[Federal Register: February 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 23)]
[Notices]
[Page 5832-5833]
[DOCID:fr03fe06-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis and
Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and
Prescriptions

January 26, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Major License.
    b. Project No.: 11945-001.
    c. Date Filed: June 30, 2004.
    d. Applicant: Symbiotics, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Dorena Lake Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Row River, near the Town of Cottage Grove, Lane
County, Oregon. The project would occupy less than 1 acre of Federal
lands administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Brent L. Smith, Symbiotics, LLC, P.O. Box
535, Rigby, Idaho 83442; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    i. FERC Contact: Dianne Rodman; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions is 60 days from the issuance of this
notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this
notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that

may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    Comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    k. This application has been accepted and is now ready for
environmental analysis.
    l. The proposed project would utilize the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' existing Dorena Lake dam and reservoir, and would consist of
the following facilities: (1) A 9-foot-diameter steel pipe, about 350
feet long, extending from the reservoir through the north dam abutment;
(2) a new powerhouse, near the existing spillway stilling basin 250
feet downstream from the concrete section of the dam, having a total
installed capacity of 8,300 kilowatts; (3) a new concrete-lined channel
discharging flows into the river channel immediately below the existing
stilling basin; (4) a new valve house near the existing stilling basin;
(5) a new 15-kilovolt underground transmission line, about 500 feet
long; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation is
estimated to be 17.5 gigawatthours.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``REPLY COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Public notice of the filing of the initial development
application, which has already been given, established the due date for
filing competing applications or notices of intent. Under the
Commission's regulations, any competing development application must be
filed in response to and in compliance with public notice of the
initial development application. No competing applications or notices
of intent may be filed in response to this notice.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-1451 Filed 2-2-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 8298-8299]
[DOCID:fr16fe06-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER05-103-000, et al.]

Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. et al.;
Electric Rate and Corporate Filings

February 8, 2006.
    The following filings have been made with the Commission. The
filings are listed in ascending order within each docket
classification.

1. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.

[Docket No. EL05-103-000]

    Take notice that on January 31, 2006, the Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) and PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) submitted a redacted version of it Final
Report. Midwest ISO states that on January 17, 2006, it filed a CEII
protected Final Report and recommendations in compliance with
Commission's Order issued June 27, 2005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 17, 2006.

2. Midwest Generation, LLC, EME Homer City Generation, L.P., Edison
Mission Marketing & Trading, Inc., Midwest Generation Energy Services,
LLC, CP Power Sales Twelve, L.L.C., CP Power Sales Seventeen, L.L.C.,
CP Power Sales Nineteen, L.L.C., CP Power Sales Twenty, L.L.C., CL
Power Sales One, L.L.C., CL Power Sales Two, L.L.C., CL Power Sales
Seven, L.L.C., Sunrise Power Company, LLC, and San Juan Mesa Wind
Project, LLC

[Docket Nos. ER99-3693-005, ER99-666-006, ER99-852-010, ER99-893-0011,
ER03-30-004, ER99-4229-009, ER99-4231-008, ER95-892-061, ER95-892-062,
ER96-2652-056, ER01-2217-004 and ER05-1389-002]

    Take notice that on January 26, 2006, the above referenced wholly-
and partially-owned, indirect subsidiaries of Edison International
tendered for filing a notice of change in status to inform the
Commission of their recent indirect affiliation with San Juan Mesa Wind
Project, LLC and DeGreeffpa, LLC, Bendwind, LLC, Sierra Wind, LLC,
Groen Wind, LLC, Larswind, LLC, TAIR Windfarm, LLC and Hillcrest Wind,
LLC, the reported change in status does not reflect a departure from
the characteristics the Commission relied upon in granting market-based
rate authorization to each of the Edison Entities.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 16, 2006.

3. Public Service Company of New Mexico and Texas-New Mexico Power
Company

[Docket No. ER06-367-000]

    Take notice that on December 23, 2005, Public Service Company of
New Mexico (PNM) tendered for filing on behalf of itself and Texas-New
Mexico Power Company (TBNP) an entirely revised Interconnection
Agreement of February 28, 1974 between Community Public Service Company
and PNM as PNM Rate Schedule No. 46 and TNMP Rate Schedule No. 4.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 15, 2006.

