and Policy .03 regarding the N-second timer for complex order
transactions. The Exchange no longer has N-second timer functionality
for simple or complex order transactions, making this provision
obsolete.
    The proposed rule change deletes current Rule 6.53C,
Interpretations and Policies .04 and .06(b)(2), which describes how
orders (including stock-option orders) resting on the COB may initiate
a COA under certain conditions. This ``re-COA'' functionality will not
be available on the Exchange following the technology migration. This
is consistent with the Exchange's current authority to determine
whether to apply re-COA functionality to a class. However, as described
above, the System continuously evaluates orders resting on the COB for
execution opportunities against incoming complex orders or orders in
the leg markets.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Neither C2 nor EDGX Options permits complex orders to re-
COA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change moves the provision in current Rule 6.53C,
Interpretation and Policy .05 that states a pattern or practice of
submitting orders that cause a COA to conclude early will be deemed
conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade and a
violation of Rule 8.1 in the shell Rulebook (which will be equivalent
to Rule 4.1 in the current Rulebook) to proposed Rule 5.33,
Interpretation and Policy .02. The proposed rule change deletes the
provision in Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy .05 that
redistributing the RFR message provided by the Exchange to persons not
eligible to respond to such messages is prohibited, except in classes
in which the Exchange allows all TPHs to respond to such messages. The
Exchange believes redistribution of auction messages adds transparency
to the market. The Exchange notes that Trading Permit Holders will
continue to be prohibited from engaging in acts or practices
inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade.
    The proposed rule change moves Rule 6.53B from the current Rulebook
to Rule 5.41 in the shell Rulebook.\87\ The proposed rule is virtually
identical to the current rule, except the proposed rule change makes
certain nonsubstantive changes, including to make the rule text more
plain English, update cross-references, conform terminology to that
used throughout the shell Rulebook, and add paragraph lettering and
numbering. The Exchange notes it deletes the provision in current Rule
6.53B(a) that states S&P 500 variance trades may only trade
electronically. The proposed rule change moves this Rule to Rule 5.41
in the shell Rulebook, which is in Chapter 5, Section C of the shell
Rulebook, which section relates only to electronic trading. Because the
proposed rule is in a section only about electronic trading, the
Exchange believes including a provision that states these trades may
only trade electronically would be redundant, and therefore does not
include that provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ The Exchange notes it does not currently allow S&P 500
variance trades; however, it may determine to make them available
for trading in the future, in which case it would announce such
determination pursuant to Rule 1.5 in the shell Rulebook.

