Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 9, 2003   Page 1 EPA Conference Call With State, Local, and Tribal Government Representatives About Possible LBP Activities Framework ( May 1, 2003)

1. Summary Discussion and Qs & As on " Background and Rationale" Document Summary Discussion:

Mike Wilson from EPA introduced the " Background and Rationale" document. Briefly, he:

° Reviewed EPA's statutory obligations and the background about the decisions leading to the current regulatory structure and requirements; ° Highlighted the key issues that EPA has encountered in implementing the current regulatory structure and activities; and ° Emphasized that EPA's goal is to reduce the burden of the rule that regulates lead based paint activities while still achieving the agency's statutory responsibilities, and also to broaden the scope of the rule to include renovation activities.

Questions & Answers:

Q: Do the states agree with the five issues noted on page 2 of the Background Document   namely, that the following implementation issues have become stumbling blocks to widespread adoption of abatement: high cost of abatement services; time and expenses needed to comply with training and certification requirements; limited availability of certified contractors; uneven quality of work performed by abatement contractors; and perception that the benefits of abatement are not worth the costs? ( Mike) A: Kerra, Eileen, and Tom all agreed that these issues are real stumbling blocks. Eileen noted that in MD, they have been able to get some renovation home improvement contractors certified in lead abatement. Tom suggested that the biggest problem is the discrepancy in benefits versus costs for abatement projects. Jack later commented that in ID, the issue seemed to be the interplay between cost/ benefit/ risk, with cost always wining over the other 2 factors.

Q: Do the states agree that the same kinds of work activities/ methods may apply to both abatement & renovation projects? ( Mike) A: Yes  2 ( unnamed) participants agreed with that. Additionally, Barry noted that it would be very helpful to eliminate or reduce the discrepancies between EPA and HUD requirements wherever feasible. The existing differences create confusion and inefficiencies. Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 9, 2003   Page 2 2. Summary Discussion, Qs & As, and Comments on " Summary Table" & " Discussion" Documents Summary Discussion:

Mike Wilson from EPA then introduced the " Summary Table" and " Summary Table Discussion" documents, which describe the key elements of a possible updated framework. Briefly, he:

° Described the key types of changes that would occur across 10 key components of the current regulatory structure if the updated framework were adopted; ° Noted that the framework would apply to all pre 1978 housing; ° Highlighted that the framework emphasizes performance based standards for work practices and the same basic standards would be applied to hazard reduction and renovation; ° Emphasized that the framework seeks to reduce training and other costs to firms doing these types of work; and ° Emphasized the importance of pending results of several current research efforts in understanding the updated framework ( see Mike's explanation in the next Section 3 of these notes).

Questions & Answers and Comments:

Q: Is EPA considering any kind of recourse when a renovator fails clearance if they have used prohibited practices? ( Kerra) A: Yes. The contractor would have to work in accordance with the clearance standards, which will be in the rule. So, if a dwelling unit fails clearance, the contractor will be bound to reclean and retest until the unit passes clearance.

Q: Will work performed by Lead Sampling Technicians ( LSTs) need to be reviewed by an inspector, assessor, etc? ( Kerra) A: No, EPA is envisioning that LSTs would operate independently. An LST would be required to be trained and certified.

Kerra: From industry standpoint, 4 hours of training is NOT going to be enough for someone to go out and conduct an effective clearance exam. [ Note: Kerra submitted additional written comments on LST as a discipline. These comments are provided immediately following this Answer.] Gary: Seconded Kerra's concern   that w/ o modification to the existing LST training course, the preparation for LSTs would be grossly inadequate. Mike: So, a certified risk assessor should sign off on the work of a LST? Gary: No, creating a second layer of review is not desirable. His concern is with the course itself. EPA needs to restructure the course itself so the LSTs can do it themselves, Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 9, 2003   Page 3 w/ o having another layer of review/ sign off. Additional Written Comments Concerning Lead Sampling Technician Discipline ( Kerra)

" Please do not create a discipline for Lead Sampling Technician Discipline. We believe the current 4 hour training curriculum to be woefully inadequate for allowing an individual to independently perform dust sampling and declare a property " lead safe" after lead hazard reduction or renovation.

Oklahoma uses the National Certification Examination. According to Oklahoma's records, Risk Assessors miss clearance questions at a rate of 31%. That's after 40 hours of training and a high school diploma or bachelor's degree.

Please also consider the following comparison.

LBP Inspectors are required to take 24 hours of training with no further education requirements. LBP Inspections are relatively simple to do with XRF instruments. There is little room for human error with regards to an XRF reading. The HUD Guidelines have established inspection protocols that make test location selection a simple task.

The Lead Sampling Technician will face these tasks:

° Determine what hazard reduction activities have been performed and which rooms have been treated. Sometimes the property owner will provide this information, other times the individual performing clearance must figure this out on their own. ° Determine which rooms were contained, if at all. ° Using the above information, select number of rooms for dust sampling. ° Perform the wipe sampling on the selected floors, windowsills and troughs. Use gloves and decontaminate templates between samples to prevent cross contamination. * This step leaves much more opportunity for human error in taking a dust wipe sample than an XRF reading. ° Ensure that samples are properly labeled with a completed chain of custody form and include blank wipes as appropriate. ° Send samples to NLLAP lab. ° Evaluate samples upon receipt and send findings to customer. * In the case of renovations performed with federal assistance, the clearance examiner will also have to write a report.

A 4 hour training curriculum is not enough time to discuss liability and insurance needs, lead hazard reduction methods, containment, dust sampling techniques, sample interpretation and report content requirements. A clearance inspector needs training in all of these areas to perform clearance properly. Considering all of these tasks, a Lead Sampling Technician should really have a minimum of 8 hours of training with a minimum of 2 hours of hands on instruction to ensure they can properly perform the wipe sampling. A minimum of 8 hours of training is still pushing it! Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 9, 2003   Page 4 I also have a gut feeling that these individuals will charge nearly the same amount for a clearance that certified Inspectors and Risk Assessors have been charging, because Inspectors and Risk Assessors have set the market prices for clearance. The housing industry will not see a cost savings as a result of EPA creating certification for this ` stripped down discipline.'" ( Kerra)

Comment: Jack thought it would be helpful to have documentation re. point 8 ( prohibited practices) re. what is and what is not allowed, disadvantages & disadvantages, cost issues, etc. Mike responded that EPA will need to support the standards/ requirements at the time any rule on this topic is published.

