245 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Marine Science Technician Second Class Regina L. Cuevas,
Sector St. Petersburg Prevention Department, Coast Guard; telephone
(813) 228-2191, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to
the public interest to do so, The primary justification for this action
is that the Coast Guard was given short notice from the event sponsor
leaving insufficient time to publish an NPRM and to receive public
comments prior to the exercise. We must establish a safety zone by May
17, 2022, to protect the public from hazards associated with the
International Special Operations Exercise.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential dangers
to the public during the exercise.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port St. Petersburg (COTP) has determined
that potential hazards associated with the exercise will be a safety
concern for anyone within the exercise area. This rule is needed to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable
waters within the safety zone during the exercise.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone on certain navigable waters of
the Seddon Channel from 12 p.m. until 3 p.m., on May 17, 2022 through
May 18, 2022. The safety zone will cover an area of the Seddon Channel
located in the vicinity of the Tampa Convention Center in Tampa,
Florida. The International Special Operations Exercise is expected to
consist of multiple airborne and waterborne activities including:
Persons fast-roping and jumping out of helicopters, high-speed boat
pursuits, amphibious vehicles operations, and blank ammunition use.
    The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of the
participants, spectators, and the general public during the scheduled
events. No vessel or person, not involved in the events, will be
permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in or remain within the
safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in,
or remain within the safety zone is granted by the COTP or a designated
representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization
must comply with the instructions of the COTP or a designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the following
reasons: (1) The safety zone only being enforced for a total of six
hours over two days; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain within the zone without
authorization from the COTP or a designated representative, they may
operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3)
persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or
remain within the areas during the enforcement period if authorized by
the COTP or a designated representative.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
temporary safety zone that will prohibit non-participant persons and
vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining
within a limited area on the waters of the Seddon Channel in the
vicinity of Tampa, Florida. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety of
people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T07-0351 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0351  Safety Zone; International Special Operations
Exercise, Seddon Channel, Tampa, FL.

    (a) Location. The following regulated area is a safety zone: All
waters of Seddon Channel within the following area: North of
27[deg]56'15'' N, 082[deg]27'19'' W and 27[deg]56'14'' N,
082[deg]27'25'' W; northeast of 27[deg]56'22'' N, 082[deg]27'16'' W and
27[deg]56'25'' N, 082[deg]27'17'' W; south of 27[deg]56'30'' N,
082[deg]27'29'' W and 27[deg]56'29'' N, 082[deg]27'33'' W (Platt St.
Bridge); west of 27[deg]56'23'' N, 082[deg]27'32'' W and 27[deg]56'25''
N, 082[deg]27'35'' W (South Harbor Island Blvd. Bridge). All
coordinates are North American Datum 1983.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port (COTP) St. Petersburg in the enforcement of the
regulated area.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative, unless you are an authorized
participant in the event.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, transit through, anchor in or
remain within the safety zone contact the COTP St. Petersburg by
telephone at at<PHONE_NUMBER> or the COTP's representative via VHF-FM
radio on channel 16. Those in

the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given
to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Effective date. This rule is effective from 12 p.m. until 3
p.m., on May 17, 2022, through May 18, 2022.

    Dated: May 6, 2022.
Matthew A. Thompson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port St. Petersburg.
[FR Doc. 2022-10181 Filed 5-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 133 (Thursday, July 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 41795]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16660]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9832-6; EPA-HQ-OA-2013-0123]

Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee Teleconference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Public Advisory Committee Teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463,
EPA gives notice of a teleconference meeting of the Farm, Ranch, and
Rural Communities Committee (FRRCC). The FRRCC is a policy-oriented
committee that provides policy advice, information, and recommendations
to the EPA Administrator on a range of environmental issues and
policies that are of importance to agriculture and rural communities.
    Purpose of Meeting: The purpose of this teleconference is to
discuss specific topics of relevance for consideration by the Committee
in order to provide advice and insights to the Agency on environmental
policies and programs that affect and engage agriculture and rural
communities.