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

    The proposed rule change amends Rule 5.83 in the shell Rulebook to
describe the complex orders types that the Exchange may make available
for PAR routing for manual handling (and open outcry trading):
     Order types: limit and market orders.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ The Exchange current permits market and limit complex
orders to be routed to PAR for manual handling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Order instructions: AON, Attributable, Complex Only, MTP
Modifier, Multi-Class Spread, Non-Attributable, Not Held, RTH Only, SPX
Combo, and stock-option order.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Rule 5.83(a) in the shell Rulebook currently lists Multi-
Class Spreads and SPX Combos as available for PAR routing. Because
those are multi-legged orders, the proposed rule change moves them
to Rule 5.83(b), and adds subheadings to each of paragraph (a) and
(b). These order instructions (other than Complex Only, which the
Exchange does not currently offer) are current eligible to route to
PAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Times-in-Force: Day and GTC.
    Making these order types available for PAR routing is consistent
with current Exchange authority under Rules 6.12A and 6.53 (which Rules
identify which orders are eligible for PAR, and permit the Exchange to
make order types available on a system-by-system basis, respectively).
Currently, Rule 6.12A indicates attributable orders and market-maker
trade prevention orders (similar to orders with an MTP Modifier) may
not route to PAR. While attribution is only relevant with respect to
electronic orders (as it involves a User's unique identifier to be
displayed if resting on the Book), the Exchange believes a User may
still want an order to be routed for manual handling if it cannot
execute, as the Attributable designation has no impact on execution. A
User may still designate an Attributable order as Electronic Only if
the User does not want an Attributable order routed to PAR for manual
handling (and thus be handled as it is today). Similarly, while the
purpose of designating an MTP Modifier is to prevent certain electronic
executions (and cannot be enforced in open outcry), the Exchange
believes a User may still want an order with an MTP Modifier to be
routed to PAR for manual handling if it cannot be processed
electronically. The risk a User is intending to avoid with an MTP
Modifier is generally not present on the trading floor. Again, a User
may designate an order with an MTP Modifier as Electronic Only if the
User does not want that order to be routed to PAR for manual handling
(and thus be handled as it is today). The proposed rule changes
provides Users with additional flexibility and control over the
handling and executions of their orders, while also providing
opportunities for orders to be handled in the same manner as they are
today. Additionally, the Exchange believes listing these in the Rules
will provide investors with additional transparency regarding which
order types are eligible to route to PAR for manual handling.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ See Rules 6.12A(c) and 6.53 (in the current Rulebook)
(which provide that certain order types in Rule 6.53 are eligible
for routing to PAR, and that the Exchange may determine which order
types in Rule 6.53 are available on a class and system (including
PAR) basis); see also Rule 5.83 in the shell Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\91\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \92\ 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) \93\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \92\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \93\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, as described above, the general framework for the
electronic processing of complex orders on the Exchange will remain the
same following the technology migration. The Exchange believes that the
general provisions regarding the trading of complex orders will
continue to provide a clear framework for trading of complex orders,
which will be in a manner consistent with that of C2 and EDGX Options,
as described above. This consistency should promote a fair and orderly
national options market system.
    The proposed execution and priority rules will allow complex orders
to interact with interest in the Simple Book and, conversely, interest
on the Simple Book to interact with complex orders in an efficient and
orderly manner. The proposed priority of execution of complex orders is
consistent with general principles of customer priority and protects
the leg markets, as it will ensure that executions of complex orders
improve the SBBO if there is a Priority Customer representing any leg
on the Simple Book. As discussed above, the proposed priority order is
the same as that on EDGX Options.
    The Exchange proposes that complex orders may be submitted as limit
orders and market orders, and orders with a Time-in-Force of Day, GTC,
GTD, IOC, or OPG, and with Order Instructions of All Sessions, AON,
Book Only, Complex Only, MTP Modifiers, Post Only, RTH Only, QCC with
Stock Order, or stock-option order. In particular, the Exchange
believes that limit orders, GTD, IOC, DAY, GTC, and OPG orders all
provide valuable limitations on execution price and time that help to
protect Exchange participants and investors in both the Simple Book and
the COB. As noted above, the Exchange currently makes most of these
order types (including having similar criteria for being COA-eligible
and providing an option to designate a complex order as do-not-COA)
available for complex orders. Currently, complex orders may be
submitted in the GTH and RTH trading sessions, and making the All
Sessions and RTH Only instructions available will continue to permit
Users to have the flexibility to submit complex orders into both
trading sessions, in their discretion. The proposed rule change also
clarifies that Attributable/Non-Attributable instructions are available
for complex orders; however, these instructions merely apply to
information that is displayed for the orders but do not impact how they
execute. Because complex orders do not route (and the Exchange does not
currently offer a Post Only instruction, which the Exchange proposes to
make available for complex orders, as discussed below), all complex
orders are currently the equivalent of Book Only, which is therefore
consistent with current Exchange complex order functionality.
    In particular, the Exchange notes that while the Complex Only Order
(as further discussed below) may reduce execution opportunities for the
entering Market-Maker, C2 and EDGX options each offer this
functionality in connection with complex order functionality. The
Exchange believes this is a reasonable limitation a Market-Maker may
wish to include on its order in order to participate on the COB. In
addition, the Exchange believes that offering participants the ability
to utilize