4. American Electric Power Service Corporation

[Docket No. ER06-553-000]

    Take notice that on January 27, 2005, as supplemented on January
30, 2006, American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEPSC), tendered
for filing an executed Letter Agreement between AEPSC and Cinergy
Services, Inc., dated December 1, 2005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 21, 2006.

Standard Paragraph

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-2189 Filed 2-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="06/08/2008 10:00:14 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register: November 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 224)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65446-65449]
[DOCID:fr21no07-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0211; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-221-AD;
Amendment 39-15268; AD 2007-24-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -
300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

Summary: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD) that applies to all Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -
500 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires repetitive
detailed inspections for damage of the electrical wire and sleeve that
run to the fuel boost pump through a conduit in the fuel tank, and
arcing damage of the conduit and signs of fuel leakage into the
conduit; replacement of the sleeve with a new, smaller-diameter sleeve;
and related investigative and corrective actions, as applicable. This
new AD reduces the inspection threshold for certain airplanes. This AD
results from a report of a fuel tank explosion on a Model 727-200F
airplane on the ground, and a report of chafed wires and a damaged
power cable sleeve of a fuel boost pump discovered during an inspection
on a Model 737-300 airplane. (The fuel boost

pump installation on certain Model 737 airplanes is almost identical to
the installation on Model 727 airplanes.) We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct chafing of the fuel boost pump electrical wiring and
leakage of fuel into the conduit, and to prevent electrical arcing
between the wiring and the surrounding conduit, which could result in
arc-through of the conduit, and consequent fire or explosion of the
fuel tank.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 6, 2007.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of December 6,
2007.
    On June 6, 2007 (72 FR 28597, May 22, 2007), the Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1263, Revision 1, dated March 19, 2007.
    We must receive any comments on this AD by January 22, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Management Facility

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Suzanne Lucier, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6438; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On May 2, 2007, we issued AD 2007-11-07, amendment 39-15064 (72 FR
28597, May 22, 2007). (A correction of that AD was published in the
Federal Register on August 21, 2007 (72 FR 46559).) That AD applies to
all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. That AD requires repetitive detailed inspections for damage
of the electrical wire and sleeve that run to the fuel boost pump
through a conduit in the fuel tank, and arcing damage of the conduit
and signs of fuel leakage into the conduit; replacement of the sleeve
with a new, smaller-diameter sleeve; and related investigative and
corrective actions, as applicable. That AD resulted from a report of a
fuel tank explosion on a Model 727-200F airplane on the ground, and a
report of chafed wires and a damaged power cable sleeve of a fuel boost
pump discovered during an inspection on a Model 737-300 airplane. The
actions specified in that AD are intended to detect and correct chafing
of the fuel boost pump electrical wiring and leakage of fuel into the
conduit, and to prevent electrical arcing between the wiring and the
surrounding conduit, which could result in arc-through of the conduit,
and consequent fire or explosion of the fuel tank.

Actions Since AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2007-11-07, we were contacted by an operator who
misinterpreted the compliance threshold in a way that was not intended.
Therefore, we are issuing this new AD to restate certain compliance
thresholds in a new way in order to avoid misinterpretation and to
ensure continued operational safety of these airplanes. To do so, we
have based certain compliance thresholds on previous accomplishment of
any revision of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1120 identified in
paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), or (i)(4) of This AD. These revisions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1120 were previously mandated
by AD 99-21-15, amendment 39-11360 (64 FR 54763, October 8, 1999) and
the two ADs it superseded. AD 99-21-15 was superseded by AD 2007-11-07;
therefore, we have not restated the requirements of AD 99-21-15 in this
new AD.