DATES: The Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee will hold a
public teleconference on August 8, 2013 from 1:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the U.S. EPA East Building, 1201
Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1132, Washington, DC 20004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Gieselman, Acting Designated
Federal Officer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-564-6614, US EPA, Office
of the Administrator (1101A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Members of the public wishing to gain access
to the teleconference, make brief oral comments, or provide a written
statement to the FRRCC must contact Wayne Gieselman, Acting Designated
Federal Officer, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER> by August
1, 2013.
    General Information: The agenda and meeting materials will be
available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OA-
2013-0123. General information about FRRCC can be found on its Web site
at www.epa.gov/ofacmo/frrcc.
    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities or to request accommodations please
contact Stephanie McCoy at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>,
preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much
time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: July 2, 2013.
Wayne Gieselman,
Acting Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-16660 Filed 7-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 18)]
[Notices]
[Page 5175]
[DOCID:fr29ja09-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3297-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

New Hampshire; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-3297-EM), dated December 13, 2008, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: December 23, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective December 23, 2008.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

Nancy Ward,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-1884 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47529-47533]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18236]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92709; File No. SR-CBOE-2021-046]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 5.4 and Make
Corresponding Changes to Other Rules

August 19, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on August 6, 2021, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend Rule 5.4 and make corresponding changes to other Rules. The
text of the proposed rule change is provided below.

(additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])

* * * * *

Rules of Cboe Exchange, Inc.

* * * * *

Rule 5.4. Minimum Increments for Bids and Offers

    (a) No change.
    (b) Except as provided in Rule 5.33, the minimum increment for
bids and offers on complex orders [with any ratio equal to or
greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-
one (3.00) for equity and index options, and for Index Combo
orders,] is $0.01 or greater, which may be determined by the
Exchange on a class-by-class basis, and the legs may be executed in
$0.01 increments. [The minimum increment for bids and offers on
complex orders with any ratio less than one-to-three (.333) or
greater than three-to-one (3.00) for equity and index options
(except for Index Combo orders) is the standard increment for the
class pursuant to paragraph (a), and the legs may be executed in the
minimum increment applicable to the class pursuant to paragraph
(a).] Notwithstanding the foregoing, the minimum increment for bids
and offers on complex orders in options on the S&P 500 Index (SPX)
or on the S&P 100 Index (OEX and XEO), except for box/roll spreads,
is $0.05 or greater, or in any increment, which may be determined by
the Exchange on a class-by-class basis.
* * * * *

Rule 5.33. Complex Orders

    Trading of complex orders (as defined in Rule 1.1) is subject to
all other Rules applicable to the trading of orders, unless
otherwise provided in this Rule 5.33.
    (a)-(e) No change.
    (f) Minimum Increments, Execution Prices, and Priority.
    (1) Minimum Increments. No change.
    (2) Execution Prices and Complex Order Priority.
    (A) Complex Orders. The System does not execute a complex order
pursuant to this Rule 5.33 at a net price:
    (i)-(iv) No change.
    (v) that would cause any component of the complex strategy to be
executed at a price ahead of a Priority Customer Order on the Simple
Book without improving the BBO of (a) at least one component of the
complex strategy, if the complex order has a ratio equal to or
greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-
one (3.00), or is an Index Combo order, or (b) each component of the
complex strategy with a Priority Customer Order at the BBO, if the
complex order has a ratio less than one-to-three (.333) or greater
than three-to-one (3.00).
* * * * *