Q: Would training for the project designer ( PD) increase from 8 to 16 24 hours, while the training for supervisors would decline from 32 to 8 16 hours? ( Gary) A: In general, EPA would like to see supervisors training requirements decrease, while PD requirements would increase. EPA will need to look at the existing courses, revise them per the final rule/ policies, and then see how long the courses will need to last.

Comment: Barry noted that there is not much interest in the PD course in KS. Mike said that EPA recognizes this concern. He noted that initially there was a proposal that projects greater than 10 units would need a PD, but that requirement was dropped from the final abatement regulations as they currently stand. So, there is no current difference between PDs and supervisors, except a PD can't oversee work. Thus, there is no real benefit for doing the extra PD training, etc.

Q: What will a PD do? ( Gary) A: Given requirement for accredited supervisors, any firm, including renovators, that is trained in how to contain, minimize dust generation, and cleanup would be able to do hazard reduction ( HR) work. So, a risk assessor would ID lead hazards in a home ( e. g., windows w/ lead paint); the PD would develop the PD Plan to address the hazards; and the renovation firm could perform the hazard reduction as long as it follows proper HR procedures, which will include avoiding the use of prohibited practices ( i. e., a renovator could do the HR following the PD Plan).

Q: Both HR and renovators would have performance based standards, while HR also has PD requirements. But either HR or renovation firm could do the work? ( Gary) A: Yes.

Q: Is it an " independent 3rd party" doing the PD? ( Bob) A: PD could be on the staff at the HR firm. They don't have to be " independent 3rd party."

Q: Regarding training and certification of supervisors and PDs   is there some 3rd party testing of supervisors? ( Kerra) A: 3rd party testing would be required. Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 9, 2003   Page 5 Q: What about 3rd party testing for PDs? ( Kerra) A: Yes, EPA will consider 3rd party testing.

Q: What about 3rd party PDs? An HR or renovation firm may employ their own PD for developing design specs. Can that same firm also employ their own LSTs to clear their work? ( Gary) A: An Occupant Protection Plan ( OPP) is currently required, Supervisors and PDs do that now. EPA would be interested in input regarding in house vs. 3rd party LSTs.

Q: I understand that it's a supervisors and PD issue now. But, if EPA requires a PD for HR, it's very little change as far as I can see. Is there an implied conflict of interest ( COI) if the person is designing the project, turning it around to a person to do the abatement, and then clearing it with their own people? Did any discussion address the " industry feeding on regulation" aspect? ( Gary) A: Under current framework, PD could be employed by the firm doing the work.

Comment: There's an historic perspective on this COI issue re. asbestos. Issues arose when PDs would plan, design, and abate asbestos. Now, the PD can NOT be the contractor. ( Gary)

Q: Will states continue to be able to have more stringent programs under 40 CFR? ( Gary) A: Yes, states can continue to be more stringent than the federal program.

Q: How will this impact the 406 Pre Renovation Education rule? ( Tom) A: Hopefully, we will see more compliance with the 406 program under this new framework. EPA is also considering some changes to the 406 rule, developing a more targeted brochure, etc.

Q: Who's the EPA point of contact on 406? [ Two states ( Iowa and Kansas) and 1 tribe have/ are seeking authorization for 406.] ( Tom) A: Mike Wilson.

Comment: Kerra submitted the following written questions on the LBP Certification/ Training framework.

Additional Written Questions on the LBP Certification Training/ Framework ( Kerra)

Q: " Is it EPA's proposal that all renovation companies that work on pre 1978 housing be certified firms?" Will it be one time only or will renewal be necessary? What is the purpose of certifying renovation companies? Under that requirement, will landlords have to become certified firms?" ( Kerra) A: Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 9, 2003   Page 6 Q: " Will the revised supervisor training still address liability and insurance issues for lead hazard reduction activities?" ( Kerra) A:

Q: " Will the third party certification exam still apply to certified Supervisors or will it be revised and required for Project Designer certification?" ( Kerra) A:

Q: " Please explain what options EPA is considering for on the job training for leadhazard reduction workers. Will a certified supervisor need to be present at all times for, say, 40 hours of on the job training?" ( Kerra) A:

Q: " Is EPA planning to include power washing as a prohibited work practice? Typically this activity will cause paint chips to migrate to adjacent properties." ( Kerra) A:

Q: " Is EPA considering requiring a lead hazard reduction if a risk assessment found lead hazards at a property?" ( Kerra) A:

Q: " Will EPA require clearance with laboratory analysis after renovation in a property where a child ( 6 or under) resides or visits regularly ( targeting the protection for children)? Is EPA or other states facing any barriers to such a requirement?" ( Kerra) A:

Q: " Is EPA considering requiring clearance based on the age of the home? Example: Homes built before 1960 have a much greater chance of containing LBP than homes built 1960 1978." ( Kerra) A:

Q: " If a renovation fails clearance, will it be the renovation company's responsibility to re clean until clearance is achieved or will they be required to hire a certified supervisor to re clean and obtain clearance?" ( Kerra) A:

Q: " What requirements is EPA considering for Lead Hazard reduction in properties were an EBL Child has been identified? For instance some states may require certified abatement workers to perform lead hazard reduction in that property." Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 9, 2003   Page 7 ( Kerra) A: Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 9, 2003   Page 8 3. Summary Discussion, Qs & As, and Comments on Research Projects Underway Colormetric Swab Test Kits HUD is conducting a study of the ability of these swab tests to ID LBP. Should it be determined that swab tests are effective, home owners may test on disturbed surfaces at low cost. If not effective, then the only ways to determine the presence of LBP remain the higher cost methods of XRF testing or laboratory analysis of paint samples.

