[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 153 (Thursday, August 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44411-44421]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17175]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92599; File No. SR-CBOE-2021-041]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Certain Rules To Accommodate
the Listing and Trading of Micro FLEX Index Options and To Make Other
Clarifying and Nonsubstantive Changes

August 6, 2021.
    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 July 23, 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.\3\ 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\ On August 4, 2021, the Exchange filed Partial Amendment No.
1 to the proposed rule change. The Exchange withdrew Partial
Amendment No. 1 on August 6, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 certain Rules to accommodate the listing and trading of Micro
FLEX Index Options and to make other clarifying and nonsubstantive
changes. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend certain rules
to accommodate the listing and trading of certain FLexible EXchange
(``FLEX'') index options with an index multiplier of one (``Micro FLEX
Index Options''). The Exchange has the authority to list options on
broad-based indexes for which the value of the underlying is at least
100 with an index multiplier of one \4\ and proposes to expand that
authority to list FLEX Index Options on the same indexes with an index
multiplier of one. The Exchange believes Micro FLEX Index Options will
expand investors' choices and flexibility by listing and trading FLEX
Options on larger-valued broad-based indexes, which provide investors
with the ability to gain exposure to the market, with a notional value
of 1/100th of the value of currently available FLEX Index Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 4.11 (definition of micro-option). Currently, the
Exchange has the authority to list options on 13 indexes that
satisfy this criteria: S&P 500 Index, Mini-S&P 500 Index (XSP),
Russell 2000 Index (RUT), Mini-Russell 2000 Index (MRUT), Dow Jones
Industrial Average (DJX), S&P 100 Index (OEX and XEO), S&P 500 ESG
Index (SPESG), MSCI EAFE Index (MXEA), MSCI Emerging Markets Index
(MXEF), Russell 1000 Growth Index (RLG), Russell 1000 Value Index
(RLV), Russell 1000 Index (RUI), and FTSE 100 Mini-Index (UKXM). The
proposed rule change would authorize the Exchange to list Micro FLEX
Index Options on the same 13 indexes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the additional granularity provided by Micro
FLEX Index Options with respect to the prices at which investors may
execute and exercise index options on the Exchange will appeal to
institutional investors by providing them with an additional exchange-
traded tool to manage the positions and associated risk in their
portfolios more precisely based on notional value, which currently may
equal a fraction of a standard contract. For example, suppose an
investor holds a security portfolio of $10,000,000 and desires to hedge
its portfolio with SPX options. In order to hedge the entire portfolio
with SPX options, the investor would need to trade 23.11 contracts
($10,000,000/$432,770).\5\ The nearest whole number of contracts would
be 23 contracts, which would have a total notional value of $9,953,710.
As a result, the investor could only hedge within $46,290 of its
portfolio value with SPX options with an index multiplier of 100 and
would be underhedged. However, with SPX micro-options, the investor
would need to trade 2,310.70 contracts ($10,000,000/$4,327.70). The
nearest whole number of contracts would be 2,311 SPX micro-options,\6\
which would have a total notional value of $10,001,314.70. This will
allow the investor to hedge within $1,315 of its portfolio value.
Therefore, the proposed rule change would permit this investor to hedge
its portfolio more effectively with far greater precision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This assumes an S&P 500 Index value of 4,327.70.
    \6\ An investor could also trade 23 SPX options and 11 micro-
options. We do not, however, expect investors to make two separate
trades in this manner due to the additional price and execution risk
that accompanies two separate trades compared to a single trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes investors may currently execute and exercise
options with this smaller contract multiplier in the unregulated over-
the-counter (``OTC'') options market. The Exchange understands that
investors may prefer to trade such options in a listed environment to
receive the benefits of trading listing options, including (1) enhanced
efficiency in initiating and

closing out position; (2) increased market transparency; and (3)
heightened contra-party creditworthiness due to the role of OCC as
issuer and guarantor of all listed options. The Exchange believes the
proposed rule change may shift liquidity from the OTC market onto the
Exchange, which the Exchange believes would increase market
transparency as well as enhance the process of price discovery
conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow.
    Currently, Rule 4.21(b)(1) states the index multiplier for FLEX
Index Options is 100. The proposed rule change adds that the index
multiplier for FLEX Index Options on broad-based indexes for which the
value of the underlying is at least 100 \7\ may also be one (a ``Micro
FLEX Index Option'') (in addition to the current index multiplier of
100), and that a FLEX Trader must specify when submitting a FLEX Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ These are the same indexes on which the Exchange may list
micro-options (non-FLEX options with an index multiplier of one).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent the Exchange lists a Micro FLEX Index Option on an
index on which it also lists a standard FLEX Index option, it will be
listed with a different trading symbol than the standard index option
with the same underlying index to reduce any potential confusion.\8\
The Exchange believes that the clarity of this approach is appropriate
and transparent. The Exchange recognizes the need to differentiate
Micro FLEX Index Options from standard FLEX Index Options and believes
the proposed rule change will provide the necessary differentiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, a standard FLEX Index Option for index ABC with
an index multiplier of 100 may have symbol 4ABC, while a Micro FLEX
Index Option for index ABC with a multiplier of one may have symbol
4ABC9. Similarly, in the non-FLEX market, a non-FLEX option on index
ABC with an index multiplier of 100 may have symbol ABC, while a
non-FLEX micro-option would have a different symbol (such as ABC9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When submitting a FLEX Order, the submitting FLEX Trader \9\ must
include all required terms of a FLEX Option series.\10\ Pursuant to
current Rule 4.21(b)(1), the submitting FLEX Trader must include the
underlying equity security or index (i.e., the FLEX Option class) on
the FLEX Order. The proposed rule change amends Rule 4.21(b)(1) to
state that if a FLEX Trader specifies an index on a FLEX Order, the
FLEX Trader must also include whether the index option has an index
multiplier of 100 or 1 when identifying the class of FLEX Order. The
Exchange is specifying it may list FLEX Index Option classes with an
index multiplier of either 1 or 100. Therefore, each FLEX Index Option
series in a Micro FLEX Index Option class will include the same
flexible terms as any other FLEX Option series, including strike price,
settlement, expiration date, and exercise style as required by Rule
4.21(b).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A ``FLEX Trader'' is a Trading Permit Holder the Exchange
has approved to trade FLEX Options on the Exchange.
    \10\ These terms include, in addition to the underlying equity
security or index, the type of options (put or call), exercise
style, expiration date, settlement type, and exercise price. See
Rule 4.21(b). A ``FLEX Order'' is an order submitted in FLEX
Options. The submission of a FLEX Order makes the FLEX Option series
in that order eligible for trading. See Rule 5.72(b).
    \11\ As discussed below, these are the terms designated by the
Commission as those that constitute standardized options, and
therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 9(b) of the Act. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 31910 (February 23, 1993), 58 FR 12056 (March 2, 1993)
(``1993 FLEX Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FLEX Micro Options will be traded in the same manner as all other
FLEX Options pursuant to Chapter 5, Section F of the Rules. There are
two important distinctions between FLEX Index Options with a multiplier
of 100 and FLEX Micro Options due to the difference in multipliers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Index        Index
                     Term                       (multiplier  (multiplier
                                                   of 100)       of 1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strike Price..................................         4330         4330
Bid or offer..................................        32.05        32.05
Total Value of Deliverable....................     $433,000       $4,330
Total Value of Contract.......................       $3,205       $32.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed rule change amends certain Rules describing the exercise
prices and bids and offers of FLEX Options to reflect these
distinctions (as further described below).
    The Rules permit trading in a put or call FLEX Option series only
if it does not have the same exercise style, same expiration date, and
same exercise price as a non-FLEX Option series on the same underlying
security or index that is already available for trading.\12\ In other
words, a FLEX Option series may not have identical terms as a non-FLEX
Option series listed for trading. The proposed rule change adds to the
introductory paragraph of Rule 4.21(b) that a FLEX Index Option with an
index multiplier of one may not be the same type (put or call) and may
not have the same exercise style, expiration date, settlement type, and
exercise price as a non-FLEX Index Option overlying the same index
listed for trading (regardless of the index multiplier of the non-FLEX
Index Option) (i.e., a Micro FLEX Index Option may not have the same
terms as a non-FLEX Index Option or non-FLEX micro-option). This will
prevent a Micro FLEX Index Option from being listed with terms
identical to those of a non-FLEX Index Option (with an index multiplier
of 1 or 100) on the same index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Pursuant to Rule 4.22(a), a FLEX Option position becomes fungible
with a non-FLEX option that becomes listed with identical terms. As
discussed above, options with different multipliers are different
classes, and an option series in one class cannot be fungible with an
option series in another classes, even if they are economically
equivalent. Fungibility is only possible for series with identical
terms. This is similar to how a FLEX XSP Index Option series is not
fungible with an economically equivalent non-FLEX SPX Option series.
Therefore, a FLEX Micro Option would become fungible with a non-FLEX
micro-option with the same terms pursuant to Rule 4.22(a), but would
not be fungible with a non-FLEX option overlying the same index with a
multiplier of 100 with the same expiration date, settlement, and
exercise price. Because the proposed rule change will not permit a
Micro FLEX Index Option to be listed with the same terms as a non-FLEX
Index Option regardless of the index multiplier, proposed Rule
4.22(b)(2) states if a non-FLEX Index Option series with an index
multiplier of 100 and the same terms as a FLEX Index Option overlying
the same index with a multiplier of one is listed for trading, a
position established under the FLEX trading procedures may be closed
using the FLEX trading procedures in Chapter 5, Section F against
another closing only FLEX position during the time period that non-FLEX
Index Option series is listed for trading. No FLEX Orders may be
submitted into an electronic auction or represented for open outcry
trading pursuant to Rule 5.72 for a FLEX Index Option series with a
multiplier of one with the same terms as the non-FLEX Index Option
series overlying the same index with an index multiplier of 100, unless
the FLEX Order is a closing order, during the time that non-FLEX Index
Option series is listed for trading.\13\ This proposed ``closing only''
process is similar to the current ``closing only'' process for non-FLEX
Option American-style series added intraday, as set forth in current
Rule 4.22(b) (which the Exchange proposes to number as Rule 4.22(b)(1),
accompanied by nonsubstantive punctuation mark changes to reflect
proposed Rule