    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change amends the minimum increment for complex
orders with ratios of greater than three-to-one or less than one-to-
three. Currently, Rule 5.4(b) provides that the minimum increment for
bids and offers on complex orders with any ratio greater than or equal
to one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00)
for equity and index options, and for Index Combo \4\ orders, is $0.01
or greater, which may be determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class
basis, and the legs may be executed in $0.01 increments. However, the
minimum increment for bids and offers on complex orders with any ratio
less than one-to-three (.333) or greater than three-to-one (3.00) for
equity and index options (except for Index Combo orders) is the
standard increment for the class pursuant to Rule 5.4(a), and the legs
may be executed in the minimum increment applicable to the class
pursuant to paragraph 5.4(a).\5\ The Exchange currently only permits
complex orders with ratios greater than three-to-one or less than one-
to-three for execution on the Exchange's trading floor.\6\ The proposed
rule change provides that the minimum increment for bids and offers on
complex orders with any ratio may be in $0.01 or greater, as determined
by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis. This will provide TPHs with
the same pricing flexibility with respect to all complex orders they
submit to the Exchange, regardless of their ratios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An ``Index Combo'' order is an order to purchase or sell one
or more index option series and the offsetting number of Index
Combinations (with an ``Index Combination'' defined as a purchase
(sale) of an index option call and sale (purchase) of an index
option put with the same underlying index, expiration date, and
strike price) defined by the delta (defined as the positive
(negative) number of Index Combinations that must be sold
(purchased) to establish a market neutral hedge with one or more
series of the same index option. See Rule 5.33(b)(5).
    \5\ The minimum increment for bids and offers on complex orders
in options on the S&P 500 Index (SPX) or on the S&P 100 Index (OEX
and XEO), except for box/roll spreads, is $0.05 or greater, or in
any increment, which may be determined by the Exchange on a class-
by-class basis. Rule 5.4(c) sets forth the minimum increment
applicable to other types of options.
    \6\ If the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') approves the proposed rule change, the Exchange
intends to begin accepting complex orders with ratios greater than
three-to-one or less than one-to-three for electronic execution, in
addition to open outcry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Complex orders involve special pricing and handling. Bids and
offers for