Related Rulemaking

    On May 1, 2007, we issued AD 2007-11-08, amendment 39-15065 (72 FR
28594, May 22, 2007), which applies to all Boeing Model 727 airplanes.
AD 2007-11-08 requires repetitive inspections for damage of the
electrical wire and sleeve that run to the fuel boost pump though a
conduit in the fuel tank, and arcing damage of the conduit and signs of
fuel leakage into the conduit; applicable investigative and corrective
actions; and a repetitive engine fuel suction feed operational test.
That AD resulted from reports of a fuel tank explosion on a Model 727-
200F airplane on the ground; and of chafed wires and a damaged power
cable sleeve of a fuel boost pump that were discovered during an
inspection required by an existing AD on a Model 737-300 airplane. We
issued that AD to detect and correct chafing of the fuel boost pump
electrical wiring and leakage of fuel into the conduit, and to prevent
electrical arcing between the wiring and the surrounding conduit, which
could result in arc-through of the conduit, and consequent fire or
explosion of the fuel tank.

Relevant Service Information

    Since we issued AD 2007-11-07, Boeing has issued Service Bulletin
737-28A1263, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2007. We referred to Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1263, Revision 1, dated March 19, 2007,
as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing
certain actions in AD 2007-11-07. The procedures in Revision 2 of the
service bulletin are essentially the same as those in Revision 1, with
several editorial changes such as a revised e-mail address, and the
addition of references to AD 2007-11-07. Revision 2 also incorporates
alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) previously approved for AD
2007-11-07.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    The unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or
develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we
are issuing this AD to supersede AD 2007-11-07. This new AD retains
certain requirements of the existing AD. This AD also reduces the
compliance threshold for certain airplanes.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. If final action is later
identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD; therefore, providing notice and

opportunity for public comment before the AD is issued is
impracticable, and good cause exists to make this AD effective in less
than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite
you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send
your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
``Docket No. FAA-2007-0211; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-221-AD'' at
the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the
overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part
39) as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-15064 (72 FR 28597, May 22, 2007), corrected at
72 FR 46559, August 21, 2007, and adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

2007-24-02 Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2007-0211; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-221-AD; Amendment 39-15268.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective December 6, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2007-11-07.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -
300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report of a fuel tank explosion on a
Model 727-200F airplane on the ground, and a report of chafed wires
and a damaged power cable sleeve of a fuel boost pump discovered
during an inspection on a Model 737-300 airplane. (The fuel boost
pump installation on certain Model 737 airplanes is almost identical
to the installation on Model 727 airplanes.) We are issuing this AD
to detect and correct chafing of the fuel boost pump electrical
wiring and leakage of fuel into the conduit, and to prevent
electrical arcing between the wiring and the surrounding conduit,
which could result in arc-through of the conduit, and consequent
fire or explosion of the fuel tank.

Compliance

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

Certain Requirements of AD 2007-11-07

Inspection and Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

    (f) At the applicable time specified by paragraph (f)(1) or
(f)(2) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection for damage of the sleeve
and electrical wire of the fuel boost pump; and, before further
flight, install a new, smaller-diameter sleeve, and do related
investigative and corrective actions, as applicable; in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-28A1263, Revision 1, dated March 19, 2007; or Boeing
Service Bulletin 737-28A1263, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2007.
After the effective date of this AD, Revision 2 must be used.
Thereafter, repeat the detailed inspection at intervals not to
exceed 15,000 flight hours.
    (1) For Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes: At the time specified in paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD,
as applicable.
    (2) For Model 737-200C series airplanes: Within 120 days after
June 6, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-11-07), or within 5,000
flight hours after the last inspection or repair done in accordance
with any version of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28-1120,
whichever occurs later.

Inspection Report and Disposition of Damaged Parts

    (g) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or
(g)(2) of this AD: Submit a report of the findings (both positive
and negative) of any inspection required by paragraph (f) of this AD
and send any damaged parts to the manufacturer, as described in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1263, Revision 1, dated March
19, 2007. The report must include the inspection results, a
description of any discrepancies found, the airplane serial number,
and the number of landings and flight hours on the airplane. Under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this AD and has
assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
    (1) For any inspection done on or after June 6, 2007: Submit the
report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) For any inspection done before June 6, 2007: Submit the
report within 30 days after June 6, 2007.