Q: If the swabs are not effective, should the framework discussed be applied only to pre 50/ 60 housing? Or just to multi family dwellings? ( i. e, where there is still a greater likelihood of LBP?) ( Mike) A: Even if the swab test does work, EPA may want to explore moving the emphasis to pre 50/ 60 housing. If EPA is interested in reducing childhood exposure, he recommends focusing on pre 50 housing. ( Barry) Echoes Barry's point  focus on pre 50 housing. ( Kerra) [ Note: Kerra submitted additional written comments/ questions on swab tests, which are provided immediately below.]

Additional Written Comments/ Questions Concerning Swab Tests ( Kerra)

" Pending the results of the swab study, is EPA considering the following for renovation activities: ( a) Allowing supervisors to determine whether or not LBP is present with a swab. ( b) Conduct either renovation or lead hazard reduction based on the results of that swab. ( c) Perform a visual clearance on this work and call it ` good.'" ( Kerra)

Q: " Is EPA considering restrictions to prevent supervisor's from finding a way to either falsify the results of the swab to avoid the work practice prohibitions and/ or clearance or scare the property owners into paying extra for lead hazard reduction when it isn't necessary?" ( Kerra) A:

Use of Electrostatic Clothes (" Swiffers")

EPA is studying whether swiffers could be used for cleaning and determining if the job clears and passes the lead hazard standard. The research is not complete, but there is some preliminary evidence that swiffers perform better than dust wipe sampling in picking up lead dust, and may be more effective in cleaning surfaces to a level under the 40 micrograms standard. [ Also, a dust wipe sample is limited to 1 sq. foot surfaces, while a swiffer would be used over the whole work area, so greater assurance that the levels would be less than 40 micrograms.] A swiffer test could reinforce the idea of renovation with voluntary dust sampling  so not only cleanup, but also Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 9, 2003   Page 9 clearance. The overarching question is, how clean should the swiffer be after covering the entire work area? ( Mike)

Q: Use a swiffer with a visual comparison? On bare floors, or window sills, or walls, or carpets? ( Gary) A: First the visual, then a final swiffer pass through over the entire work area ( although looking at carpeting, more than likely it will be on bare floors; not sure about window sills).

Q: Are there any test glitches with swiffer versus a lab ( e. g., laboratory digestibility of wipes)? ( Bob) A: EPA is envisioning setting a swiffer standard. After the person conducts the swiffer pass through, if their lead count is less than the EPA standard, than s/ he is done. No lab analysis is anticipated.

Q: Are swiffer tests in conflict with HUD section 1012/ 1013. Has EPA sought contact from HUD? Particularly re. renovation and potential COI issue. ( Bob) A: No, EPA has not been in formal contact with HUD at this time. But EPA thinks that 75 percent of the requirements are similar  it's renovation that is different.

Q: Is EPA planning on making any kind of national data base of renovation forms available to states ( e. g., based on SIC or NAICS code)? This is a monumental undertaking to track down and certify implementation and phase in of this new program  will have significant non compliance for many years to come. ( Gary) A: EPA will think about this. Mike recognizes that compliance would be an issue.

Q: Will EPA try to classify renovation firms? ( Gary) A: EPA is open to suggestions  now thinking that any frm that disturbs surface over some deminimis level.

Comment: Kerra submitted the following written comments/ questions on the swiffer.

Additional Written Comments/ Questions Concerning Electrostatic Wipe " Swiffer" Study for Clearance ( Kerra)

" Allowing a certified supervisor to detect LBP with a swab and perform ` Swiffer' clearance for a renovation almost removes the need to have a certified LBP Inspector Discipline, unless the requirements and duties are dictated in the rule." ( Kerra)

Q: " What age properties are being included in this study?" ( Kerra) A:

Q: " What is the geographic location of properties in this study?" ( Kerra) Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 9, 2003   Page 10 A:

Q: " Is the study considering the differences in concentration of lead in paint at different properties?" ( Kerra) A:

Q: " Is EPA considering the reliability of ` Swiffer' clearance in areas of high environmental lead contamination such as the Tar Creek Superfund site in Oklahoma?" ( Kerra) A:

Comment: EPA will have to be able to justify changes & their associated costs, given the decline in lead that's attributable to lead phase out in gasoline, paint, mining etc. ( Jack)

Mike agreed  the preamble will have to justify all changes. Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 9, 2003   Page 11 4. Further Information as Requested in Advance of May 15, 2003, Follow up Call Background on Blood Lead Levels Over Time, and Timing of Changes in Threshold There are several indications that lead levels have dropped over time ( i. e., that the lead problem has decreased over time):

° CDC's recent data halved the number of kids w/ elevated lead levels   from 890,000 to 425,000. ° HUD's 2000 National Survey showed that incidence of LBP in pre 78 housing dropped from 67 percent to 40 percent; in housing built between 1960 and 1978, incidence dropped from about 62 percent to 24 percent. ° An estimated 18 percent of these homes had kids under age 6  so 18 percent of 24 percent is less than 5 percent ( i. e., very low percent).

Examples of Successful Approaches in Addressing Lead based Paint and Reducing Lead Poisonings States and localities have developed several different types of approaches in response to their specific needs and circumstances. There are a range of approaches used by housing and health departments at the state and local level to improve lead safety. For example, some states and localities have established lead hazard reduction or essential maintenance practices requirements and programs. Training for property owners and contractors is offered, and then interventions using specific work practices must be performed in target housing based on certain trigger events ( e. g., at occupancy turn over in rental housing). In contrast, some local jurisdictions have targeted specific areas/ neighborhoods with high risk housing for lead hazard reduction programs and assistance. Key considerations are local capacity and infrastructure, nature of housing stock and its condition, and the extent of presence of lead based paint. The National Conference of State Legislatures is a good resource for learning more about the different approaches taken and lessons from them.

Also, HUD administers a national lead hazard control grant program that supports state and local demonstration programs. More information about these grantees and lessons from their efforts can be found at www. hud. gov/ offices/ lead.