MTP Modifiers for complex orders in a similar way to the way they are
used on the Simple Book provides such participants with the ability to
protect themselves from inadvertently automatic matching against their
own interest.
    The Post Only Order instruction on complex orders is designed to
encourage market participants to add liquidity in the complex order
market, which will benefit investors. By giving market participants the
flexibility to manage their execution costs and the circumstances in
which their complex orders are executed, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change would remove impediments to perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and protect
investors. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change
will contribute to the protection of investors and the public interest
by assuring compliance with rules related to locked and crossed
markets.
    Additionally, the Exchange notes that Post Only functionality is
not new or unique functionality and is already available in a similar
capacity. While the Post Only complex order type is not currently
available in the market, the Exchange recently proposed to have a Post
Only simple order type,\94\ which functions in the same manner as the
proposed Post Only complex order type. The purpose of a Post Only
complex order is the same as the purpose of a Post Only simple order,
and the Post Only Order instruction on complex orders ensures the
submitter receives the benefit of a reduced fee when intending to add
liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See Rule 5.6(c) in the shell Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change benefits investors by providing
transparency regarding how the System will handle and execute AON
orders, which handling and execution are consistent with the size
contingency of AON orders. The proposed rule change to require AON
complex orders to COA and not permit them to rest in the COB or Leg
into the Simple Book will protect investors, because it will provide
AON complex orders with opportunities for execution and continue to
protect orders on the Simple Book. As the Exchange noted above, there
would be significant technical complexities associated with
reprogramming priority within the System to permit AON complex orders
to Leg into the Simple Book and provide AON orders with priority
consistent with the standard priority principles described above. The
Exchange notes that, in addition to EDGX Options, other options
exchange do not permit AON complex orders to rest in the COB \95\ or to
leg into the simple book.\96\ In addition, as described above, the
proposed rule change protects resting Leg market interest because AON
complex orders may not execute unless they improve the SBBO at the
conclusion of a COA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ See, e.g., ISE Options 3, Section 14(b)(3) (which requires
AON complex orders to be submitted as IOC orders). While not
specified in current Rules, this proposed change is consistent with
current Exchange functionality (pursuant to the Exchange's authority
in current Rule 6.53 to determine which order types are eligible for
COB entry (an Exchange system)).
    \96\ See, e.g., Phlx Rule 1098(e)(vi)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed complex orders types (in
addition to those currently available on the Exchange) will provide
investors with additional functionality that will provide them with
more flexibility and control over the management of their complex
orders and the manner and circumstances in which their complex orders
may be executed, modified, or cancelled. As a result, this may provide
for the protection of investors and contribute to market efficiency.
This may encourage market participants to bring additional liquidity to
the market, which benefits all investors. Additionally, this will
provide Users with greater harmonization between the order handling
instructions available among the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges.
    The proposed rule change also benefits investors by adding
transparency regarding which orders are eligible for electronic
processing, and which orders are eligible for manual handling. The
Exchange currently has authority pursuant to Rules 6.12A and 6.53 in
the current Rulebook to determine which orders are eligible for
electronic processing and PAR routing, and the proposed rule change is
consistent with that authority.
    If a complex order is not priced equal to, or better than, the SBBO
or is not priced to improve other complex orders resting at the top of
the COB, the Exchange does not believe that it is reasonable to
anticipate that it would generate a meaningful number of COA Responses
such that there would be price improvement of the complex order's limit
price. Promoting the orderly initiation of COAs is essential to
maintaining a fair and orderly market for complex orders; otherwise,
the initiation of COAs that are unlikely to result in price improvement
could affect the orderliness of the marketplace in general. The
Exchange believes that this removes impediments to and perfects the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system by
promoting the orderly initiation of COAs, and by limiting the
likelihood of unnecessary COAs that are not expected to result in price
improvement. The proposed circumstances in which an order may be
eligible to COA are substantively the same as those in which an order
may be eligible to COA on C2 and EDGX, as noted above.
    The Exchange believes the proposed maximum 500 millisecond Response
Time Interval promotes just and equitable principles of trade and
removes impediments to a free and open market because it allows
sufficient time for Trading Permit Holders participating in a COA to
submit COA Responses and would encourage competition among
participants, thereby enhancing the potential for price improvement for
complex orders in the COA to the benefit of investors and public
interest. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is not
unfairly discriminatory because it establishes a Response Time Interval
applicable to all Exchange participants participating in a COA, which
is the same maximum Response Time Interval on EDGX and C2, as noted
above.
    The proposed events that will conclude a COA early are reasonable
and promote a fair and orderly market and national market system,
because they will ensure that executions at the conclusion of a COA
occur at permissible prices (and not outside the prices of complex
order resting at the top of the COB or the SBBO, or at the SBBO if
there is a Priority Customer order resting in any leg on the Simple
Book). The proposed rule change will also benefit investors by
continuing to provide clarity regarding what will cause a COA to
conclude. These events would create circumstances under which a COA
would not have been permitted to start, or that would cause the auction
price no longer be consistent with the permissible prices at which
executions at the conclusion of a COA may occur. Thus the Exchange
believes it is appropriate to conclude a COA if those circumstances
occur. The Exchange will no longer conclude a COA early due to the
receipt of an opposite side order. The Exchange believes this promotes
just and equitable principles of trade, because these orders may have
the opportunity to trade against the COA'd order following the
conclusion of the COA, which execution must still be at or better than
the SBBO (or better than the SBBO if there is a Priority Customer order
on any leg) and at or better than the best-priced complex orders on the
COB. The Exchange believes this will protect investors, because it will