complex orders are typically represented on the basis of a total debit
or credit for the order. After a complex order executes at the total
debit or credit, the parties to the trade record the contract
quantities and prices for each component option of the order. For
complex orders executed electronically, the Exchange's system performs
this calculation (within the pricing and priority parameters set forth
in Rule 5.33(f)). For complex orders executed in open outcry, this task
is straightforward and uncomplicated when the total debit or credit for
a complex strategy expressed in the minimum increment under Rule
5.4(b).\7\ However, if a complex order is unable to be expressed in
increments smaller than the increment for the class (such as $0.05), it
may be difficult for brokers to obtain the desired prices for their
customers' orders, because the transaction parties must perform
complicated and time-consuming mathematical calculations to break down
a complex order into the required contract quantities and prices to fit
within the constraint of executing complex orders at a minimum
increment other than $0.01.\8\ This difficulty is exacerbated when the
quantity of such an order is an odd lot quantity (such as 106
contracts). The result is that on active trading days, brokers
executing these types of orders cannot be as efficient in representing
other customer orders that they are holding. This difficulty exists for
complex orders with any ratio and with legs in any combination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, assume the market for the December SPX 4350
calls is 18 bid, 19 asked, and the market for the December SPX 4375
calls is 6.50 bid and 7.50 asked. The fair value of a call comprised
of one leg to buy and one leg to sell the same number of contracts
of this series is 11.50 (the difference between the prices quoted
for each option). If an order to buy 100 of the 4350 calls and to
sell 100 of the 4375 calls is quoted and executed at a net debit of
11.50 (expressed in a multiple of the minimum increment), the
parties to the trade can easily determine and record a price for
each component option that comprises the complex order. Any
combination of purchase and sale prices within the quoted ranges for
the component options that yield a net debit or credit of 11.50
could be used (e.g., 18.50 for the 4350 calls, and 7 for the 4375
calls).
    \8\ Using the example in the previous footnote, if instead a
customer wants to pay 11.48 rather than 11.50 for a complex order,
in order to determine prices for the component options that are
expressed in a multiple of $0.05 the trader must perform a series of
calculations. In this case, the trader might determine that the
trade must be split up into a 40-contract spread that traded at a
net debit of 11.45 and a 60-contract spread that traded at a net
debit of 11.50, which together yield a net debit of 11.48 for the
entire amount. This is ultimately a better net price for the
customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change will enable Trading Permit Holders
(``TPHs'') to execute complex orders more efficiently, including on
behalf of customers that wish to execute highly complicated complex
orders, by permitting the parties to execute the trades more
expeditiously on the trading floor. As noted above, the Exchange also
intends to accept complex orders with ratios larger than three-to-one
or smaller than one-to-three for electronic execution, which would
further improve efficiency of execution of electronic orders, as the
System would perform this calculation. The Exchange believes this
increased efficiency would increase execution opportunities for complex
orders with investment strategies that do not fit within the three-to-
one ratio requirement. Additionally, the proposed rule change may
enable TPHs to execute customers' complex orders with these larger
ratios at better prices, rather than executing at prices that fit
within the confines of a larger increment.
    While the proposed rule change amends the minimum increment at
which all complex orders and their legs may execute, the Exchange does
not propose to extend the complex order priority afforded to complex
orders with ratios equal to or greater than one-to-three and less than
or equal to three-to-one to these larger-ratio complex orders.
Electronic execution of complex orders with any ratio will continue to
be required at net prices: (i) That would cause any component of the
complex strategy to be executed at a price of zero; (ii) worse than the
Synthetic Best Bid or Offer (``SBBO'') \9\ or equal to the SBBO when
there is a priority customer order at the SBBO (except all-or-none
(``AON''); (iii) that would cause any component of the complex strategy
to be executed at a price worse than the individual component prices on
the Simple Book; or (iv) worse than the price that would be available
if the complex order legged into the Simple Book. The proposed rule
change amends Rule 5.33(f)(2)(A)(v) to provide that a complex order may
not execute at a net price that would cause any component of the
complex strategy to be executed at a price ahead of a Priority Customer
Order on the Simple Book without improving the BBO of (a) at least one
component of the complex strategy, if the complex order has a ratio
equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to
three-to-one (3.00), or is an Index Combo order (which is consistent
with current functionality and thus for all complex orders that may be
executed electronically), or (b) each component the complex strategy
with a Priority Customer Order at the BBO, if the complex order has a
ratio less than one-to-three (.333) or greater than three-to-one (3.00)
(which is consistent with current open outcry rules, where complex
orders with any such ratio may currently be executed).\10\ As a result,
to the extent a complex order with a ratio of four-to-one (for example)
is submitted for electronic execution, the complex order may be
executed at a net debit or credit price only if each leg of the order
betters the corresponding bid (offer) of a priority customer order(s)
in the Simple Book. Therefore, the complex order priority rules will
continue to protect Priority Customer interest on the Simple Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The ``SBBO'' means the best bid and offer on the Exchange
for a complex strategy calculated using (1) for complex orders, the
BBO for each component (or the NBBO for a component if the BBO for
that component is not available) of a complex strategy from the
Simple Book; and (2) for stock-option orders, the BBO for each
option component (or the NBBO for a component if the BBO for that
component is not available) and the NBBO of the stock component of a
complex strategy.
    \10\ See Rule 5.85(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Exchange first proposed to restrict penny pricing for
complex orders to those with ratios no greater than three-to-one,
investors had only begun to use multi-leg strategies. At the time, the
Commission held that ``ratio orders within certain permissible ratios
may provide market participants with greater flexibility and precision
in effectuating trading and hedging strategies.'' \11\ In the nearly 20
years since, market participants have expanded the use and complexity
of multi-leg trading strategies, which represent a critical portion of
their overall investment strategies, while the rules regarding the
increments of larger-ratio orders have remained unchanged and no longer
reflect the current marketplace. Market participants regularly submit
legitimate multi-leg trading and hedging strategies with ratios greater
than three-to-one (or less than one-to-three). From January 3