4.22(b)(2)). This provision will prevent new Micro FLEX Index Option
positions from being opened when a non-FLEX Index Option with a
multiplier of 100 with the same terms is listed for trading.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ To the extent the non-FLEX Index Option is later delisted,
then opening trades of the Micro FLEX Index Option may resume after
that occurs.
    \14\ If the Exchange lists a non-FLEX Index Option with a
multiplier of one with identical terms as a Micro FLEX Index Option,
then current Rule 4.22(a) applies to the fungibility of those
options (or proposed Rule 4.22(b)(1) if it is an American-style)
series added intraday).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \15\ Certain indexes close trading at 4:00 p.m. Eastern time.
See Rule 5.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expiration, Settlement, and Exercise Style
    In accordance with Rule 4.21(b), FLEX Traders may designate the
type (put or call), exercise style, expiration date, and settlement
type of Micro FLEX Index Options.
Exercise Prices
    The proposed rule change amends Rule 4.21(b)(6) to describe the
difference between the meaning of the exercise price of a FLEX Index
Option with a multiplier of 100 and a Micro FLEX Index Option.
Specifically, the proposed rule change states that the exercise price
for a FLEX Index Option series in a class with a multiplier of one is
set at the same level as the exercise price for a FLEX Index Option
series in a class with a multiplier of 100.
    The proposed rule change also adds the following examples to Rule
4.21(b)(6) regarding how the deliverable for a Micro FLEX Index Option
will be calculated (as well as for a FLEX Index Option with a
multiplier of 100 and a FLEX Equity Option, for additional clarity and
transparency): If the exercise price of a FLEX Option series is a fixed
price of 50, it will deliver: (A) 100 shares of the underlying security
at $50 (with a total deliverable of $5,000) if a FLEX Equity Option;
(B) cash equal to 100 (i.e. the index multiplier) times 50 (with a
total deliverable value of $5,000) if a FLEX Index Option with a
multiplier of 100; and (C) cash equal to 1 (i.e. the index multiplier)
times 50 (with a total deliverable value of $50) if a Micro FLEX Index
Option. If the exercise price of a FLEX Option series is 50% of the
closing value of the underlying security or index, as applicable, on
the trade date, it will deliver: (A) 100 shares of the underlying
security at a price equal to 50% of the closing value of the underlying
security on the trade date (with a total deliverable of 100 times that
percentage amount) if a FLEX Equity Option; (B) cash equal to 100
(i.e., the index multiplier) times a value equal to 50% of the closing
value of the underlying index on the trade date (with a total
deliverable of 100 times that percentage amount) if a FLEX Index Option
with a multiplier of 100; and (C) cash equal to 1 (i.e., the index
multiplier) times a value equal to 50% of the closing value of the
underlying index on the trade date (with a total deliverable of one
times that percentage amount) if a Micro FLEX Index Option.
    The descriptions of exercise prices for FLEX Equity Options and
FLEX Index Options with a multiplier of 100 are true today. The
proposed rule change merely adds for purposes of clarity examples to
the rule regarding the exercise price of a FLEX Equity Option or a FLEX
Index Option with a multiplier of 100 (the deliverables for which are
equal to the exercise price times the 100 contract multiplier to
determine the deliverable dollar value). Because a Micro FLEX Index
Option has a multiplier of 1/100 of the multiplier of a FLEX Index
Option with a multiplier of 100, the value of the deliverable of a FLEX
Micro Option as a result is 1/100 of the value of the deliverable of a
FLEX Index Option with a deliverable of 100.
Bids and Offers
    Pursuant to Rule 5.4(c), the Exchange will determine the minimum
increment for bids and offers on Micro FLEX Index Options (as it does
for all other FLEX Options) on a class-by-class basis, which may not be
smaller than (1) $0.01, if the exercise price for the FLEX Option
series is a fixed price, or (2) 0.01%, if the exercise price for the
FLEX Option series is a percentage of the closing value of the
underlying equity security or index on the trade date.\16\ The proposed
rule change amends Rule 5.3(e)(3) to describe the difference between
the expression of bids and offers for FLEX Equity Options, FLEX Index
Options with a multiplier of 100, and Micro FLEX Index Options.
Currently, that rule states that bids and offers for FLEX Options must
be expressed in (a) U.S. dollars and decimals if the exercise price for
the FLEX Option series is a fixed price, or (b) a percentage, if the
exercise price for the FLEX Option series is a percentage of the
closing value of the underlying equity security or index on the trade
date, per unit.\17\ As noted above, a FLEX Option contract unit
consists of 100 shares of the underlying security or 100 times the
value of the underlying index, as they currently have a 100 contract
multiplier.\18\ The proposed rule change clarifies that bids and offers
are expressed per unit, if a FLEX Equity Option or a FLEX Index Option
with a multiplier of 100, and adds an example (as set forth below).
This is true today, and merely adds clarity to the Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The System rounds bids and offers to the nearest minimum
increment.
    \17\ The proposed rule change reorganizes the language in this
provision to make clear that the phrase ``if the exercise price for
the FLEX Option series is a percentage of the closing value of the
underlying equity security or index on the trade date'' applies to
the entire clause (B) of 5.3(e)(3). The proposed rule change also
adds a cross-reference to Rule 5.4 to provide that bids and offers
in U.S. dollars and decimals and percentages of the closing values
of the underlying equity security or index on the trade date must be
in the applicable minimum increment as set forth in Rule 5.4.
    \18\ See current Rule 4.21(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change adds to Rule 5.3(e)(3) a description of
the expression of bids and offers for Micro FLEX Index Options.
Specifically, bids and offers for Micro FLEX Index Options must be
expressed in (a) U.S. dollars and decimals if the exercise price for
the FLEX Option series is a fixed price, or (b) a percentage per 1/
100th unit of the underlying security or index, as applicable, if the
exercise price for the FLEX Option series is a percentage of the
closing value of the underlying equity security or index on the trade
date. Additionally, the proposed rule change adds examples describing
the expression of bids and offers of FLEX Options: If the exercise
price of a FLEX Option series is a fixed price, a bid of ``0.50''
represents a bid of (A) $50 (0.50 times 100 shares) for a FLEX Equity
Option; (B) $50 (0.50 times an index multiplier of 100) for a FLEX
Index Option with a multiplier of 100; and (C) $0.50 (0.50 times an
index multiplier of one) for a Micro FLEX Index Option. If the exercise
price of a FLEX Option series is a percentage of the closing value of
the underlying equity security, a bid of ``0.50'' represents a bid of
(A) 50% (0.50 times 100 shares) of the closing value of the underlying
equity security on the trade date if a FLEX Equity Option; (B) 50%
(0.50 times an index multiplier of 100) of the closing value of the
underlying