provide more time for price improvement, and the unrelated order will
have the opportunity to trade against the COA'd order in the same
manner as all other contra-side interest.
    The Exchange again notes that it has not proposed to limit the
frequency of COAs for a complex strategy and could have multiple COAs
occurring concurrently with respect to a particular complex strategy.
The Exchange represents that it has systems capacity to process
multiple overlapping COAs consistent with the proposal, including
systems necessary to conduct surveillance of activity occurring in such
auctions. Further, C2 and EDGX may both currently have multiple complex
auctions in the same strategy run concurrently, as noted above. The
Exchange does not anticipate overlapping auctions necessarily to be a
common occurrence, however, after considerable review, believes that
such behavior is more fair and reasonable with respect to Trading
Permit Holders who submit orders to the COB because the alternative
presents other issues to such Trading Permit Holders. Specifically, if
the Exchange does not permit overlapping COAs, then a Trading Permit
Holder who wishes to submit a COA-eligible order but has its order
rejected because another COA is already underway in the complex
strategy must either wait for such COA to conclude and re-submit the
order to the Exchange (possibly constantly resubmitting the complex
order to ensure it is received by the Exchange before another COA
commences) or must send the order to another options exchange that
accepts complex orders.
    The proposed Legging restrictions protects investors and the public
interest by ensuring that Market-Makers and other liquidity providers
do not trade above their established risk tolerance levels, which is
consistent with the purpose of current restrictions in place on the
Exchange, as discussed above. The proposed Legging restrictions, as
noted above, are the same as those offered on EDGX Options (while
several are unique to the Exchange and exist today). Despite the
enhanced execution opportunities provided by Legging, the Exchange
believes it is reasonable and consistent with the Act to permit Market-
Makers to submit orders designated as Complex Only Orders that will not
leg into the Simple Book. This is analogous to other types of
functionality offered by the Exchange that provides Trading Permit
Holders the ability to direct the Exchange not to route their orders or
remove liquidity from the Exchange. Similar to such analogous features,
the Exchange believes that Market-Makers may utilize Complex Only Order
functionality as part of their strategy to maintain additional control
over their executions, in connection with their attempt to provide and
not remove liquidity, or in connection with applicable fees for
executions.
    Evaluation of the executability of complex orders is central to the
removal of impediments to, and the perfection of, the mechanisms of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, the
protection of investors and the public interest. The proposed
evaluation process will ensure that the System will capture and act
upon complex orders that are due for execution. The regular and event-
driven evaluation process removes potential impediments to the
mechanisms of the free and open market and the national market system
by ensuring that complex orders are given the best possible chance at
execution at the best price, evaluating the availability of complex
orders to be handled in a number of ways as described in this proposal.
Any potential impediments to the order handling and execution process
respecting complex orders are substantially removed due to their
continual and event-driven evaluation for subsequent action to be taken
by the System. This protects investors and the public interest by
ensuring that complex orders in the System are continually monitored
and evaluated for potential action(s) to be taken on behalf of
investors that submit their complex orders to the Exchange.
    The proposed rule change to permit the Exchange to set an allowable
value outside of the expected notional trade value for the legs of a
stock-option order removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system because it provides
Users with functionality that allows stock-option strategies to trade
outside of their specified net prices when the executable stock match
price results in a small difference between the expected notional value
of the trade and the actual trade value. Users generally prefer not to
forgo an execution for their stock-option strategies when this occurs,
as the residual amount is miniscule compared to the value of the trade.
As a result of the proposed rule, Users will be able to receive an
expeditious execution, and trade the stock and options components of a
stock-option strategy in a moving market without introducing legging
risk, instead of resubmitting their orders and potentially receiving a
much worse price or missing an execution. The proposed Exchange
determination of a value allowance outside of the expected notional
value is the same as that on EDGX Options, as noted above, and similar
to that of another options exchange.\97\ The Exchange believes having
the trade value allowance in a dollar amount is more straightforward
and less confusing for investors than the calculation of a percentage.
The Exchange also believes that determining the amount of the trade
value allowance will simplify the implementation of this functionality
and mitigate any potential investor confusion by setting just one
Exchange-determined notional variance. Because the difference between
the expected notional value of the trade and the actual trade value is
inconsequential, especially as compared to the overall benefit to
investors of an expeditious execution, the Exchange does not believe
the proposed difference will have any significant impact on the
Exchange's participants and, instead, may benefit participants overall.
As stated, the Exchange would determine an allowance amount that would
reasonably account for the average differences in notional trade values
as well as the cost benefit to market participants between the
differences in actual trade value versus expected notional trade value
and the imposition of resubmitting their orders and potentially
receiving a much worse price or missing an execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See also ISE Rule Options 3, Section 14, Supplementary
Material .03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the foregoing, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed complex order functionality raises any new or novel concepts
under the Act, and is substantively the same as functionality available
today on the Exchange or on C2 and/or EDGX Options, and instead is
consistent with the goals of the Act to remove impediments to and to
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed
rule change is generally intended to align system functionality
currently offered by the Exchange with functionality available on other
Cboe Affiliated Exchanges in order to provide a consistent technology
offering. A consistent technology offering, in turn, will simplify the
technology implementation, changes, and maintenance by Users of the
Exchange that are also participants on Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. The
proposed rule change will provide Users with additional flexibility and
increased functionality on the Exchange's System.

    When the Exchange migrates to the same technology as that of the
other Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, Users of the Exchange will have access
to similar functionality on all Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. As such, the
proposed rule change would foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.

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 reiterates that
the proposed rule change is being proposed in the context of the
technology integration of the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. Thus, the
Exchange believes this proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair
competition among national securities exchanges. In addition, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change will benefit Exchange
participants in that it will provide a consistent technology offering
for Users by the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The general
framework and primary features of the Exchange's complex order
functionality is not changing, and will continue to protect orders,
including Priority Customer orders, resting in the Book. Therefore, the
electronic processing of complex orders will occur in a substantially
similar manner as it does today. The System's electronic processing of
complex orders of all Users will apply in the same manner. Use of
complex order functionality and the various complex order instructions
will continue to be voluntary and within the discretion of Users.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As discussed
above, the basis for the majority of the proposed rule changes in this
filing are based on C2 Rule 6.13 and EDGX Options Rule 21.20, and thus
have previously been filed with the Commission.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \98\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \99\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \99\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2019-060 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-2019-060. 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-2019-060 and should be submitted on
or before October 16, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-20711 Filed 9-24-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45864-45866]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18192]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0724, FRL-9839-2]

Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Montana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Montana to
demonstrate that the SIP meets the infrastructure requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) promulgated for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on
July 18, 1997 and on October 17, 2006. The CAA requires that each
state, after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated, review their SIPs
to ensure that they meet infrastructure requirements. The State of
Montana submitted a certification of their infrastructure SIP for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on February 10, 2010. EPA is
acting separately on the portions of the February 10, 2010 submission
relating to interstate transport of air pollution.