Credit for Actions Done Using Previous Service Information

    (h) Actions accomplished before June 6, 2007, in accordance with
Boeing Service

Bulletin 737-28A1263, dated February 19, 2007, are considered
acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified
in this AD.

New Requirements of This AD

Previously Required Inspection at New Compliance Times

    (i) For Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes having line numbers 1 through 3072 inclusive: Within 120
days after the effective date of this AD, or within 5,000 flight
hours after the last inspection or repair done in accordance with
any service bulletin listed in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), or
(i)(4) of this AD, whichever occurs later, do the actions specified
in paragraph (f) of this AD.
    (1) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1120, dated April 24,
1998, as revised by Notices of Status Change NSC 01, dated May 7,
1998, NSC 02, dated May 8, 1998, and NSC 03, dated May 9, 1998.
    (2) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1120, Revision 1, dated
May 28, 1998.
    (3) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1120, Revision 2, dated
November 26, 1998.
    (4) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1120, Revision 3, dated April
26, 2001.
    (j) For Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes having line numbers 3073 and subsequent: At the applicable
time specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, do the
actions specified in paragraph (f) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes on which the inspection or repair specified in
any service bulletin listed in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), or
(i)(4) of this AD, has been done as of the effective date of this
AD: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD or 5,000
flight hours after the last inspection done in accordance with any
service bulletin listed in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), or
(i)(4) of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (2) For airplanes on which the inspection or repair specified in
any service bulletin listed in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), or
(i)(4) of this AD, has not been done as of the effective date of
this AD: Before the accumulation of 5,000 total flight hours, or
within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later.

Inspection Report and Disposition of Damaged Parts

    (k) For Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (k)(1) or
(k)(2) of this AD, submit a report of the findings (both positive
and negative) of any inspection required by paragraph (i) or (j) of
this AD and send any damaged parts to the manufacturer, as described
in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1263, Revision 2, dated August 10,
2007. The report must include the inspection results, a description
of any discrepancies found, the airplane serial number, and the
number of landings and flight hours on the airplane. Under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this AD and has
assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
    (1) For any inspection done after the effective date of this AD:
Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) For any inspection done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (l)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 99-21-15,
amendment 39-11360, and AD 2007-11-07 are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (m) You must use applicable Boeing service bulletins specified
in Table 1 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

            Table 1.--All Material Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Revision
       Service Bulletin           level                 Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin            1  March 19, 2007.
 737-28A1263.
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-             2  August 10, 2007.
 28A1263.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1263,
Revision 2, dated August 10, 2007, in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) On June 6, 2007 (72 FR 28597, May 22, 2007), the Director of
the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1263, Revision 1, dated March
19, 2007.
    (3) Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You
may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 8, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-22724 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 4, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70051-70054]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24345]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0968; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00974-T;
Amendment 39-21304; AD 2020-22-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus SAS Model A320-251N and -271N airplanes; Model A321-
251N, -271N, -272N, -252NX, and -271NX airplanes; Model A330-243, -343,
and -941 airplanes; and Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by reports of removable

display units (RDUs) found undocked from the hosting display docking
stations (DDSs). This AD requires removal of the RDUs or implementation
of an operational restriction, and a one-time inspection of the RDU
installation onto the DDS and, depending on findings, accomplishment of
applicable corrective actions, as specified in a European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 19, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 19,
2020.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by December 21, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays
    For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD, contact
the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49
221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this IBR material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0968.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0968; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this AD, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large
Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0155, dated July 14, 2020
(``EASA AD 2020-0155'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A320-251N and -271N airplanes;
Model A321-251N, -271N, -272N, -252NX, and -271NX airplanes; Model
A330-243 airplanes; Model A330-343 airplanes; Model A330-941 airplanes;
and Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes.
    This AD was prompted by reports of RDUs found undocked from the
hosting DDSs caused by incorrect RDU installation or damage to the DDS.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address undocked RDUs, which could lead
to detachment of an RDU, possibly resulting in injury to airplane
occupants. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0155 describes procedures for removal of the RDUs or
implementation of an operational restriction, and a one-time inspection
of the RDU installation onto the DDS and, depending on findings,
accomplishment of applicable corrective actions. Corrective actions
include repair or replacement of the DDS, reinstallation or replacement
of the RDU, and realignment of the RDU and DDS. This material is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD because the FAA evaluated
all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Requirements of This AD