through June 17, 2021, nearly 31% of complex orders executed on the
Exchange's trading floor had a ratio greater than three-to-one. For
example, a complex order consisting of one leg to buy 30 VIX calls and
another leg to sell 30 VIX puts--both in the same series--combined with
a third leg to purchase 100 VIX calls in a separate series that have a
delta of ``30'' (30% or .30) creates a delta neutral position, and
there is no reason such a transaction should not receive the complex
order benefits. However, market participants who submit such orders are
disadvantaged compared to strategies with smaller ratios due to the
restrictiveness of the current pricing increment. The Exchange sees no
reason to restrict complex orders with a ratio of four-to-one, for
example, in a class with a minimum increment of $0.05 from being
expressed in, or having their legs execute in, $0.01 increments while
legs of complex orders with a ratio of three-to-one in the same class
may be expressed in, and have their legs execute in, $0.01
increments.\12\ The Exchange believes it is appropriate to expand the
availability of the smaller pricing increment to complex orders with
larger ratios so that all market participants may have the same
flexibility with respect to the pricing of their multi-legged
investment strategies, regardless of ratio. In the same way the
Commission held that ``the procedures governing the execution of
complex orders, such as . . . orders [with ratios no greater than
three-to-one or less than one-to-three], serve to reduce the risk of
incomplete or inadequate executions while increasing efficiency and
competitive pricing by requiring price improvement before the order can
receive priority over other orders[,]'' \13\ the Exchange believes
expanding penny pricing to all complex orders regardless of ratios will
serve to reduce the risk of incomplete or inadequate executions for
larger-ratio complex orders while increasing efficiency and competitive
pricing by requiring price improvement before the order can receive
priority over other orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release 48858 (December 1,
2003), 68 FR 68128 (December 5, 2003) (SR-CBOE-2003-007) (``Approval
Order''). In approving ratio orders (which had ratios no less than
one-to-three and no greater than three-to-one), the Commission
stated that ``[t]he Commission believes that ratio orders within
certain permissible ratios may provide market participants with
greater flexibility and precision in effectuating trading and
hedging strategies. In addition, the Commission believes that
including such ratio orders in the exception to the priority rules
provided in CBOE Rule 6.45(e) will facilitate the execution of ratio
orders. In this regard, the Commission believes that the procedures
governing the execution of complex orders, such as ratio orders,
serve to reduce the risk of incomplete or inadequate executions
while increasing efficiency and competitive pricing by requiring
price improvement before the order can receive priority over other
orders.'' Id. Pursuant to SR-CBOE-2019-060, Rule 6.45 was replaced
with Rule 5.33.
    \12\ Currently, simple orders in classes with minimum increments
of $0.05 or $0.10 may trade in penny increments in certain
circumstances. See, e.g., Rule 5.37(a)(4) (pursuant to which the
minimum price improvement increment for the Automated Improvement
Mechanism (``AIM'') must be at least $0.01, which is the current
minimum increment as determined by the Exchange for all classes
eligible for AIM except for S&P 500 Index (``SPX'') options); and
Rule 5.33(f)(1)(B) (pursuant to which the option leg(s) of a stock-
option order may be $0.01 or greater, which the Exchange determines
on a class-by-class basis, regardless of the minimum increments
otherwise applicable to the option leg(s)); see also Rule
5.39(a)(4).
    \13\ See Approval Order at 68128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange understands that the Commission is concerned that the
simple order market may be somehow disadvantaged by allowing larger-
ratio multi-legged orders to receive the complex order benefit. The
chief concern appears to be that if the ratios are too greatly
expanded, market participants will, for example, enter multi-legged
strategies designed primarily to trade orders in a class in pennies
that cannot otherwise execute as simple orders in that class in pennies
rather than to effectuate a bona fide trading or hedging strategy.