DATES: This final rule is effective August 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0724. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:

    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The initials CBI mean or refer to confidential business
information.
    (iii) The words or initials Department or DEQ mean or refer to
the Department of Environmental Quality.
    (iv) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (v) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to national ambient air
quality standards.
    (vi) The initials NSR mean or refer to new source review.
    (vii) The initials PM mean or refer to particulate matter.
    (viii) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers (fine
particulate matter).
    (ix) The initials ppm mean or refer to parts per million.
    (x) The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of Significant
Deterioration.
    (xi) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Infrastructure requirements for SIPs are provided in sections
110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2) lists the specific
infrastructure elements that a SIP must contain or satisfy. The
elements that are the subject of this action are described in detail in
our proposal of May 13, 2013 (78 FR 27891).
    On May 13, 2013 (78 FR 27891), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) to act on a February 10, 2010 infrastructure SIP
submission from the State of Montana for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. The NPR proposed approval of the submission for
the following infrastructure elements for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS: CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) with respect
to the requirement to have a minor NSR program that addresses
PM2.5; (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) with respect to
the requirements of CAA sections 121 and 127, (K), (L), and (M). The
NPR proposed to disapprove the submissions for the following
infrastructure elements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS:
CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) concerning requirements for state boards
under CAA section 128; and elements (C) and (J) with respect to the
requirement to have a PSD program that meets the requirements of part C
of Title I of the Act. Finally, the NPR proposed to take no action on
the portion of the submission addressing infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(D) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, as that
portion will be acted on separately.
    We proposed to disapprove Montana's February 10, 2010 submission
with respect to the requirements of three individual infrastructure
elements. The first of these is element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), relevant to
CAA section 128 and state boards. The reasons for this disapproval are
detailed within our proposal. In summary, the Montana SIP fails to
include provisions which meet the explicit legal requirements of this
requirement of the CAA. The second and third elements we proposed to
disapprove are provisions required by elements 110(a)(2)(C) and (J),
regarding requirements for PSD programs to treat nitrogen oxides as a
precursor for ozone as detailed by the ozone phase 2 implementation
rule (70 FR 71612). The analysis supporting this action is detailed in
our proposal dated May 13, 2013 (78 FR 27891).
    Under a Consent Decree that has been entered with a district court,
we are required to take final action on this infrastructure SIP no
later than July 15, 2013. We note that on June 18, 2013 EPA received
revisions to the Montana SIP entitled, ``1997 Ozone NAAQS
Implementation Rule Updates to Montana State Implementation Plan,''
which are intended to address the requirements of elements (C) and (J).
That submission will be addressed in a timely manner in a future
action. However, the impending consent decree deadline precludes the
Agency from postponing this final action.

II. Response to Comments

    No comments were received on the 5/13/2013 proposal.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Montana's February 10, 2010 infrastructure SIP
submission for the following infrastructure elements for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) with
respect to the requirement to have a minor NSR program that addresses
PM2.5; (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) with respect to
the requirements of sections 121 and 127, (K), (L), and (M). EPA is
disapproving Montana's February 10, 2010 infrastructure SIP submission
for the following infrastructure elements for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS: CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) concerning
requirements for state boards under CAA section 128; and elements (C)
and (J) with respect to the requirement to have a PSD program that
meets the requirements of part C of Title I of the Act. Finally, EPA is
taking no action on Montana's submission for infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(D) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as that
portion of the submission will be acted on separately.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law that meets Federal
requirements and disapproves state law that does not meet Federal
requirements. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 30, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 12, 2013.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--[APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS]

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

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

Subpart BB--Montana

0
2. Section 52.1394 is amended by designating the existing paragraph as
(a) and adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1394  Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) On February 10, 2010, Brian Schweitzer, Governor, State of
Montana, submitted a certification letter which provides the State of
Montana's SIP provisions which meet the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(1) and (2), elements (A), (B), (C) with respect to the
requirement to have a minor NSR program that addresses
PM2.5; (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) with respect to
the requirements of sections 121 and 127, (K), (L), and (M).