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD
2020-0155 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0155
is incorporated by reference in this final rule. This AD, therefore,
requires compliance with EASA AD 2020-0155 in its entirety, through
that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions
in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same
as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean
that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where
the AD requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance
times,'' compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the
section titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in the
EASA AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2020-0155 that is
required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-0155 is available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2020-0968.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    There are currently no domestic operators of these products.
Therefore, the FAA finds that notice and opportunity for prior public
comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this
amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and the FAA did not precede it by notice and opportunity for
public comment. The FAA invites you to send any

written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your
comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
``Docket No. FAA-2020-0968; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00974-T'' at
the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a
specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include supporting data. Except for
Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following
paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this AD based on those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments the FAA receives, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive
verbal contact the FAA receives about this AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good
cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and
comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt
this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. If an
affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the
future, the FAA provides the following cost estimates to comply with
this AD:

                  Estimated Costs for Required Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Labor cost               Parts cost       Cost per product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour =                 $0   $85 per RDU.
 $85 per RDU.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable us to
provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2020-22-08 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-21304; Docket No. FAA-2020-0968;
Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00974-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective November 19, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (6) of this AD, certificated in any category, as
identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-
0155, dated July 14, 2020 (``EASA AD 2020-0155'').
    (1) Model A320-251N and -271N airplanes.
    (2) Model A321-251N, -271N, -272N, -252NX, and -271NX airplanes.
    (3) Model A330-243 airplanes.
    (4) Model A330-343 airplanes.
    (5) Model A330-941 airplanes.
    (6) Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 23,
Communications; 44, Cabin systems.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of removable display units
(RDUs) found undocked from the hosting display docking stations
(DDS). The FAA is issuing this AD to address undocked RDUs, which
could lead to detachment of an RDU, possibly resulting in injury to
airplane occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2020-0155.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0155

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0155 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0155 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Where the EASA AD specifies ``any discrepancies,'' those
discrepancies include damage or deformity to the DDS tab, a jammed
butterfly latch, a RDU that does not engage easily, and a RDU that
does not latch.
    (4) Where paragraph (3) of the EASA AD specifies a compliance
time of ``before next flight,'' that compliance time does not apply
to this AD.
    (5) Where AOT A44P001-20-00 and A23L001-20-00, as specified in
EASA AD 2020-0155, specify the gap must be equal to or greater than
4.2mm, for this AD, the gap must be greater than 4.0mm.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2020-0155 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0155,
dated July 14, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For information about EASA AD 2020-0155, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999
000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0968.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on October 16, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-24345 Filed 11-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 15 (Thursday, January 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4007-4011]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01029]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87985; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2020-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Amend Its Rules Governing the Give Up of a Clearing Member by a User
on Exchange Transactions