Further information is available at EPA's National Lead Information Center Clearinghouse at www. epa. gov/ lead/ nlic, and EPA's Lead Program at http:// www. epa. gov/ lead.

Valuable information and guidance about lead safe work practices can be found in EPA's training course, " Minimizing Lead Based Paint Hazards During Renovation, Remodeling, and Painting," and " Lead Paint Safety: A Field Guide for Painting, Home Maintenance, and Renovation." Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 9, 2003   Page 12 Determining the Appropriate Classification of an Activity When Definitions Overlap It depends on the intent of the job and the type of work the consumer requests. With respect to window replacement, for example, if the purpose of the job is to address a known lead based paint hazard by replacing the window, then the activity would be classified as abatement. If the purpose of the job is to improve the energy efficiency of the home by replacing some or all of the existing windows and there is no information about the presence of lead based paint, then the replacement would be considered renovation.

Information about the Success of R& R with Lead safe Work Practices in Reducing Lead Hazards EPA does not yet have formal research results about the performance of renovation jobs that follow lead safe work practices. However, the lead safe work practices guidance and training issued by EPA are based on field research on lead exposure and lead hazards generated during renovation and remodeling activities ( see EPA 747 R 96 005). Draft Deliberative  Do Not Cite or Quote   May 9, 2003   Page 13 5. Workgroup Participants on the May 1, 2003, State, Local and Tribal Government Stakeholder Group Call Legislators The Honorable Jack Barraclough, Idaho House of Representatives State Programs Barry Brooks Kansas Department of Health and Environment Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program Tom Morey Kansas Department of Health and Environment Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program Gary Flentge Illinois Department of Public Health Environmental Lead Program Bob Ford Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Air Quality Kerra Rouderbush Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division Housing Programs Eileen Hagan Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development Linda Thompson Council of State Community Development Programs Washington, DC


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 15, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8605-8607]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3041]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1113; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-121-AD;
Amendment 39-16603; AD 2011-04-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 and 440) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    During flight-testing of a wing anti-ice piccolo tube containing
a deliberate small breach, it was determined that the wing leading
edge thermal switches Part Number (P/N) 601R59320-1 were not
detecting the consequent bleed leak at the design threshold. As a
result, Airworthiness Limitation (AWL) tasks, consisting of a
functional check of the wing leading edge thermal switches (P/N
601R59320-1) and an inspection of the wing anti-ice duct piccolo
tubes on aeroplanes with these switches installed, have been
introduced. These tasks will limit exposure to dormant failure of
the wing leading edge thermal switches in the event of piccolo tube
failure, which could potentially compromise the structural integrity
of the wing leading edge and the effectiveness of the wing anti-ice
system.
* * * * *
The unsafe condition is loss of control of the airplane. We are issuing
this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 22, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 22,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 15, 2010
(75 FR 69609). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for
the specified products. The MCAI states:

    During flight-testing of a wing anti-ice piccolo tube containing
a deliberate small breach, it was determined that the wing leading
edge thermal switches Part Number (P/N) 601R59320-1 were not
detecting the consequent bleed leak at the design threshold. As a
result, Airworthiness Limitation (AWL) tasks, consisting of a
functional check of the wing leading edge thermal switches (P/N
601R59320-1) and an inspection of the wing anti-ice duct piccolo
tubes on aeroplanes with these switches installed, have been
introduced. These tasks will limit exposure to dormant failure of
the wing leading edge thermal switches in the event of piccolo tube
failure, which could potentially compromise the structural integrity
of the wing leading edge and the effectiveness of the wing anti-ice
system.

    This directive mandates revision of the approved maintenance
schedule to include the above referenced tasks, including phase-in
schedules that supersede the phase-in schedules specified in the AWL
tasks.
    Note: Thermal switches, P/N 601R59320-1, were installed in
production on aircraft Serial Numbers (S/N) 7213 and subsequent.
Service Bulletin 601R-30-022 covered in-service installation of
these switches on aircraft S/Ns 7003 through 7212.

The unsafe condition is loss of control of the airplane. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a Note within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 628 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD to the U.S. operators to be $53,380, or $85 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2011-04-03 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-16603. Docket No. FAA-
2010-1113; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-121-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March
22, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 and 440) airplanes; certificated in any
category; serial numbers 7003 and subsequent.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    During flight-testing of a wing anti-ice piccolo tube containing
a deliberate small breach, it was determined that the wing leading
edge thermal switches Part Number (P/N) 601R59320-1 were not
detecting the consequent bleed leak at the design threshold. As a
result, Airworthiness Limitation (AWL) tasks, consisting of a
functional check of the wing leading edge thermal switches (P/N
601R59320-1) and an inspection of the wing anti-ice duct piccolo
tubes on aeroplanes with these switches installed, have been
introduced. These tasks will limit exposure to dormant failure of
the wing leading edge thermal switches in the event of piccolo tube
failure, which could potentially compromise the structural integrity
of the wing leading edge and the effectiveness of the wing anti-ice
system.
* * * * *
The unsafe condition is loss of control of the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Actions

    (g) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the Airworthiness Limitations section (ALS) of the maintenance
program by incorporating Task C36-20-133-03 specified in Bombardier
Temporary Revision (TR) 2A-50, dated November 17, 2009; and Task
C30-10-133-01 specified in Bombardier TR 2A-49, dated November 17,
2009; into Appendix A, ``Certification Maintenance Requirements,''
of Part 2 of the

Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM). For
these tasks, the initial compliance time starts at the applicable
time specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
Thereafter, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD, no
alternative functional check of the thermal switch or detailed
visual inspection of the piccolo tube may be approved.

    Note 1:  The actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD may be
done by inserting a copy of Bombardier TR 2A-49 and TR 2A-50, both
dated November 17, 2009, into the Appendix A of Part 2 of the
Bombardier CL-600-2B19 MRM. When these TRs have been included in
Appendix A of Part 2 of the general revisions of the MRM, the
general revisions may be inserted in the MRM, provided that the
relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in
Bombardier TR 2A-49 and TR 2A-50, both dated November 17, 2009.