[FR Doc. 2013-18192 Filed 7-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24018-24021]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11034]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Parts 738 and 740

[Docket No. 190503423-9423-01]
RIN 0694-AH78

Revisions to Country Group Designations for Venezuela and
Conforming Changes for License Requirements

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to remove Venezuela
from Country Group B, which affords favorable treatment for certain
exports of National Security-controlled items, and moves Venezuela to
Country Group D:1, which lists countries of national security concern.
This final rule makes these changes to the EAR to reflect current
national security concerns related to Venezuela, e.g., the introduction
of foreign military personnel and equipment into Venezuela, and to
better protect U.S. national security. The changes in this final rule
also better align the Country Group designations for Venezuela with
other EAR national security-related provisions that already apply to
Venezuela, e.g., the military end-use and end-user controls that apply
to certain items for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) and
provisions that are specific to countries subject to U.S. arms
embargoes. In addition, this final rule adds Venezuela to Country
Groups D:2-4, which list countries of nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons, and missile technology concern, respectively.

DATES: This rule is effective May 24, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Foreign Policy Division, Office of
Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and
Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In this final rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to implement a
decision to remove Venezuela from Country Group B, which affords
favorable treatment for certain exports of National Security-controlled
items, and moves Venezuela to Country Group D:1, which lists countries
of national security concern (Supplement No. 1 to part 740). In
addition, this final rule adds Venezuela to Country Groups D:2-4, which
list countries of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and missile
technology concern, respectively.
    This final rule protects U.S. national security interests by making
changes to the EAR to address current national security concerns
related to Venezuela, e.g., the introduction of foreign military
personnel and equipment into Venezuela, and better align the Country
Group designation for Venezuela with other EAR national security
related provisions that apply to Venezuela. For example, Venezuela is
included in the military end-use and end-user control in Sec.  744.21:
Restrictions on certain `Military end uses' in the People's Republic of
China or for a `Military end use' or `Military end user' in Russia or
Venezuela. Venezuela is also already designated in Country Group D:5 as
a U.S. Arms Embargoed Country, meaning that the general restrictions on
the use of license exceptions in Sec.  740.2(a)(12) for 9x515 and ``600
series'' items apply, along with the more restrictive license review
policy for national security controlled items in Sec.  742.4(b)(1)(ii)
for 9x515 and ``600 series'' items.

    The removal of Venezuela from Country Group B and its addition to
Country Group D:1 will make exports and reexports to Venezuela and
transfers within Venezuela ineligible for certain license exceptions
set forth in Part 740. In addition, the national security licensing
policy set forth in Sec.  742.4(b) for Country Group D:1 countries will
apply to those exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country). The U.S.
Government has determined that the conduct of Venezuela raises
sufficient concern that interagency review of proposed exports,
reexports, or transfers (in-country) of national security controlled
items subject to the EAR, previously eligible for certain license
exceptions to Venezuela, and the possible imposition of license
conditions or license denials on exports, reexports, and transfers (in-
country), will enhance BIS's ability to protect U.S. national security
interests.
    In addition, the U.S. Government has determined that Venezuela's
increasing dependence on countries in Country Groups D:3 and E merited
its placement in Country Groups D:2-4.

Amendments to Country Groups B and D:1-4 Affecting License Exception
Eligibility, License Requirements (Including CCL-Based and End-Use-
Based License Requirements), and Licensing Policy for Venezuela

    Supplement No. 1 to Part 740 contains several tables of ``Country
Groups'' that are used to identify, among other things, license
exception eligibility and licensing policy. This rule removes Venezuela
from Country Group B and adds Venezuela to Country Groups D:1-4.

Effects of Removing Venezuela From Country Group B

    License exceptions found in Sec.  740.3, Shipments of limited value
(LVS); Sec.  740.4, Shipments to Country Group B countries (GBS); and
Sec.  740.6, Technology and software under restriction (TSR) are
available only if the destination is in Country Group B. This change
removes Venezuela from the list of eligible destinations for exports,
reexports, and transfers (in-country) that are authorized by License
Exceptions LVS, GBS and TSR.