January 16, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 2, 2020, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
````BZX'''') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX Options'')
proposes to amend its rules governing the give up of a Clearing Member
by a User on Exchange transactions. 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://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), 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 Exchange proposes to amend Rule 21.12, which governs the give
up of a Clearing Member \5\ by a User \6\ on Exchange transactions, to
substantially conform to Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe Options'') Rule
5.10, proposed Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX Options'') Rule 21.12,
and proposed Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2 Options'') Rule 6.30.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Clearing Member'' means an Options Member that is
self-clearing or an Options Member that clears BZX Options
Transactions for other Members of BZX Options. See Exchange Rule
16.1.
    \6\ The term ``User'' means any Options Member or Sponsored
Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System
pursuant to Rule 11.3 (Access). See Exchange Rule 16.1.
    \7\ See SR-CboeEDGX-2020-001 (filed January 2, 2020) and SR-C2-
2020-001 (filed January 2, 2020) (collectively referred to as the
``EDGX Options and C2 Options Proposed Give Up Rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Under current Exchange rules, Users entering transactions on the
Exchange must either be a Clearing Member or must establish a clearing
arrangement with a Clearing Member, and must have a Letter of Guarantee
issued by a Clearing Member. In addition, under current Rule 21.12, a
User must give up the name of the Clearing Member through which each
transaction will be cleared. Every Clearing Member accepts financial
responsibility for all BZX Options transactions made by the guaranteed
User pursuant to Exchange Rule 22.8(b) (Terms of Letter Guarantee). The
proposed amendment will result in a more structured and coherent
streamlined give up process on the Exchange as it will align with the
give up functionality on BZX Options with that currently available on
Cboe Options, C2 Options, and EDGX Options.
    Additionally, beginning in early 2018, certain Clearing Members (in
conjunction with the Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association (``SIFMA'')) expressed concerns related to the process by
which executing brokers on U.S. options exchanges (the ``Exchanges'')
are allowed to designate or `give up' a clearing firm for purposes of
clearing particular transactions. The SIFMA-affiliated Clearing Members
have recently identified the current give up process as a significant
source of risk for clearing firms. SIFMA-affiliated Clearing Members
subsequently requested that the Exchanges alleviate this risk by
amending Exchange rules governing the give up process. \8\ Therefore,
the Exchange is now seeking to amend its Rule 21.17 to align with
applicable rules of the Exchanges and also to substantially conform to
existing Cboe Options Rule 5.10 and proposed EDGX Options Rule 22.12
and C2 Options Rule 6.30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Cboe Options recently modified its give up procedure under
rule 5.10 to allow clearing trading permit holders to ``Opt In''
such that the clearing trading permit holder (``TPH'') may specify
which Cboe Options TPH organizations are authorized to give up that
clearing trading permit holder. See Securities and Exchange Act
Release No. 86401 (July 17, 2019), 84 FR 35433 (July 23, 2019) (SR-
CBOE-19-036). Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``PHLX''), NYSE Arca, Inc., (``NYSE
Arca''), and NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'') also recently
modified their respect give up rules to adopt an ``Opt In'' process;
see also Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 85136 (February 14,
2019), 84 FR 5526 (February 21, 2019) (SR-PHLX-2018-72), Securities
and Exchange Act Release No. 85871 (May 16, 2019), 84 FR 23613 (May
22, 2019) (SR-NYSEArca 2019-32) and Securities and Exchange Act
Release 85875 (May 16, 2019), 84 FR 23591 (May 22, 2019) (SR-
NYSEAMER-2019-17). The Exchange's proposal leads to the same result
of providing its Clearing Member's the ability to control risk and
includes PHLX's, NYSE Arca's and NYSE American's ``Opt In'' process,
but it otherwise differs slightly in process from their give up
rules. For example, the Exchange intends to maintain its provisions
relating to Designated Give Ups and eliminate its provisions
relating to the rejection of a trade. The Exchange's proposal is
substantially the same as the current give up process on Cboe
Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 21.12 by replacing the current
rule text with details regarding the give up procedure for a User
executing transactions on the Exchange. As amended, Rule 21.12 would
provide that a User may indicate, at the time of the trade or through
post trade allocation, any Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
number of the Clearing Member through which the transaction will be
cleared (``give up'')

to either a ``Designated Give Up'' \9\ or a ``Guarantor'',\10\ as those
roles would be defined in the Rule and discussed in further detail
below.\11\ Further, Rule 21.12 would provide that Clearing Members may