    (1) For Task C36-20-133-03, the initial compliance time is
before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight hours or within 7
months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (2) For Task C30-10-133-01, the initial compliance time is
before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight hours on the piccolo
tube or within 7 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York, 11590; telephone 516-
228-7300; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC, notify
your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district
office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter
must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-12,
dated May 26, 2010; and Bombardier TR 2A-49, dated November 17,
2009, and Bombardier TR 2A-50, dated November 17, 2009, to Appendix
A, ``Certification Maintenance Requirements,'' of Part 2 of the
Bombardier CL-600-2B19 MRM; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Bombardier Temporary Revision 2A-49, dated
November 17, 2009; and Bombardier Temporary Revision 2A-50, dated
November 17, 2009; to Appendix A, ``Certification Maintenance
Requirements,'' of Part 2 of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance
Requirements Manual; as applicable; to do the actions required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 3, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-3041 Filed 2-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 14 (Thursday, January 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3267-3268]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00968]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74067; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Delay the Implementation Date of Rule Change
SR-CBOE-2014-040

January 15, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 7, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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
Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to delay the implementation date of rule
change SR-CBOE-2014-040. There is no proposed change to the rule
language.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx),
at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On August 13, 2014, CBOE Rules 6.53(y) and 15.2A were approved by
the Securities Exchange Commission (SR-CBOE-2014-040).\5\ Rule 6.53(y)
added a definition of a tied to stock order.\6\ Rule 15.2A requires,
among other things, that each Trading Permit Holder, (``TPH''), on the
business day following the order execution date, report to the Exchange
certain information regarding the executed stock or convertible
security legs of Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'') orders, stock-
option orders and other Tied to Stock Orders that the TPH executed on
the Exchange that trading day. CBOE stated that it would consider
feedback from TPHs regarding the timing of the implementation date of
SR-CBOE-2014-040.\7\ Based on that feedback, the Exchange seeks to
extend the implementation date of SR-CBOE-2014-040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-72839 (August 13,
2014), 79 FR 49123 (August 19, 2014) (Approval Order) (SR-CBOE-2014-
040).
    \6\ Rule 6.53(y) provides that an order is tied to stock if, at
the time the Trading Permit Holder representing the order on the
Exchange receives the order (if the order is a customer order) or
initiates the order (if the order is a proprietary order), has
knowledge that the order is coupled with an order(s) for the
underlying stock or a security convertible into the underlying stock
(``convertible security'' and, together with underlying stock,
``non-option'').
    \7\ See letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Laura G. Dickman, Senior Attorney, CBOE, dated August 6, 2014
(``CBOE Letter II'') at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to SR-CBOE-2014-040, the Exchange issued CBOE Regulatory
Circular RG14-171 on December 10, 2014, to announce the implementation
date of Rules 6.53(y) and 15.2A. However, SR-CBOE-2014-040 required the
Exchange to announce the implementation date no later than 90 days
following the effective date of the filing (i.e., by November 12,
2014).\8\ Therefore, even though the rule filing was approved on August
13, 2014, TPHs were unable to fully assess the impact of the rule
filing until RG14-171 was issued on December 10, 2014. In addition, the
CBOE Regulatory Division held a session with TPHs on December 19, 2014,
to discuss the implementation of Rules 6.53(y) and 15.2A.\9\ TPHs
requested clarity regarding several aspects of Rules 6.53(y) and 15.2A;
however, several issues remain outstanding. Furthermore, TPHs expressed
their inability to plan technological modifications without further
clarity. Although the Exchange plans to hold future training sessions,
the Exchange does not believe TPHs are in a position to comply with the
requirements of Rules 6.53(y) and 15.2A by the current implementation
date of February 9, 2015. Therefore, the Exchange seeks to extend the

implementation date of SR-CBOE-2014-040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ SR-CBOE-2014-040 was approved on August 13, 2014, but the
implementation date was not announced until December 10, 2014.
    \9\ See CBOE Regulatory Circular RG14-185--Session on December
19, 2014 Regarding Tied to Stock Order Marking and Reporting
Requirements (December 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule in a Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 90 days
following the effective date of this filing. The implementation date
will be no later than 180 days following the effective date of this
filing.
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.\10\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \11\ 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) \12\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes Rules 6.53(y) and 15.2A will
aid the Exchange's efforts to prevent fraudulent and manipulate acts
and practice with respect to tied to stock orders, because it will
improve the Exchange's ability to tie executed non-option legs to the
applicable option orders that were separately submitted for execution.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the data provided pursuant to Rules
6.53(y) and 15.2A will help to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market, but only if TPHs have a better
understanding of their obligations because a better understanding is
likely to lead to more accurate data, which will permit CBOE to more
efficiently and effectively conduct its regulatory surveillance.
Therefore, the Exchange believes that if Rules 6.53(y) and 15.2A is
implemented on February 9, 2015, TPHs and CBOE will be negatively
impacted.

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

    CBOE 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.

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 \13\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 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-2015-004 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-2015-004. 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 Web site (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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090 on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-004, and should be
submitted on or before February 12, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00968 Filed 1-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2971-2976]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00871]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93955; File No. SR-CBOE-2021-076]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fees Schedule