index on the trade date if a FLEX Index Option with a multiplier of
100; and (C) 0.50% (0.50 times an index multiplier of one) of the
closing value of the underlying index on the trade date if a Micro FLEX
Index Option. The Exchange believes this approach identifies a clear,
transparent description of the differences between FLEX Index Options
with a multiplier of 100 and Micro FLEX Index Options. The proposed
rule change also provides additional clarity regarding how bids and
offers of FLEX Equity Options and FLEX Index Options with a multiplier
of 100 are expressed.
Contract Size Limits
    The proposed rule change updates various other provisions in the
following Rules to reflect that one-hundred micro-contracts overlying
an index will be economically equivalent to one contract for a standard
index option overlying the same index:
     Rule 5.74: Rule 5.74 describes the Exchange's FLEX
Solicitation Auction Mechanism (``FLEX SAM''). An order, or the
smallest leg of a complex order, must be for at least the minimum size
designated by the Exchange (which may not be less than 500 standard
option contracts or 5,000 mini-option contracts). The proposed rule
change adds that 50,000 Micro FLEX Index Options is the corresponding
minimum size for orders submitted into FLEX SAM Auctions.
     Rule 5.87: Rule 5.87(f) describes when a Floor Broker is
entitled to cross a certain percentage of an order, subject to the
requirements in that paragraph. Under that Rule, the Exchange may
determine on a class-by-class basis the eligible size for an order that
may be transacted pursuant to this paragraph; however, the eligible
order size may not be less than 50 standard option contracts (or 500
mini-option contracts or 5,000 for micro-options). The proposed rule
change adds that 5,000 FLEX Index Option contracts with an index
multiplier of one is the corresponding minimum size for orders that may
be crossed in accordance with this provision. Additionally, Rule 5.87,
Interpretation and Policy .07(a) provides that Rule 5.86(e) \19\ does
not prohibit a Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') from buying or selling a
stock, security futures or futures position following receipt of an
order, including an option order, but prior to announcing such order to
the trading crowd, provided that the option order is in a class
designated as eligible for ``tied hedge'' transactions and within the
eligibility size parameters, which are determined by the Exchange and
may not be smaller than 500 standard option contracts (or 5,000 mini-
option contracts or 50,000 micro-options). The proposed rule change
adds that 50,000 FLEX Index Option contracts with a multiplier of one
is the corresponding minimum size for orders that may qualify as tied
hedge transactions and not be deemed a violation of Rule 5.86(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Rule 5.86(e) provides that it will be considered conduct
inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade for any TPH
or person associated with a TPH, who has knowledge of all material
terms and conditions of an original order and a solicited order,
including a facilitation order, that matches the original order's
limit, the execution of which are imminent, to enter, based on such
knowledge, an order to buy or sell an option of the same class as an
option that is the subject of the original order, or an order to buy
or sell the security underlying such class, or an order to buy or
sell any related instrument until either (1) all the terms and
conditions of the original order and any changes in the terms and
conditions of the original order of which that Trading Permit Holder
or associated person has knowledge are disclosed to the trading
crowd or (2) the solicited trade can no longer reasonably be
considered imminent in view of the passage of time since the
solicitation. An order to buy or sell a ``related instrument,''
means, in reference to an index option, an order to buy or sell
securities comprising ten percent or more of the component
securities in the index or an order to buy or sell a futures
contract on any economically equivalent index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Position and Exercise Limits \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ This discussion focuses on position and exercise limits
with respect to indexes on which the Exchange currently lists
standard options and may also list Micro FLEX Index Options. To the
extent the Exchange lists Micro FLEX Index Options on other indexes
in the future, they would be subject to the same position and
exercise limits set forth in the applicable Rules, and similarly
aggregated with standard options on the same indexes, as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change amends Rule 8.35(a) regarding position
limits for FLEX Options to describe how Micro FLEX Index Options will
be counted for purposes of determining compliance with position
limits.\21\ Because 100 Micro FLEX Index Options are equivalent to one
FLEX Index Option with a multiplier of 100 overlying the same index due
to the difference in contract multipliers, proposed Rule 8.35(a)(7)
states that for purposes of determining compliance with the position
limits under Rule 8.35, 100 Micro FLEX Index Option contracts equal one
FLEX Index Option contract with a multiplier of 100 with the same
underlying index. The proposed rule change makes a corresponding change
to Rule 8.35(b) to clarify that, like reduced-value FLEX contracts,
Micro FLEX Index Option contracts will be aggregated with full-value
contracts and counted by the amount by which they equal a full-value
contract for purposes of the reporting obligation in that provision
(i.e., 100 Micro FLEX Index Options will equal one FLEX Index Option
contract with a multiplier of 100 overlying the same index).\22\ The
proposed rule change also adds that Micro FLEX Index Options on certain
broad-based indexes for which FLEX Index Options with a multiplier of
100 have no position limits will also have no position limits. The
proposed rule change amends Rule 8.42(g) to make corresponding changes
regarding the application of exercise limits to Micro FLEX Index
Options. This is consistent with the current treatment of other
reduced-value FLEX Index Options with respect to position and exercise
limits. The margin requirements set forth in Chapter 10 of the Rules
will apply to FLEX Micro Options (as they currently do to all FLEX
Options).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The proposed rule change also corrects an administrative
error in Rule 8.35(a). Currently, there are two subparagraphs
numbered as (a)(5). The proposed rule change amends paragraph (a) to
renumber the second subparagraph (a)(5) to be subparagraph (a)(6).
    \22\ As it does today with respect to reduced-value indexes, the
Exchange will count Micro FLEX Index Options as a percentage of a
FLEX Index Option with a multiplier of 100 when calculating
positions to determine compliance with position limits. For example,
currently, since 10 XSP contracts equals 1 SPX contract, 5 XSP
contracts equals 0.5 SPX contracts for position limit purposes. With
respect to Micro FLEX Index Options, since 100 Micro FLEX SPX
Options equals 1 FLEX SPX Option, 4 Micro FLEX SPX Options will
equal 0.47 FLEX SPX Options for purposes of position limits.
    \23\ Pursuant to Rule 8.43(j), FLEX Index Options with a
multiplier of one will be aggregated with non-FLEX Index Options on
the same underlying index in the same manner as all other FLEX Index
Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capacity
    The Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it
believes the Exchange and Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'')
have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic
associated with the listing of new series that may result from the
introduction of the Micro FLEX Index Options. Because the proposed rule
change is limited to broad-based index options, which currently
represent only 13 of the indexes on which the Exchange listed on the
Exchange, the Exchange believes any additional traffic that may be
generated from the introduction of Micro FLEX Index Options will be
manageable. The Exchange also understands that the OCC will be able to
accommodate the listing and trading of Micro FLEX Index Options.
Nonsubstantive and Clarifying Changes
    The proposed rule change specifies the actual permissible minimum
amounts for exercise prices for FLEX Equity Options or FLEX Index
Options