Effects of Adding Venezuela to Country Groups D:1-4

    License exceptions found in Sec.  740.9, Temporary imports,
exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) (TMP); Sec.  740.10,
Servicing and replacement of parts and equipment (RPL); Sec.  740.12,
Gift parcels and humanitarian donations (GFT); Sec.  740.14, Baggage
(BAG); Sec.  740.15, Aircraft and vessels (AVS); Sec.  740.16,
Additional permissive reexports (APR); and Sec.  740.17, Encryption,
commodities, software, and technology (ENC) all contain limitations or
restrictions on their use for exports or reexports to destinations in
Country Groups D:1, D:2, D:3, and/or D:4. Those limitations and
restrictions will now apply to License Exceptions TMP, RPL, GFT, BAG,
AVS, APR, and ENC to Venezuela.
    Section 742.4(b)(2) of the EAR states the licensing policy for
exports and reexports of national security controlled items to
destinations in Country Group D:1. That licensing policy is to approve
applications when BIS determines, on a case-by-case basis, that the
items are for civilian use or otherwise would not make a significant
contribution to the military potential of the country of destination
that would prove detrimental to the national security of the United
States. Applications to export or reexport national security controlled
items to Venezuela will now be subject to this licensing policy.
    In addition, Venezuela's placement in Country Group D:1 will result
in the imposition of restrictions on the export, reexport, and transfer
(in-country) of certain microprocessors to military end uses and end
users in Venezuela, pursuant to Sec.  744.17: Restrictions on certain
exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) of microprocessors and
associated ``software'' and ``technology'' for `military end uses' and
to `military end users.' Furthermore, restrictions on certain exports
and reexports to vessels and aircraft located in Venezuelan ports or
registered in Venezuela will become effective pursuant to Sec.  744.7,
Restrictions on certain exports to and for the use of certain foreign
vessels or aircraft. Finally, the addition of Venezuela to Country
Group D:1 will expand the licensing requirements for reexports of the
foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-origin technology and software
to Venezuela pursuant to Sec.  736.2(b)(3), General Prohibition Three.
    Consistent with adding Venezuela to Country Group D:2, a license
will be required for the export or reexport of items subject to the
nuclear nonproliferation column 2 (NP 2) controls [Export Control
Classification Numbers (ECCNs) 1A290, 1C298, 2A290, 2A291, 2D290, 2E001
(for that portion that applies for 2A290, 2A291 and 2D290) and 2E002
(for that portion that applies to 2A290 and 2A291) and 2E290]. This
final rule adds an ``X'' in the NP 2 column of the nuclear
nonproliferation column in Supplement No. 1 to Part 738 of the EAR for
Venezuela. License applications for these items will be reviewed under
the licensing policy in Sec.  742.3 of the EAR. Consistent with adding
Venezuela to Country Group D:2, the general prohibition in paragraph
(a)(1)(i)(A) of Sec.  744.6, Restrictions on certain activities of U.S.
persons, will be applicable if the U.S. person exporter, reexporter, or
transferor has ``knowledge'' of a prohibited end use in or by
Venezuela.
    Consistent with adding Venezuela to Country Group D:3, a license
will be required for the export or reexport of items subject to the
chemical and biological weapons column 3 (CB 3) controls (ECCN
1C991.d). This final rule adds an ``X'' in column 3 of the chemical and
biological weapons column (CB 3) in Supplement No. 1 to Part 738 of the
EAR. License applications for these items will be reviewed under the
licensing policy in Sec.  742.2 of the EAR.
    Consistent with adding Venezuela to Country Group D:4, the general
prohibitions in Sec.  744.3--Restrictions on certain rocket systems
(including ballistic missiles, space launch vehicles and sounding
rockets) and unmanned aerial vehicles (including cruise missiles,
target drones and reconnaissance drones) end-uses--under paragraphs
(a)(1) and (a)(3) will be applicable if the exporter, reexporter, or
transferor has ``knowledge'' the transaction involves one of those
prohibited end uses in or by Venezuela. In addition, consistent with
adding Venezuela to Country Group D:4, the general prohibitions in
Sec.  744.6 under paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(B) and (a)(2)(i) will be
applicable if the U.S. person exporter, reexporter, or transferor (for
purposes of paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B)) or other activities unrelated to
exports (for purposes of paragraph (a)(2)(i)) has ``knowledge'' the
transaction involved one of those prohibited transactions or other
activities in or by Venezuela.
    Prior to publication of this final rule, Venezuela was already
included in Country Group D:5 and the license review policy under Sec.
742.4(b)(1)(ii) continues to apply for items classified under 9x515 and
``600 series'' ECCNs for exports and reexports to Venezuela. Pursuant
to Sec.  742.4(b)(1)(ii), these license applications will continue to
be ``reviewed consistent with United States arms embargo policies in
Sec.  126.1'' of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

Export Control Reform Act of 2018

    On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S.
McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which
included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018

(ECRA) (Title XVII, Subtitle B of Pub. L. 115-232) that provides the
legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority
under which BIS issues this rule. As set forth in Section 1768 of ECRA,
all delegations, rules, regulations, orders, determinations, licenses,
or other forms of administrative action that have been made, issued,
conducted, or allowed to become effective under the Export
Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.) (as in effect prior
to August 13, 2018 and as continued in effect pursuant to the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)
and Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783
(2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR
16129 (March 13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of August 8,
2018, 83 FR 39871 (August 13, 2018)), or the Export Administration
Regulations, and are in effect as of August 13, 2018, shall continue in
effect according to their terms until modified, superseded, set aside,
or revoked under the authority of ECRA.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This final rule has been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' although not economically significant, under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This final rule will support the
national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States by
broadening the U.S. Government's visibility into transactions involving
national security controlled items on the Commerce Control List and
exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) to and in a country of
concern.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may be
required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless
that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves a
collection currently approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088,
Simplified Network Application Processing System. This collection
includes, among other things, license applications, and carries a
burden estimate of 42.5 minutes for a manual or electronic submission
for a total burden estimate of 31,878 hours. BIS expects the burden
hours associated with this collection to increase slightly by 4 hours
for an estimated cost increase of $120. This increase is not expected
to exceed the existing estimates currently associated with OMB control
number 0694-0088.
    Any comments regarding the collection of information associated
with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be
sent to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
    4. Pursuant to Sec.  1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018
(Title XVII, Subtitle B of Pub. L. 115-232), which was included in the
John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019,
this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for
public participation, and delay in effective date.
    5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for
public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C.
553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are not applicable.
Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none
has been prepared.
    6. This final rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771
(82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to a
national security function of the United States. The cost-benefit
analysis required pursuant to Executive Orders 13563 and 12866
indicates that this rule is intended to improve national security as
its primary direct benefit. Specifically, the change in the Country
Group designations for Venezuela and its impact on the availability of
license exceptions and more restrictive license review policies
described herein will enhance the national security of the United
States by reducing the risk that exports, reexports, and transfers (in-
country) of items subject to the EAR could be diverted and contribute
to the military capability of countries of concern, contrary to U.S.
national security interests. This final rule will allow the U.S.
Government to review transactions involving military end uses or end
users in Venezuela prior to their completion to mitigate this risk.
Accordingly, this rule meets the requirements set forth in the April 5,
2017, OMB guidance implementing E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017), regarding what constitutes a regulation issued ``with respect to
a national security function of the United States'' and it is,
therefore, exempt from the requirements of E.O. 13771.