January 12, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 30, 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 Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule in connection with
certain surcharges, a trading floor-related fee and its Global Trading
Hours (``GTH'') Cboe Volatility Index (``VIX'') options/VIX weekly
(``VIXW'') options and S&P 500 Index (``SPX'') options/SPX weekly
(``SPXW'') LMM Incentive Programs, effective January 2, 2022.
    First, the Exchange proposes to amend the Execution Surcharge fee
in Rate Table--Underlying Symbol List A of the Fees Schedule applicable
to non-Market-Maker orders \3\ executed electronically in SPXW options.
Currently, a surcharge fee of $0.13 per contract is assessed for non-
Market-Maker orders executed electronically in SPXW. The proposed rule
change slightly increases this surcharge fee from $0.13 per contract to
$0.14 per contract. The Exchange notes that the proposed SPXW Execution
Surcharge fee is still less than the Execution Surcharge fee assessed
for SPX and SPESG transactions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Non-Market-Makers include Customers (capacity ``C''),
Clearing Trading Permit Holders (capacity ``F''), Non-Clearing
Trading Permit Holder Affiliates (capacity ``L''), Broker-Dealers
(capacity ``B''), Joint Back-Offices (capacity ``J''), Non-Trading
Permit Holder Market-Makers (capacity ``N''), and Professionals
(capacity ``U''). Capacity ``M'' applies to Market-Makers.
    \4\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Rate Table--Underlying
Symbol List A, Execution Surcharge, SPX (not including SPXW) and
SPESG, which assesses a surcharge fee of $0.21 per contract for non-
Market-Maker orders in SPX and SPESG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange proposes to marginally increase the Index
License Surcharge fees currently applicable to orders executed in SPX
(including SPXW) options in Rate Table--Underlying Symbol List A and to
orders executed in MSCI Emerging Markets Index (``MXEF'') options and
MSCI EAFE Index (``MXEA'') options (collectively, ``MSCI options'') in
Rate Table--All Products Excluding Underlying Symbol List A.
Specifically, the Exchange currently assesses an Index License
Surcharge fee of $0.17 per contract for non-Customer orders executed in
SPX/SPXW and an Index License Surcharge fee of $0.10 per contract for
non-Customer orders executed in MSCI options. The proposed rule change
increases the Index License Surcharge fee applicable to orders executed
in SPX/SPXW from $0.17 per contract to $0.18 per contract and the Index
License Surcharge fee applicable to orders executed in MSCI options
from $0.10 per contract to $0.12 per contract. The Exchange notes that
the Index License Surcharge fees in place for SPX/SPXW and MSCI options
are designed to recoup some of the costs associated with the licenses
for these indexes.\5\ The Exchange has recently renewed its license
arrangements for its SPX and MSCI index licenses and, as a result, the
proposed rule change amends the Index License Surcharge fees for SPX/
SPXW and MSCI options in order to continue to offset some of the costs
associated with the licenses for these indexes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Release Nos. 74854 (April 30, 2015),
80 FR 26124 (May 6, 2015) (SR-CBOE-2015-041); and 74422 (March 4,
2015), 80 FR 12680 (March 10, 2015) (SR-CBOE-2015-020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange proposes to amend a badge type in the Access
Badges table of the Fees Schedule. Currently, a $70.00 fee is assessed
for Clerk badges to access the Exchange's trading floor. The Exchange
proposes to extend this badge fee to clerks and other Trading Permit
Hold (``TPH'') employees in order to cover TPH employees that also
receive an access badge to the Exchange's trading floor (e.g., TPH
technical support personnel). The Exchange notes that badge access is
optional and other TPH employees may continue to be admitted to the
trading floor if signed in by authorized TPH personnel.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend the rebates provided under
its GTH1 and GTH2 VIX/VIXW LMM Incentive Programs and amend certain
quote width categories under its GTH2 SPX/SPXW LMM Incentive Program.
In particular, the Exchange offers, among other LMM incentive programs,
a GTH1 VIX/VIXW LMM Incentive Program that applies during GTH from 7:15
p.m. CST to 2:00 a.m. CST (``GTH1'') and a GTH2 VIX/VIXW LMM Incentive
Program and GTH2 SPX/SPXW LMM Incentive Program that apply during GTH
from 2:00 a.m. CST to 8:15 a.m. CST (``GTH2''). The Exchange notes that
these LMM incentive programs in the Fees Schedule provide a rebate to
TPHs with LMM appointments to the respective incentive program that
meet certain quoting standards in VIX/VIXW and SPX/SPXW, as applicable,
in a month. The Exchange notes that meeting or exceeding the quoting
standards in VIX/VIXW or SPX/SPXW to receive the applicable rebates (as
currently offered and as proposed; described in further detail below)
is optional for an LMM appointed to one of the GTH VIX/VIXW and SPX/
SPXW LMM Incentive Programs. Rather, an LMM appointed to an incentive
program is eligible to receive the corresponding rebate if it satisfies
the applicable quoting standards (as currently offered and as proposed,
described in further detail below), which the Exchange believes
encourages an LMM to provide liquidity in the applicable program's
products during GTH. The Exchange may consider other exceptions to the
programs' quoting standards based on demonstrated legal or regulatory
requirements or other mitigating circumstances. In calculating whether
an LMM appointed to a GTH VIX/VIXW or GTH2 SPX/SPXW incentive program
meets the applicable program's quoting standards each month, the
Exchange excludes from the calculation in that month the business day
in which the LMM missed meeting or exceeding the quoting standards in
the highest number of series.
    An LMM appointed to one of the GTH VIX/VIXW LMM Incentive Programs
must provide continuous electronic quotes during GTH1 or GTH2, as
applicable, that meet or exceed the quoting standards under the
applicable program in at least 99% of each of the VIX and VIXW series,
90% of the time in a given month in order to receive a rebate for that
month in the amount of $15,000 for VIX and $10,000 for VIXW (or pro-
rated amount if an appointment begins after the first trading day of
the month or ends prior to the last trading day of the month) for that
month. The Exchange now proposes to increase each rebate amount
received under the GTH1 and GTH2 VIX/VIXW LMM Incentive Programs for
meeting the applicable quoting standards in a given month in VIX and
VIXW, by slightly increasing the rebate amount for VIX from $15,000 to
$20,000 and in VIXW, by slightly increasing the rebate amount from
$10,000 to $15,000. The Exchange notes that no changes are being made
to the quoting standards under the GTH1 or GTH2 VIX/VIXW LMM Incentive
Programs. The Exchange wishes to