that are not Cliquet-settled rather than identifying them by reference
to Rule 5.4, which defines permissible minimum increments for bids and
offers. Current Rule 4.21(b)(6) states the exercise price (which the
System rounds to the nearest minimum increment as set forth in Rule
5.4), which may be for a FLEX Equity Option or FLEX Index Option that
is not Cliquet-settled, a fixed price expressed in terms of dollars and
decimals or a specific index value, as applicable, or a percentage of
the closing value of the underlying equity security or index, as
applicable, on the trade date. The Exchange has historically
interpreted this rule to mean that the smallest permissible increments
for exercise prices of FLEX Options are the same as the minimum
increments for bids and offers of FLEX Options, which smallest
increments the Exchange may determine on a class-by-class basis (as the
Exchange may do for minimum increments for bids and offers).
    Rather than identify the minimum increments for exercise prices by
reference to the rule describing the minimum increments for bids and
offers, the proposed rule change adds the language specifying the
actual minimum increments for exercise prices for FLEX Equity Options
and FLEX Index Options that are not Cliquet-settled, which minimum
increments are the same as minimum increments for bids and offers.
Specifically, the proposed rule change states that the exercise price
may be in increments no smaller than (which language is taken from Rule
5.4(c)(4)) (1) for a FLEX Equity Option or FLEX Index Option that is
not Cliquet-settled, (a) $0.01, if the exercise price for the FLEX
Option series is expressed as a fixed price in terms of dollars and
decimals or a specific index value, as applicable, or (b) 0.01%, if the
exercise price for the FLEX Option series is expressed as a percentage
of the closing value of the underlying equity security or index on the
trade date, as applicable.\24\ The minimum permissible amounts of $0.01
and 0.01% for FLEX Options with fixed exercise prices and percentage
exercise prices, respectively, submitted into FLEX Auctions added to
Rule 4.21(b)(6) are the current minimum increments permissible for
these FLEX Options. Therefore, the proposed rule change makes no
substantive changes to the minimum increments of exercise prices for
FLEX Orders submitted into FLEX Auctions. The Exchange believes this
will make the rule regarding permissible exercise prices for FLEX
Options more transparent and thus may eliminate potential confusion
regarding permissible exercise prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The proposed rule change makes nonsubstantive changes to
the structure of this sentence to accommodate the addition of the
specific minimum increments for the exercise price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change adds to Rule 4.21(b)(6) after subparagraph
(B) that the Exchange may determine the smallest increment for exercise
prices of FLEX Options on a class-by-class basis. As discussed above,
this is consistent with the Exchange's longstanding interpretation of
the current Rule, which refers to the minimum increment for bids and
offers as set forth in Rule 5.4 when identifying the minimum increments
for exercise prices of FLEX Options. Rule 5.4(c)(4) states that the
Exchange may determine the minimum increment for bids and offers on
FLEX Options on a class-by-class basis, which may be no smaller than
the amounts specified in that rule. Therefore, the Exchange has
interpreted Rule 4.21(b)(6) to mean that those same provisions apply to
the minimum increments for exercise prices for FLEX Options. The
proposed rule change codifies this longstanding interpretation in the
Rules, which the Exchange believes will make the rule regarding
permissible exercise prices for FLEX Options more transparent and thus
may eliminate potential confusion regarding permissible exercise
prices.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Exchange believes this flexibility is appropriate to
permit the Exchange to make determinations based on the market
characteristics of different classes. The Exchange notes the rules
of another options exchange similarly permit that exchange to
determine on a class-by-class basis both minimum increments for
exercise prices and premiums (i.e., bids and offers) stated using a
percentage-based methodology. See, e.g., NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca'')
Rule 5.32-O(e)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change moves the parenthetical regarding the
System rounding the exercise price to the nearest minimum increment for
bids and offers in the class (as set forth in Rule 5.4) from the
introductory clause in Rule 4.21(b)(6) to the end of subclause (A)(ii)
so that it applies only to that subclause. While not specified in the
Rules, such rounding would only occur for exercise prices expressed as
a percentage, so the proposed rule clarifies that it applies only for
exercise prices expressed as a percentage and specifies that the System
rounds the actual exercise prices to the nearest fixed price minimum
increment for bids and offers in the class. The proposed rule change
also adds to the parenthetical in Rule 4.21(b)(6)(A)(ii) that the
System rounds the ``actual'' exercise price to the nearest fixed price
minimum increment to provide additional clarity to the provision, as
the dollar value of an exercise price expressed as a percentage
determined after the closing value is available would be rounded to the
nearest minimum dollar value increment, which dollar value would
represent the ultimate, ``actual'' exercise price.
    Similarly, the proposed rule change clarifies in Rule 5.3(e)(3) and
5.4(c)(4) that the System rounds the final transaction prices (rather
than bids and offers) of FLEX Options to the nearest fixed price
minimum increment for the class as set forth in Rule 5.4(c)(4)(A)
following application of the designated percentage to the closing value
of the underlying security or index. This is consistent with current
functionality and is merely a clarification in the Rules to more
accurately reflect how the System currently works. For example, suppose
a FLEX Trader enters a percentage bid of 0.27 for a FLEX Equity Option,
which is the price at which the order for that option ultimately
trades, and the underlying security has a closing value of 24.52 on the
trade date. Following the close on the trade date, the System
calculates the transaction price to be 6.6204 (0.27 x 24.52). Assuming
the minimum increment for bids and offers in a FLEX Option class is
$0.01, the System rounds 6.6204 to the nearest penny, which would be a
transaction price of $6.62. The dollar value of the transaction price
of a FLEX Option for which the bids and offers were expressed as a
percentage (the ``final'') determined after the closing value is
available would be rounded to the nearest fixed price minimum increment
for the class (e.g., the nearest $0.01, if that is the minimum
determined for the class). This is the same rounding process that
applies today for these options.
    Currently, as clarified by these proposed rule changes (and the
additional description regarding rankings of bids and offers in FLEX
Auction, as discussed below), bids and offers expressed as a percentage
of the closing value of the underlying on the trade date are ranked by
the percentage amount for FLEX Option series for which the exercise
price is expressed as such a percentage. As a result, the transaction
``price(s)'' at the conclusion of a FLEX Auction will be a percentage
amount(s), rather than bids and offers. Once the closing value of the
underlying on the trade date is available, the System determines the
exercise price and transaction price in a dollar amount using that
closing value and rounds each to the minimum dollar amount increment at
that time. The proposed rule change replaces the phrase ``bids and
offers'' with ``final transaction