Saving Clause

    Shipments of items removed from license exception eligibility or
eligibility for export, reexport or transfer (in-country) without a
license as a result of this regulatory action that were on dock for
loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting carrier, or en route
aboard a carrier to a port of export, on May 24, 2019, pursuant to
actual orders for exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) to a
foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous
license exception eligibility or without a license so long as they have
been exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) before June 24,
2019. Any such items not actually exported, reexported or transferred
(in-country) before midnight, on June 24, 2019 require a license in
accordance with this final rule.

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 738

    Exports.

15 CFR Part 740

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, parts 738 and 740 of the Export Administration
Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) are amended as follows:

PART 738--COMMERCE CONTROL LIST OVERVIEW AND THE COUNTRY CHART

0
1. The authority citation for part 738 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  Pub. L. 115-232, 132 Stat. 2208 (50 U.S.C. 4801 et
seq.); 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 10 U.S.C.
7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 22
U.S.C. 6004; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 15 U.S.C. 1824a; 50 U.S.C. 4305; 22
U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR,
1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p.
783; Notice of August 8, 2018, 83 FR 39871 (August 13, 2018).

0
2. Supplement No. 1 to Part 738 is amended by revising the entry for
``Venezuela'' to read as follows:

                                                                      Supplement No. 1 to Part 738--Commerce Country Chart
                                                                                [Reason for control]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Chemical and biological          Nuclear        National security   Missile  Regional stability    Firearms            Crime control           Anti-terrorism
                                         weapons             nonproliferation  --------------------   tech   --------------------  convention  -------------------------------------------------
          Countries          --------------------------------------------------                    ----------                    --------------
                                CB 1      CB 2      CB 3      NP 1      NP 2      NS 1      NS 2      MT 1      RS 1      RS 2        FC 1        CC 1      CC 2      CC 3      AT 1      AT 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                * * * * * * *
Venezuela...................        X         X         X         X         X         X         X         X         X         X             X         X   ........        X   ........  ........

                                                                                * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 740--LICENSE EXCEPTIONS

0
3. The authority citation for part 740 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  Pub. L. 115-232, 132 Stat. 2208 (50 U.S.C. 4801 et
seq.); 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C.
7201 et seq.; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228;
E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August
8, 2018, 83 FR 39871 (August 13, 2018).

0
4. Supplement No. 1 to Part 740 is amended by:
0
a. Removing Venezuela from the table labeled ``Country Group B--
Countries;'' and
0
b. Revising the entry for ``Venezuela'' under ``Country Group D'' to
read as follows:
* * * * *

                                  Supplement No. 1 to Part 740--Country Groups
                                                [Country Group D]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                [D: 5] U.S.
                                               [D: 1]                      [D: 3]        [D: 4]         arms
                  Country                     National       [D: 2]     Chemical and     Missile      embargoed
                                              security       Nuclear     biological    technology     countries
                                                                                \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Venezuela.................................            X             X             X             X             X

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note to Country Group D:5: Countries subject to U.S. arms embargoes are identified by the State Department
  through notices published in the Federal Register. The list of arms embargoed destinations in this paragraph
  is drawn from 22 CFR 126.1 and State Department Federal Register notices related to arms embargoes (compiled
  at http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/embargoed_countries/index.html) and will be amended when the State Department
  publishes subsequent notices. If there are any discrepancies between the list of countries in this paragraph
  and the countries identified by the State Department as subject to a U.S. arms embargo (in the Federal
  Register), the State Department's list of countries subject to U.S. arms embargoes shall be controlling.

* * * * *

    Dated: May 17, 2019.
Richard E. Ashooh,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2019-11034 Filed 5-22-19; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 3510-33-P