Additionally, the Commission believes there is a risk that market
participants may possibly enter such strategies to trade ahead of
orders on the book by a smaller amount.\14\ The Exchange first notes a
significant amount of volume executed on the Exchange is already done
in penny increments. From January 3 through June 17, 2021, over half
the volume executed on the Exchange as part of a complex order, the
majority of which (all electronic complex orders and all open outcry
complex orders with ratios no greater than three-to-one (which
represents nearly 70% of open outcry complex orders)) are able to trade
in pennies (both the package price and leg prices, except for SPX, for
which the package price must be in nickels, but the legs may trade in
pennies) under current rules. Additionally, during that same time
period, approximately 43% of simple volume on the Exchange executed in
AIM Auctions, which permit executions in pennies (for all classes
except SPX). Therefore, the majority of contracts that execute on the
Exchange already execute in pennies (even though penny increments are
available for fewer than 400 classes),\15\ and the Exchange does not
believe permitting all complex orders to trade in pennies will
significantly increase the volume that may already execute in pennies
on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Although the marketplace may in fact be better served by a
structure that does not require multi-legged orders to, among other
things, yield priority to a simple order (which cannot on its own
satisfy the terms of a multi-leg order), this proposal does not
require the Commission to pass judgment on that issue.
    \15\ See Rule 5.4(d) (which provides that the penny program
applies to 363 of the over 2000 classes that currently trade on the
Exchange).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is highly unlikely that market
participants will submit non-bona-fide trading strategies with larger
ratios just to trade in pennies. First, with respect to a non-bona-fide
trading strategy, it is unlikely other market participants would rest
an order for such a strategy on the complex order book or be willing to
execute against such an order given that it is a non-bona-fide
strategy, thus reducing the likelihood a market participant would be
able to execute such strategy. Additionally, adding a single leg to a
larger order just to obtain penny pricing may further reduce execution
opportunities for that order, because it may be less likely that
sufficient contracts in the appropriate ratio would be available. The
Exchange also believes it is unlikely market participants will attempt
to submit large-ratio complex orders solely to use penny pricing to
trade ahead of customers on the simple book. From January 2 to June 17,
2021, there was only a customer order on the top of the book across all
series listed on the Exchange for 0.328% of that time. Therefore, there
would be minimal amounts of time when a market participant would even
have the need to attempt to do this. Additionally, as proposed, unlike
complex orders with ratios between one-to-three and three-to-one,
complex orders with ratios less than one-to-three or greater than
three-to-one will have to improve all legs with customers on the book,
rather than just improve one leg like complex orders with smaller
ratios, and such orders would also have to honor away markets.
Therefore, if a market participant were to attempt to submit a complex
order with a large ratio \16\ primarily to trade in pennies or ahead of
customers, it may need to improve more legs than a smaller ratio order,
and would have to honor all away markets, potentially reducing any
potential savings the market participant was attempting to achieve.
Note also that rather than adding an extra leg to a large order simply
to be able to improve the book by $0.01 is unnecessary because such
order could already be executed in an AIM Auction in $0.01 increments.
Additionally, these orders would be subject to review by the Exchange's
regulatory division, which may determine submission of such orders to
be in violation of the Exchange's Rules, including Rule 8.1, which
prohibits TPHs from engaging in acts or practices inconsistent with
just and equitable principles of trade. For these reasons, the Exchange
believes there is a de minimis chance that market participants would
submit non-bona-fide trading strategies to trade the legs in pennies or