further incentivize the LMMs appointed to the GTH VIX/VIXW LMM
Incentive Programs to provide significant liquidity in VIX/VIXW options
during all of GTH by meeting the applicable quoting standards currently
under each program in order to receive the proposed increased rebates.
    An LMM appointed to the GTH2 SPX/SPXW LMM Incentive Program must
provide continuous electronic quotes during GTH2 that meet or exceed
the quoting standards, provided below, in at least 85% of each of the
SPX and SPXW series, 90% of the time in a given month in order to
receive a rebate for that month in the amount of $15,000 for SPX and
$35,000 for SPXW (or pro-rated amount if an appointment begins after
the first trading day of the month or ends prior to the last trading
day of the month) for that month.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Expiring                  Near term                 Mid term                  Long term
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Premium level                        7 days or less           8 days to 60 days        61 days to 270 days      271 days to 500 days
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Width         Size        Width         Size        Width         Size        Width         Size
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              VIX Value at Prior Close <20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0.00-$5.00.....................................        $0.35           25        $0.40           15        $0.60            5        $1.20            5
$5.01-$15.00....................................         0.60           20         0.60           20         1.50           10         2.00            5
$15.01-$50.00...................................         1.20           15         2.00           15         2.00           10         4.00            5
$50.01-$100.00..................................         6.00           10         4.00           10         3.00           10         5.00            5
$100.01-$200.00.................................        15.00            1         5.00            5         4.00            5         6.00            5
Greater than $200.00............................        20.00            1         8.00            1        12.00            1        50.00            1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           VIX Value at Prior Close from 20-30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0.00-$5.00.....................................         0.60           15         0.80           10         0.75            5         2.00            5
$5.01-$15.00....................................         1.00           15         1.00           15         2.20            5         3.00            5
$15.01-$50.00...................................         2.50           10         3.50           10          3.0            5         5.00            5
$50.01-$100.00..................................        10.00           10         7.00           10         3.50            5         7.00            5
$100.01-$200.00.................................        18.00            1         8.00            5         6.00            5        10.00            5
Greater than $200.00............................        25.00            1        12.00            1         2.00            1        60.00            1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         VIX Value at Prior Close 30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0.00-$5.00.....................................         0.90           10         1.00           10         1.00            5         3.00            5
$5.01-$15.00....................................         2.50           10         2.50           10         3.00            5         4.00            5
$15.01-$50.00...................................         4.00           10         5.00           10         5.00            5         8.00            5
$50.01-$100.00..................................        12.00            5        10.00            5         4.50            3        10.00            1
$100.01-$200.00.................................        20.00            1        12.00            5        15.00            1        18.00            1
Greater than 200.00.............................        30.00            1        25.00            1        30.00            1        70.00            1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to marginally widen certain quotes widths
applicable when the VIX Index value at the prior close is less than 20
for SPX/SPXW options expiring in 7 days or less as follows: Widen the
quote width that corresponds to the $5.01 to $15.00 premium level from
$0.60 to $0.80; widen the quote width that corresponds to a premium
level of $15.01 to $50.00 from $1.20 to $1.80; and widen the quote
width that corresponds to the premium level of $50.01 to $100.00 from
$6.00 to $7.50. The Exchange notes that, generally, demand for and
participation in SPX/SPXW options decreases as time to expiration
decreases and, as a result, it becomes more difficult for LMMs to quote
within specified widths and sizes for SPX/SPXW options that expire in 7
days or less. As such, the proposed rule change is designed to slightly
ease the quoting requirements under the expiration category of 7 days
or less (when the VIX Index value is less than 20 at the prior close)
by marginally widen certain quote widths in order to better enable and
encourage LMMs to satisfy the quoting standards to receive the current
monthly rebate applicable to SPX and/or SPXW.
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.\6\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \7\ 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
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes amending the Execution Surcharge fee
applicable to non-Market-Maker electronic orders in SPXW is reasonable
as such fee is still lower than the Execution Surcharge fee applicable
to non-Market-Maker orders transacted in SPX and SPESG.\9\
Additionally, the proposed increase helps to ensure that there is
reasonable cost equivalence between the primary execution channels for
SPXW. More specifically, the SPXW Surcharge fee was adopted to minimize
the cost differentials between manual and electronic executions, which
is in the interest of the Exchange as it must both maintain robust
electronic systems as well as provide for economic opportunity for
floor brokers to continue to conduct business, as they serve an
important function in achieving price discovery and customer
executions.\10\ The Exchange believes the proposed change is also
equitable and not unfairly