prices'' in Rules 5.3(e)(3) and 5.4(c)(4). This is consistent with
current functionality and is merely a clarification in the Rules to
more accurately reflect how the System currently works. For example,
suppose a FLEX Trader submits an order to buy 100 contracts of FLEX
Option series ABC Mar 50.24% into a FLEX Auction. There are two
responses, each to sell 100, with response 1 offering to sell at 7.01%
and response 2 to sell at 7.03%. Response 1 is a better price for the
buy order (i.e. is ranked higher than response 2), so response 1
executes against the buy order at the conclusion of the auction for a
transaction price of 7.01% of the closing value of the underlying on
that date. Following the close of trading, the closing price of ABC on
the day of that trade is $47.63. At that time, the System determines
the actual exercise price in dollars to be $23.93 (rounded from
23.929).\26\ At that time, the System also determines the final
transaction price in dollars to be $3.34 (rounded from 3.338).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ As set forth in Rule 4.21(b)(6), a FLEX Option series with
a percentage exercise price reflects a percentage of the closing
value of the underlying equity security or index, as applicable, on
the trade date. Therefore, in this example, the actual exercise
price is the percentage (50.24%) of the closing value of underlying
ABC on the trade date ($47.63), which is 23.929, which the System
rounds to $23.93. Contract multipliers are applied after any
rounding occurs.
    \27\ As set forth in Rule 5.4(c)(4), a FLEX Option series with a
percentage bid or offer reflects a percentage of the closing value
of the underlying equity security or index, as applicable, on the
trade date. Therefore, in this example, the actual transaction price
is the percentage (7.01%) of the closing value of underlying ABC on
the trade date ($47.63), which is 3.338, which the System rounds to
$3.34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed rule change makes a clarifying,
nonsubstantive change to Rule 5.3(e)(3). Rule 5.3(e)(3) currently
states that bids and offers for FLEX Options must be expressed in (a)
U.S. dollars and decimals, if the exercise price for the FLEX Option
series is a fixed price, or (b) a percentage, if the exercise price for
the FLEX Option series is a percentage of the closing value of the
underlying equity security or index on the trade date, per unit of the
underlying security or index, as applicable. The System rounds bids and
offers to the nearest minimum increment. The proposed rule change
clarifies in the proposed parenthetical in the first paragraph of Rule
5.3(e)(3)(B) (as described above) that bids and offers would be in the
applicable minimum increment as set forth in Rule 5.4. This is true
today and merely incorporates a cross-reference to Rule 5.4, which
describes permissible minimum increments for bids and offers. The
Exchange believes the addition of this cross-reference will provide
additional transparency and clarity to this Rule.
    The proposed rule change also codifies in Rules 5.72(c)(3)(A) and
(d)(2), 5.73(e), and 5.74(e) how FLEX Auction response bids and offers
(as well as Initiating Orders and Solicitation Orders with respect to
FLEX AIM Auctions and FLEX SAM Auctions, respectively) are ranked
during the allocation process following each type of FLEX Auction
(i.e., electronic FLEX Auction, open outcry FLEX Auction, FLEX AIM
Auction, and FLEX SAM Auction, respectively). FLEX Orders will always
first be allocated to responses at the best price, as applicable.\28\
With respect to responses to all types of FLEX Auctions for a FLEX
Option series with an exercise price expressed as a dollar and decimal,
the ``prices'' at which FLEX Traders submitting responses are competing
are the dollar and decimal amounts of the response bids and offers
entered as fixed amounts (as is the case with all non-FLEX Options),
and the proposed rule change codifies this in the Rules. With respect
to responses to all types of FLEX Auctions for a FLEX Option series
with an exercise price expressed as a percentage, the ``prices'' at
which FLEX Traders submitting responses are competing are the
percentage values of the response bids and offers entered as
percentages (which ultimately become a dollar value after the closing
value for the underlying security or index, as applicable, is
available), and the proposed rule change codifies this in the Rules.
These are nonsubstantive changes, as they reflect how ranking following
FLEX Auctions occurs today, and the Exchange believes these changes
will provide additional transparency in the Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The proposed rule change also clarifies this in Rule
5.72(d)(2) by adding a cross-reference to Rule 5.85(a)(1), which
states that, with respect to open outcry trading on the Exchange's
trading floor, bids and offers with the highest bid and lowest offer
have priority. This is a nonsubstantive change that is currently
true for open outcry FLEX Auctions, and the proposed rule change
merely makes this explicit in Rule 5.72(d)(2), which cross-reference
was previously inadvertently omitted from the Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in Rule 4.22(b), the proposed rule change modernizes (and
moves to make clear it will apply to the entire paragraph (b) (as
proposed to be amended) the provision regarding how FLEX Traders are
notified when a FLEX Option series becomes restricted. Currently, Rule
4.22(b) states a FLEX Official announces to FLEX Traders when such a
FLEX Option series is restricted to closing only transactions. This was
true when FLEX Options were traded only in open outcry and a verbal
announcement was made to the trading floor. Currently, because FLEX
Options are available for electronic and open outcry trading, the
Exchange notifies FLEX Traders when a FLEX Option series is restricted
to closing only transactions. In accordance with Rule 1.5, the Exchange
currently notifies FLEX Traders of restricted FLEX Option series by
electronic message.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\29\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \30\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \31\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors
and the public interest. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change
will expand investor choice and flexibility by providing investors with
the ability to gain exposure to the market using FLEX Index options
with a notional value of 1/100th of the value of current FLEX Index
options. The Exchange believes there is unmet market demand from market
participants for Micro FLEX Index Options. Micro FLEX Index Options
will provide additional granularity with respect to the prices at which
investors may execute and exercise index options on the Exchange. Micro
FLEX Index Options will provide