trade ahead of customers on the book and that the benefits of
permitting all complex orders to trade in pennies significantly
outweigh this risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A market participant could already attempt to do this today
by submitting a smaller-ratio complex order by adding an
inexpensive, out-of-the-money leg to an order. However, the Exchange
has not observed this behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\17\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \18\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \19\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and benefit investors, because it will provide market
participants with the same pricing flexibility with respect to all
their complex trading and hedging strategies. Market participants may
determine that investment and hedging strategies with ratios greater
than three-to-one or less than one-to-three are appropriate for their
investment purposes, and the Exchange believes it will benefit market
participants if they have additional flexibility to price their
investment and hedging strategies to achieve their desired investment
results. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will help
protect investors by allowing market participants to receive the
benefit of complex order pricing when executing bona-fide multi-legged
trading or hedging strategies. The Exchange sees no reason to restrict
complex orders with a ratio of greater three-to-one (or less than one-
to three) in a class with a minimum increment of $0.05 from being
expressed in, or having their legs execute in, $0.01 increments while
legs of complex orders with a ratio equal to or less than or equal to
three-to-one (or greater than or equal to one-to-three) in the same
class may be expressed in, and have their legs execute in, $0.01
increments. The proposed rule change will further remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, as another options exchange permits complex orders with
any ratio and their legs to trade in pennies.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See BOX Options LLC (``BOX'') Rule 7600(c) (which rule is
silent on the minimum increment for orders submitted for execution
on BOX's trading floor, but the Exchange has been informed by
multiple TPHs that are also members of BOX that they may execute
multi-legged orders (with ratios greater than three-to-one or less
than one-to-three) on BOX's trading floor in penny increments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These changes will also enable traders on the Exchange's trading
floor to more efficiently execute all complex orders, including on
behalf of customers that wish to execute highly complicated complex
orders, by permitting the parties to execute the trades more
expeditiously.\21\ Additionally, as discussed above, this may enable
TPHs to execute customers' complex orders at better prices, rather than
executing at prices that fit within the confines of a larger increment,
which ultimately benefits investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ As noted above, there are instances in which simple orders
with minimum increments of $0.05 or $0.10 may trade in penny
increments. See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change will continue to protect priority customer
order interest on the Simple Book in the same manner it does today, as
all complex orders with a ratio greater than three-to-one or less than
one-to-three (except Index Combo orders) will continue to be executed
only if each leg of the order improves the price of a priority customer
order on the Simple Book on each leg by at least the applicable minimum
trading increment.\22\ The proposed rule change has no impact on the
priority of complex orders, as complex orders with ratios less than
.333 or greater than 3.00 will continue to be required to improve the
price of leg of the complex order for which a Priority Customer Order
is resting at the BBO in the Simple Book, and thus will continue to
protect Priority Customer Orders in the Simple Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See proposed Rule 5.34(f)(A)(v) and current Rule 5.85(b).
As noted above, currently, complex orders with ratios greater than
three-to-one or less than one-to-three may only be submitted for
open outcry trading. If the Commission approves the proposed rule
change, the Exchange will permit such orders to be submitted for
electronic execution in addition to open outcry execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Exchange believes this proposal is consistent with
the Act and SR-CBOE-2003-007 because in the same way that the
Commission held that ``ratio orders within certain permissible ratios
may provide market participants with greater flexibility and precision
in effectuating trading and hedging strategies[,]'' \23\ complex orders
that are fully hedged may provide market participants with greater
flexibility and precision in effectuating trading and hedging
strategies. The Exchange also believe this proposal is consistent with
the Act and SR-CBOE-2003-007 because in the same way that the
Commission held that ``including such ratio orders in the exception to
the priority rules provided in CBOE Rule 6.45(e) will facilitate the
execution of ratio orders[,]'' \24\ including fully hedged complex
orders in the exception to the priority rules provided in CBOE Rule
6.45(b)(ii) will facilitate the execution of fully hedged complex
orders. Finally, in the same way that the Commission held that ``the
procedures governing the execution of complex orders, such as ratio
orders, serve to reduce the risk of incomplete or inadequate executions
while increasing efficiency and competitive pricing by requiring price
improvement before the order can receive priority over other
orders[,]'' \25\ the Exchange believes the procedures governing the
execution of fully hedged complex orders serve to reduce the risk of
incomplete or inadequate executions while increasing efficiency and
competitive pricing by requiring price improvement before the order can
receive priority over other orders. The Exchange believes the proposed
changes will increase opportunities for execution of complex orders and
lead to tighter spreads on CBOE, which will benefit investors. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is designed to not
permit unfair discrimination among market participants, as all market
participants may trade complex orders, and the priority eligibility
requirements apply to complex orders of all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Approval Order at 68128.
    \24\ See Id.
    \25\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket
competition, as the proposed rule change will apply in the

same manner to all TPHs. TPHs will have the discretion to submit
complex orders with any ratio in the increments permitted by the
proposed rule change. The proposed rule change will eliminate a current
pricing disparity that exists between complex orders within the same
class and thus provide the same pricing flexibility to all complex
orders, regardless of their ratios. The Exchange does not believe the
proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition,
as it relates to the representation and execution of orders on the
Exchange and will continue to protect Priority Customer Orders on the
Simple Book. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change may promote
competition, as market participants will have additional flexibility to
execute their trading and hedging strategies in a more efficient manner
and will permit all complex orders in the same class to trade in the
same increments. Additionally, the Exchange understands from TPHs that
another options market currently permits complex orders with ratios
greater than three-to-one or less than one-to-three and their legs to
execute in penny increments on its trading floor.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2021-046 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2021-046. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2021-046, and should be submitted
on or before September 15, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18236 Filed 8-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P