discriminatory as it will continue to apply uniformly to all non-
Market-Maker orders executed electronically in SPXW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 4.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71295 (January 14,
2014) 79 FR 3443 (January 21, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2013-129).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to increase the amount
of the Index License Surcharge fees for orders in SPX/SPXW and MSCI
options as the proposed increases are consistent with the purpose of
such surcharge fees as they are intended to continue to help recoup
some of the costs associated with the license for such products in
light of recently renewed license arrangements between the Exchange and
the applicable index providers. The proposed Index License Surcharge
fees are also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
surcharge fees will continue to be assessed uniformly for all non-
Customer orders in SPX/SPXW and MSCI options, as applicable.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to extend the access
badge fee to other TPH employees, in addition to clerks, is reasonable
as it is designed to cover TPH employees that also receive an access
badge to the Exchange's trading floor (e.g., TPH technical support
personnel). The Exchange again notes that badge access is optional and
other TPH employees may continue to be admitted to the trading floor if
signed in by TPH personnel with badge access. The extension of the
access badge fee to other TPH employees is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will apply uniformly to all TPH employees
that opt to receive an access badge.
    Regarding the GTH VIX/VIXW LMM Incentive Programs and the GTH2 SPX/
SPXW LMM Incentive Program, generally, the Exchange believes it is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to continue to
offer these financial incentives, including as amended, to LMMs
appointed to the programs, because it benefits all market participants
trading in the corresponding products during GTH. These incentive
programs encourage the LMMs appointed to such programs to satisfy the
applicable quoting standards, which may increase liquidity and provide
more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. Indeed, the Exchange
notes that these LMMs serve a crucial role in providing quotes and the
opportunity for market participants to trade VIX/VIXW and SPX/SPXW
options, as applicable, which can lead to increased volume, providing
for robust markets. The Exchange ultimately offers the LMM Incentive
Programs, as amended, to sufficiently incentivize LMMs appointed to
each incentive program to provide key liquidity and active markets in
the corresponding program products during the corresponding trading
sessions. The Exchange believes that these incentive programs, as
amended, will continue to encourage increased quoting to add liquidity
in each of the corresponding program products, thereby protecting
investors and the public interest. The Exchange also notes that an LMM
appointed to an incentive program may undertake added costs each month
to satisfy that heightened quoting standards (e.g., having to purchase
additional logical connectivity).
    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed increases to
the rebates applicable to VIX and VIXW provided under the GTH VIX/VIXW
LMM Incentive programs are reasonably designed to continue to
incentivize an appointed LMM to meet the applicable quoting standards
for VIX/VIXW options during GTH, thereby providing liquid and active
markets, which facilitates tighter spreads, increased trading
opportunities, and overall enhanced market quality to the benefit of
all market participants. The Exchange further believes that the
proposed rule change to amend the rebate amount received for VIX
($20,000) and VIXW options ($15,000) is reasonable because it is
comparable to and within the range of the rebates offered by other LMM
Incentive Programs. For example, the GTH SPX/SPXW LMM Programs
currently offers $15,000 for SPX and $35,000 SPXW options in which the
applicable quoting standards are met in a given month. The Exchange
believes the proposed rebates applicable to the GTH VIX/VIXW LMM
Incentive Programs are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because they will continue to apply equally to any TPH that is
appointed as an LMM to the GTH1 and GTH2 VIX/VIXW LMM Incentive
Programs.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to slightly ease the
quoting requirements under the GTH2 SPX/SPXW LMM Incentive Program by
marginally widen certain quote widths for SPX/SPXW options that expire
in 7 days or less, wherein it becomes more difficult for LMMs to quote
within specified widths, in order to better enable and encourage LMMs
to satisfy the quoting standards to receive the current monthly rebate
applicable to SPX and/or SPXW. As such, the Exchange believes the
slightly wider quote widths are reasonably designed to facilitate LMMs
appointed to the GTH2 SPX/SPXW LMM Incentive Program in meeting the
heightened quoting standards (in order to receive the current rebate
offered under the program) by increasing their quoting activity and
posting tighter spreads and more aggressive quotes in SPX/SPXW options
during GTH2. An increase in quoting activity and tighter quotes tends
to signal additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants, which benefits all investors by deepening the
Exchange's liquidity pool, potentially providing even greater execution
incentives and opportunities, offering additional flexibility for all
investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of price
discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor
protection. The Exchange also believes that the proposed widths are
reasonable because they remain generally aligned with the current
heightened quoting standards in the program, as the proposed widths are
only marginally larger than the current widths. The Exchange believes
that the proposed increase in certain quote widths under the GTH2 SPX/
SPXW LMM Incentive Program is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because such quote widths will continue to apply equally to any and all
TPHs with LMM appointments to the GTH2 SPX/SPXW LMM Incentive Program
that seek to meet the program's heightened quoting standards in order
to receive the current rebates offered under the program.
    Additionally, the Exchange notes if an LMM appointed to the GTH
VIX/VIXW LMM Incentive Programs or the GTH2 SPX/SPXW LMM Incentive
Program does not satisfy the corresponding quoting standards for any
given month, then it simply will not receive the rebate(s) offered by
the respective program for that month.

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 intramarket or intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes in connection
with surcharge fees will impose any burden on intramarket competition
because each applies uniformly to all similarly situated TPHs in a
uniform manner (i.e., to all non-Market-Maker electronic executions in
SPXW and to all non-Customer executions in SPX/SPXW or MSCI options).
Additionally, the access badge fee will apply uniformly to all other
TPH employees in the same manner as it applies to all clerk badges
today. The Exchange again notes that badge access is optional and

other TPH employees may continue to be admitted to the trading floor if
signed in by TPH personnel with badge access. Additionally, the
proposed changes to existing GTH VIX/VIXW and SPX/SPXW LMM Incentive
Programs will apply to all LMMs appointed to the applicable program
classes (i.e., VIX/VIXW and SPX/SPXW) in a uniform manner. To the
extent these LMMs appointed to an incentive program receive a benefit
that other market participants do not, as stated, these LMMs in their
role as Mark-Makers on the Exchange have different obligations and are
held to different standards. For example, Market-Makers play a crucial
role in providing active and liquid markets in their appointed
products, thereby providing a robust market which benefits all market
participants. Such Market-Makers also have obligations and regulatory
requirements that other participants do not have. The Exchange also
notes that an LMM appointed to an incentive program may undertake added
costs each month that it needs to satisfy that heightened quoting
standards (e.g., having to purchase additional logical connectivity).
The Exchange also notes that the incentive programs are designed to
attract additional order flow to the Exchange, wherein greater
liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities, tighter spreads, and added market transparency and price
discovery, and signals to other market participants to direct their
order flow to those markets, thereby contributing to robust levels of
liquidity.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed amendments to the surcharges and the LMM Incentive Programs,
apply only to Exchange proprietary products, which are traded
exclusively on Cboe Options. Additionally, the Exchange notes that at
least one other options exchange assesses a badge fee for employees of
on-floor registrants.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See BOX FEE Schedule, Section VIII C, Trading Floor
Participant Fees, which assesses a $100 badge fee for ``all other
registered on-floor persons employed by or associated with a Floor
Market Maker or Floor Broker''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market. TPHs have numerous alternative venues that they may
participate on and direct their order flow, including 15 other options
exchanges, as well as off-exchange venues, where competitive products
are available for trading. Based on publicly available information, no
single options exchange has more than 15% of the market share.\12\
Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the
execution of option order flow. Indeed, participants can readily choose
to send their orders to other exchange, and, additionally off-exchange
venues, if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more
favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \13\ The fact
that this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the
courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C.
Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for
order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S.
national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the
broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide
range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no
exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted'
because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in
the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .''.\14\
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change
imposes any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Volume Summary,
Month-to-Date (December 17, 2021), available at https://www.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \14\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \16\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2021-076 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-2021-076. 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-2021-076 and should be submitted on or before February 9, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-00871 Filed 1-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P