investors with an exchange-traded tool to manage more precisely based
on notional value the positions and associated risk in their
portfolios, which currently may equal a fraction of a standard
contract. Because Micro FLEX Index Options and standard FLEX Index
Options (as well as non-FLEX index options) will overlie the same
indexes, market participants may use them as hedging vehicles to meet
their investment needs in connection with index-related products and
cash positions in a similar manner as they currently do with standard
FLEX Index Options, but as a more manageably sized contract. The
smaller-sized contract will provide all market participants with more
precision with respect to hedging their portfolios more effectively
with far greater precision. Given the various trading and hedging
strategies employed by investors, this additional granularity may
provide investors with more control over the trading of their
investment strategies and management of their positions and risk
associated with option positions in their portfolios.
    Additionally, Micro FLEX Index Options will provide investors with
the ability to execute and exercise options with a smaller index
multiplier in a listed market environment as opposed to in the
unregulated OTC options market. The proposed rule change may shift
liquidity from the OTC market onto the Exchange, which the Exchange
believes would increase market transparency as well as enhance the
process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased
order flow to the benefit of all investors. By permitting index options
to trade with the same multiplier currently available to customized
options in the OTC market, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change will also promote competition and remove impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system by further improving a comparable alternative to the OTC market
in customized options. By enhancing our Exchange products to provide
additional terms available in the OTC market but not currently
available in the listed options market, the Exchange believes it may be
a more attractive alternative to the OTC market. The Exchange believes
market participants benefit from being able to trade customized options
in an exchange environment in several ways, including but not limited
to the following: (1) Enhanced efficiency in initiating and closing out
positions; (2) increased market transparency; and (3) heightened
contra-party creditworthiness due to the role of the OCC as issuer and
guarantor of all listed options.
    The listing of Micro FLEX Index Options has the same practical
effect as the listing of FLEX Index Options on reduced-value indexes,
which the Exchange (and other options exchanges) currently has the
authority to do with respect to several indexes (in accordance with
previously Commission-approved rules). For example, the Exchange may
list FLEX Options on both the S&P 500 Index (SPX options) and the Mini-
S&P 500 Index (XSP options), which is 1/10th the value of the S&P 500
Index.\32\ This is economically equivalent to if the Exchange listed an
S&P 500 Index option with an index multiplier of 100 and with an index
multiplier of 10, respectively. The Commission approved the Exchange's
authority to list non-FLEX Options on broad-based indexes with a value
of at least 100 with an index multiplier of 1, and the proposed rule
change extends that authority to list FLEX Options on the same
indexes.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The Exchange notes if it desired to list a reduced-value
index option on other indexes, or list an option on a micro-level
index (i.e., an index with 1/100th the value of the full-sized
index), it could do so without Commission approval if the underlying
index satisfied the generic listing criteria in Rule 4.12.
    \33\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 91528 (April 9,
2021), 86 FR 19933 (April 15, 2021) (SR-CBOE-2020-117) (Commission
approval of micro-options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the proposal contains a number of features
designed to protect investors by reducing investor confusion. For
example, Micro FLEX Index Options will be designated by different
trading symbols from standard FLEX Index Options. Additionally, the
proposed rule change describes in the Rules the differences regarding
the meanings of bids and offers, exercise prices (and thus
deliverables), and minimum sizes of index options contracts with a
multiplier of one and a multiplier of 100, all of which are adjusted
proportionately to reflect the difference in multiplier, and thus the
difference in the deliverable value of the underlying.\34\ The Exchange
believes the transparency and clarity the proposed rule change adds to
the Rules regarding the distinctions between index options due to the
different multipliers will benefit investors. These proposed changes
are not novel, as they correspond to similar rule provisions regarding
other reduced-value options.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ These proposed changes correspond to similar provisions for
mini-options and micro-options, which also have a smaller multiplier
than standard-sized options.
    \35\ See, e.g., Rules 4.5, Interpretation and Policy .18
(description of strike prices for mini-options, which have a
multiplier of 10), 5.3(c) (description of bids and offers for mini-
options and micro-options), and 5.74(a)(4) (description of minimum
size of FLEX Agency Order for mini-options and micro-options). Just
as terms for micro-options, which have a multiplier of 1/100th the
size of standard options, equal 1/100th of the same terms for
standard options, the proposed terms for Micro FLEX Index Options,
which have a multiplier 1/100th the size of FLEX Index Options with
a multiplier of 100, equal 1/100th of the same terms as FLEX Index
Options with a multiplier of 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other than these differences, Micro FLEX Index Options will trade
in the same manner as all other FLEX Index Options. Because Micro FLEX
Index Options and standard FLEX Index Options (and non-FLEX options)
overlie the same indexes, market participants may use Micro FLEX Index
Options as hedging vehicles to meet their investment needs in
connection with index-related products and cash positions in a similar
manner as they do with standard index options, but as a more manageably
sized contract. The smaller-sized contract may provide market
participants with more precision with respect to hedging their
portfolios. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is reasonable and
appropriate to permit FLEX Traders to trade Micro FLEX Index Options in
the same manner as all other FLEX Options.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change regarding the
treatment of Micro FLEX Index Options with respect to determining
compliance with position and exercise limits is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and promote just and
equitable principles of trade. Micro FLEX Index Options will be counted
for purposes of those limits in a proportional manner to FLEX Index
Options (including reduced-value indexes) with a multiplier of 100 and
aggregated with FLEX Index Options overlying the same index (including
reduced-value indexes) and non-FLEX Options in the same manner as index
options currently are. This is equivalent to current limits imposed on
reduced-value options and micro-options. As noted above, while the
multipliers of reduced-value indexes are $100, a reduced-value index
option has an economically equivalent effect to an index option with a
smaller multiplier. An index option with a multiplier of one
corresponds to an option overlying a reduced-valued index that is 1/
100th the value of the full-value index. It just uses a different
multiplier rather than a different value of the underlying

index.\36\ The Exchange believes its surveillances continue to be
designed to deter and detect violations of Exchange Rules, including
position and exercise limits and possible manipulative behavior, and
those surveillance will apply to index options with a multiplier of one
that the Exchange determines to list for trading. Ultimately, the
Exchange does not believe that this proposed rule change raises any
unique regulatory concerns because existing safeguards--such as
position and exercise limits (and the aggregation of options overlying
the same index (including reduced-value indexes)) and reporting
requirements--would continue to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ This is also similar to position limits for other options
with multipliers less than 100. See, e.g., Rule 8.30, Interpretation
and Policy .08 (describing position limits for mini-options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity
to support the new option series given these proposed specifications.
The Exchange believes that its existing surveillance and reporting
safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative
behavior which might arise from listing and trading Micro FLEX Index
Options. The Exchange further notes that current Exchange Rules that
apply to the trading of other FLEX Index Options traded on the Exchange
will also apply to the trading of Micro FLEX Index Options, such as
Exchange Rules governing customer accounts, margin requirements and
trading halt procedures. The Exchange understands that market
participants may currently, and currently do, execute orders in options
like the ones being proposed in the unregulated OTC options market,
where neither the Exchange nor the Commission has oversight over market
participants that may be purposely trading at prices through the listed
market. The proposed rule change may encourage these orders to be
submitted to the Exchange, which could bring these orders into a
regulated market and be subject to surveillance and oversight to which
they are currently not subject with respect to execution of these
option orders.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will protect
investors by preventing a Micro FLEX Index Option series to be listed
with the same terms as a non-FLEX Index Option. Therefore, Micro FLEX
Index Options will be permissible with the same terms as FLEX Index
Options with a multiplier of 100 are currently available for trading.
The Exchange believes this restriction eliminates any possible price
protection concerns that permitting a FLEX Option with the same terms a
but a different index multiplier than a non-FLEX Option on the same
underlying index may allow FLEX options with a multiplier of one to
gain priority over customer orders on the book for similar non-FLEX
index options overlying the same index and to bypass or trade through
the NBBO in non-FLEX options, potentially leading to market
fragmentation.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will move volume
currently being executed in the OTC market to the Exchange. As
discussed above, the precision the proposed rule change will add to the
Exchange is currently available in the OTC market, and the Exchange
understands this precision is necessary for certain market
participants' investment strategies. The Exchange has heard from
numerous institutional investors--insurance companies, in particular--
who use index options to hedge their portfolio risk. These investors
have indicated they execute a significant portion of their hedging
transactions in the OTC market because the Exchange does not offer a
product that provides them with the level of precision they need for
their hedging activity. However, they have expressed their preference
to transact on the Exchange to eliminate the counterparty risk they
must incur by trading in the OTC market. The Exchange understands that
it is a critical and regular part of an insurance company's business to
hedge their risk, which many do with index options. When insurance
companies issue policies to their customers, those companies accumulate
liabilities for the payouts they may need to make to their customers
pursuant to those policies. Insurance companies regularly hedge the
notional amount of these liabilities to protect against downturns in
the market. Because they are looking to protect against broad market
downturns, broad-based index options are a tool insurance companies
often use for this protection. One insurance company informed the
Exchange that it has hedged approximately 25% of the notional value of
its $40 billion portfolio with index options executed in the OTC
market, and the Exchange understands several other companies have
similarly used index options to hedge significant portions of their
portfolios. Given the size of insurance companies' portfolios, which
can be in the tens of billions of dollars, that translates to index
options with an aggregate notional value of billions of dollars being
transacted annually in the nontransparent, unregulated, and riskier OTC
market (where there is counterparty risk and no price protection exists
for these customers).
    For a customer to achieve a precise hedge for a specific notional
value amount using currently available products on the Exchange, the
Exchange understands a customer would need to make at least four
separate trades (which multiple trades introduce additional costs,
inefficiencies, and execution risk) to achieve a result close to
identical to the result it could achieve with a single trade in the OTC
market. The inability of insurance companies to precisely hedge the
notional value of their portfolios ultimately harms their customers. If
an insurance company, for example, ``underhedges'' the notional value
of its portfolio (which, again, is generally at least tens of billions
of dollars), even 1% of such ``slippage'' would leave hundreds of
millions of dollars of that portfolio unhedged,\37\ which creates
significant risk for that company.\38\ Alternatively, if an insurance
company ``overhedges'' the notional value of its portfolio, that would
unnecessarily tie up some of its financial reasons, as the difference
in value of the options and the value of the portfolio is serving no
purpose. Either case will likely result in higher premiums or reduced
benefits for customers. As a result, because these companies are unable
to achieve a more precise hedge on the Exchange, they turn to the OTC
market where the precision they need to implement their hedging
strategies more efficiently is available and not unnecessarily harm
their customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ For example, if an insurance company has a $40,000,000,000
portfolio, 1% of that portfolio equates to $400,000,000.
    \38\ The Exchange notes the total unhedged risk across the
insurance industry would be multiplied if each insurance company
were unable to hedge the full notional value of its portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, if an insurance company sells to a customer a
$247,589,000 annuity policy, the insurance company may seek to obtain
positions in broad-based index options with an equivalent notional
value. On the Exchange, if the company used SPX options, it would need
651 SPX contracts if the index level of the S&P 500 Index was 3801.19
(247,589,000/3801.19/100 \39\ = 651.34). However, 651 SPX contracts
would equate to $247,457,469, leaving that one policy underhedged by
$131,531. The company could also trade 6514 XSP options, which would
equate to $247,609,517, which would overhedge the policy by $20,517 and
unnecessarily use that amount of funds for hedging its portfolio rather
than, for example, pay

out insurance benefits to customers.\40\ With a one multiplier, the
company could instead trade 65135 FLEX SPX Option contracts with a
multiplier of one (as the company may do today in the OTC market),
which would equate to $247,590,511, which is far closer to the value of
the policy and thus is the most efficient use of the insurance
company's hedging resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The index multiplier is 100.
    \40\ As this relates to only a single policy in the insurance
company's portfolio, the harm that may be caused by the lack of
precision only increases for each policy for which the company is
unable to precisely hedge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This example demonstrates the value one insurance company could
receive from the availability of FLEX Index Options with a multiplier
of one for a hedge related to a single policy. The aggregate value to
the insurance industry, and their customers, created by the
availability of FLEX Index Options with a multiplier of one would be
extensive if multiple insurance companies used these options to hedge
their portfolios, as the Exchange expects them to do. As a result, a
substantial number of index options transactions that currently occur
with no transparency and counterparty risk would have the opportunity
to receive the benefits of occurring on a national securities exchange.
The availability of this product on the Exchange would provide these
companies with a more transparent, lower risk option that would allow
them to use their resources more efficiently and pass on those savings
to their customers.
    The Exchange's surveillance program will incorporate Micro FLEX
Index Options. Broker-dealers are also subject to due diligence and
best execution obligations, which obligations may require broker-
dealers to consider the prices of economically equivalent options when
executing customer orders. Market participants may currently, and the
Exchange understands they currently do, execute orders like the ones
being proposed in the unregulated OTC market, where neither the
Exchange nor the Commission has oversight over market participants that
may be purposely trading at prices through the listed market.
    The Commission initially approved the listing and trading of FLEX
Options on only two indexes--the S&P 100 and S&P 500.\41\ As noted
above, the Commission issued a separate order designating FLEX Options
as standardized options under Rule 9b-1 of the Exchange Act, which
order specifically referenced FLEX Options on those two indexes.\42\
While the initial scope of FLEX Options was limited, the use of FLEX
Options has significantly expanded since 1993. The Exchange may now
list FLEX Options on any equity or index for which it is authorized to
trade non-FLEX Options.\43\ The expansion of the use of FLEX Options is
consistent with the initial purpose for which the Exchange initially
proposed to adopt FLEX Options, which was to permit trading in options
that were otherwise permissible in the OTC market to provide investors
with the benefits of trading options on a listed market versus the OTC
market. Since 1993, the Commission, through designated authority, has
approved numerous proposed rule changes to expand the applicability of
FLEX Options and designated those FLEX Options as standardized options
under Rule 9b-1 of the Exchange Act, including FLEX Options with terms
different than those initially approved by the Commission in 1993.\44\
The proposed rule change similarly seeks to expand the availability of
FLEX Options in a manner consistent with the initial purpose for which
the Exchange initially adopted, and has since then expanded the
applicability of, FLEX Options. Options with an index multiplier of one
are currently permissible in the OTC market but not in the listed
market. The proposed rule change seeks to meet the demands of investors
that currently may only obtain more precise hedging as described above
through the OTC markets. The Exchange believes it benefits the
investing public to continue to enhance product offerings to evolve to
constantly changing needs of investors, even if certain products were
initially introduced in a more limited manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 31920 (February 24,
1993), 58 FR 12280 (March 3, 1993) (SR-CBOE-92-17) (``Initial Cboe
FLEX Approval'').
    \42\ See 1993 FLEX Approval Order.
    \43\ See Rule 4.20.
    \44\ Similar to previous changes in the past, the Commission has
the authority to designate FLEX Options with an index multiplier of
one to be standardized options pursuant to Rule 9b-1 under the
Exchange Act if it believes such designation is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A robust and competitive market requires that exchanges respond to
investors' evolving needs by constantly improving their offerings. When
Congress charged the Commission with supervising the development of a
``national market system'' for securities, Congress stated its intent
that the ``national market system evolve through the interplay of
competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed.\45\ Consistent with this purpose, Congress and the Commission
have repeatedly stated their preference for competition, rather than
regulatory intervention to determine products and services in the
securities markets.\46\ This consistent and considered judgment of
Congress and the Commission is correct, particularly in light of
evidence of robust competition in the options trading industry. The
fact that an exchange proposed something new is a reason to be
receptive, not skepticalinnovation is the life-blood of a vibrant
competitive marketand that is particularly so given the continued
internalization of the securities markets, as exchanges continue to
implement new products and services to compete not only in the United
States but throughout the world. Options exchanges continuously adopt
new and different products and trading services in response to industry
demands in order to attract order flow and liquidity to increase their
trading volume. This competition has led to a growth in investment
choices, which ultimately benefits the marketplace and the public. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will help further
competition by providing market participants with yet another
investment option for the listed options market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92 (1975) (Conf. Rep.).
    \46\ See S. Rep. No. 94-75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 8 (1975)
(``The objective [in enacting the 1975 amendments to the Exchange
Act] would be to enhance competition and to allow economic forces,
interacting within a fair regulatory field, to arrive at appropriate
variations in practices and services.''); Order Approving Proposed
Rule Change Relating to NYSE Arca Data, Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008)
(``The Exchange Act and its legislative history strongly support the
Commission's reliance on competition, whenever possible, in meeting
its regulatory responsibilities for overseeing the [self-regulatory
organizations] and the national market system. Indeed, competition
among multiple markets and market participants trading the same
products is the hallmark of the national market system.''); and
Regulation NMS, 70 FR at 37499 (observing that NMS regulation ``has
been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in [the]
forms that are most important to investors and listed companies'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed nonsubstantive, codifying, and
clarifying changes described above increase the transparency of the
Rules and ultimately benefit investors. With respect to the
codification of how FLEX orders and auction responses will be ranked,
the Exchange believes ranking percentage-priced premiums at the time of
the auction rather than after the close of trading (when the dollar
amount of the price is determined) will promote just and equitable
principles of trade because it is consistent with the ranking of
dollar-priced premiums. This also

provides FLEX Traders with real-time executions as opposed to waiting
until the close of trading to know if it received an execution and, if
so, for how many contracts. FLEX Traders are competing in auctions
based on the percentage amount of their bids and offers (in the same
manner they do with dollar bids and offers) and thus should be ranked
based on that amount, as they do not know at the time of submitting
those bids and offers to what final price they will be rounded. Like
bids and offers in dollar amounts, the Exchange believes a FLEX Trader
willing to pay more (or receive less) at the time of a FLEX Auction
should receive priority. As long as it is possible that different
percentage bids and offers could differ after the close of trading, the
Exchange believes a more aggressive auction response bares the risk
that the adjusted price may also be more aggressive, and the responder
should be rewarded for taking on that risk by receiving a higher
ranking. The Exchange believes consistency in ranking of bids and
offers submitted in all FLEX Auctions (and non-FLEX Auctions) will
benefit investors, and providing FLEX Traders that submit more
aggressive responses with priority will encourage FLEX Traders to
submit competitive responses, which ultimately benefits investors as
well.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act as any Micro FLEX Index Options
the Exchange lists for trading will be available for all market
participants in the same manner who wish to trade such options. The
Exchange may list Micro FLEX Index Options for trading on all broad-
based indexes with a value of at least 100 currently authorized to be
listed on the Exchange, subject to the same listing criteria (the
Exchange is currently authorized to list micro-options on the same
indexes). These options will trade in the same manner as FLEX Index
Options with a multiplier of 100, with certain terms proportionately
adjusted to reflect the different contract multipliers.
    The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because Micro
FLEX Index Options may only be listed for trading on the Exchange. To
the extent that the availability of these products makes the Exchange a
more attractive marketplace to market participants at other exchanges,
market participants are free to elect to become market participants on
the Exchange. As noted above, other derivative products related to
these indexes are listed for trading on other exchanges. Additionally,
the Exchange notes that listing and trading Micro FLEX Index Options on
the Exchange will subject such options to transparent exchange-based
rules as well as price discovery and liquidity, as opposed to
alternatively trading these products in the OTC market.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change may relieve any
burden on, or otherwise promote, competition. The proposal is designed
to increase competition for order flow on the Exchange in a manner that
is beneficial to investors by providing them with a lower-cost option
to hedge their investment portfolios. The Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily direct order flow to competing venues who offer similar
products. The Exchange believes this is an enhancement to a comparable
alternative to the OTC market in customized options. By enhancing our
FLEX trading platform to provide additional contract granularity that
available in the OTC market but not currently available in the listed
options market, the Exchange believes it may be a more attractive
alternative to the OTC market. The Exchange believes market
participants will benefit from being able to trade customized options
in an exchange environment in several ways, including but not limited
to the following: (1) Enhanced efficiency in initiating and closing out
position; (2) increased market transparency; and (3) heightened contra-
party creditworthiness due to the role of OCC as issuer and guarantor
of all listed options.
    The proposed nonsubstantive, clarifying, and codifying changes will
have no impact on competition, as they merely clarify or codify
information in the Rules and make no changes to how FLEX Options trade.
With respect to the codification of how FLEX orders and auction
responses will be ranked, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because it
will rank FLEX orders and auction responses in the same manner
regardless of the form of the exercise price of a series.

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

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

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2021-041 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-2021-041. 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-2021-041, and should be
submitted on or before September 2, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-17175 Filed 8-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 93 (Monday, May 14, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22201-22203]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10191]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0430]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, St. Louis, MO

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters on the Upper Mississippi River from mile marker
(MM) 179 to MM 179.5, extending the entire width of the river, near St.
Louis, MO. This safety zone is necessary to protect persons, vessels,
and the marine environment from potential hazards that could occur
while emergency work is completed on new power lines extending across
the river. Entry of vessels or persons into this safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Upper
Mississippi River (COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. on May 14, 2018 through 7
p.m. on May 15, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0430 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Sean Peterson, Chief of Prevention, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MM Mile marker
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. A barge-
based crane has contacted an overhead power line, necessitating
emergency repairs. This safety zone must be established by May 14,
2018, and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment
period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule. The
NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone until
after the emergency power line repairs are completed and compromise
public safety.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule would be
contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary
to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the
emergency power line repairs.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards associated with emergency power line
repairs over the Upper Mississippi River will be a safety concern for
anyone within a one-half mile stretch of the Upper Mississippi River.
This rule is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine
environment before, during, and after the repair work.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 7 a.m. on May 14, 2018
through 7 p.m. on May 15, 2018. The safety zone will be enforced from 7
a.m. through 7 p.m. each day and will cover all navigable waters
between mile markers (MMs) 179 and 179.5, extending the entire width of
the river, on the Upper Mississippi River in St. Louis, MO. The
duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment while the power lines are repaired. Entry of vessels
or persons into this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the
COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard
assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Upper
Mississippi River.
    Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be
contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. All
persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at
the slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by
the COTP or the designated representative. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date
for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs),
Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information
Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. This safety
zone covers a one-half mile stretch of the Upper Mississippi River for
twelve hours on each of two days to necessitate emergency power line
repairs. The effects of the zone are expected to be insignificant
taking into account the emergency nature of the required repairs.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
any vessel owner or operator.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a safety zone lasting only twelve hours on each of two
days that restricts entry on a one-half mile stretch of the Upper
Mississippi River. It is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L60(d) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination will be made available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0430 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0430   Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, St. Louis,
MO.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Upper Mississippi River between mile marker (MM) 179 and
MM 179.5, extending the entire width of the river, in St. Louis, MO.
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 7 a.m. on May
14, 2018 through 7:00 p.m. on May 15, 2018.
    (c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7 a.m.
through 7 p.m. each day on May 14, 2018 and May 15, 2018.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River
(COTP) or a designated representative. A designated representative is a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard
assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Upper
Mississippi River.
    (2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be
contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) All persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone
must transit at the slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful
directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
    (e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date
for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs),
Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information
Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.

    Dated: May 9, 2018.
Scott A. Stoermer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi
River.
[FR Doc. 2018-10191 Filed 5-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P