elect to ``Opt In'' and restrict one or more of its OCC number(s)
(``Restricted OCC Number''), as defined in the Rule and described in
further detail below.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(b)(1).
    \10\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(b)(2).
    \11\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(a); see also paragraph (a)
of the EDGX Options and C2 Options Proposed Give Up Rule. The
Exchange notes that paragraph (a) of Cboe Options 5.10 slightly
differs from the proposed paragraph (a) on the Exchange, EDGX
Options, and C2 Options; however, Cboe Options plans to amend its
paragraph (a) of Rule 5.10 to conform to proposed Exchange, EDGX
Options, and C2 Options rules with slight differences as it relates
to floor trading.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amended Rule 21.12(b)(1) would define the term ``Designated Give
Up'' as a Clearing Member that a User (other than a Market-Maker) \13\
identifies to the Exchange, in writing, as a Clearing Member the User
requests the ability to give up.\14\ To designate a Designated Give Up,
a User must submit written notification to the Exchange, in a form and
manner prescribed by the Exchange (``Notification Form'').\15\ A copy
of the proposed Notification Form is included with this filing in
Exhibit 3. Similarly, should a User no longer want the ability to give
up a particular Designated Give Up, the User would have to submit
written notification to the Exchange, in a form and manner prescribed
by the Exchange.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For purposes of this rule, references to ``Market-Maker''
shall refer to a Member acting in the capacity of a Market-Maker and
shall include all Market-Maker capacities.
    \14\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(b)(1); see also Cboe
Options 5.10(b)(1).
    \15\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(b)(3); see also Cboe
Options Rule 5.10(b)(3).
    \16\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(b)(7); see also Cboe
Options Rule 5.10(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that, as proposed, a User may designate any
Clearing Member as a Designated Give Up, provided that the Designated
Give Up has not Opted In, or provided that the User is an Authorized
User \17\ of that Designated Give Up. Further, there would be no
maximum number of Designated Give Ups that a User can identify. The
Exchange would notify a Clearing Member, in writing and as soon as
practicable, of each User that has identified it as a Designated Give
Up.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ An ``Authorized User'' refers to a User that has written
authorization as described in proposed Rule 21.12(c)(2) to give up a
Restricted OCC Number. See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(a).
    \18\ Supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As amended, Rule 21.12(b)(2) would define the term Guarantor as a
Clearing Member that has issued a Letter of Guarantee for the executing
User, pursuant to the Rules of the Exchange \19\ that are in effect at
the time of the execution of the applicable trade.\20\ An executing
User may give up its Guarantor without such Guarantor being a
Designated Give Up. The Exchange's Rule 22.8 provides that a Letter of
Guarantee is required to be issued and filed by each Clearing Member
through which a User clears transactions. Accordingly, a Market-Maker
would only be enabled to give up a Guarantor that had executed a Letter
of Guarantee on its behalf pursuant to Rule 22.8. Thus, Market-Makers
would not identify any Designated Give Ups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Exchange Rule 22.8 (Letters of Guarantee).
    \20\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(b)(2); see also Cboe
Options Rule 5.10(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 21.12(c) would provide that Clearing Members may
request the Exchange restrict one or more of their OCC numbers (``Opt
In'') from being given up unless otherwise authorized.\21\ If a
Clearing Member Opts In, the Exchange will require written
authorization from the Clearing Member permitting a User to give up a
Clearing Member's Restricted OCC number.\22\ An Opt In would remain in
effect until the Clearing Member terminates the Opt In as described in
proposed subparagraph (c)(3).\23\ If a Clearing Member does not Opt In,
that Clearing Member's OCC number may be subject to being given up by
any User that has designated it as a Designated Give Up.\24\ Proposed
Rule 21.12(c)(1) will set forth the process by which a Clearing Member
may Opt In.\25\ Specifically, a Clearing Member may Opt In by sending a
completed ``Clearing Member Restriction Form'' listing all Restricted
OCC Numbers and Authorized Users.\26\ A copy of the proposed form is
included in Exhibit 3. A Clearing Member may elect to restrict one or
more OCC clearing numbers that are registered in its name at the
OCC.\27\ The Clearing Member would be required to submit the Clearing
Member Restriction Form to the Exchange's MSD as described on the form.
Once submitted, the Exchange requires ninety days before a Restricted
OCC Number is effective within the System.\28\ This time period is to
provide adequate time for the Users of that Restricted OCC Number who
are not initially specified by the Clearing Member as Authorized Users
to obtain the required written authorization from the Clearing Member
for that Restricted OCC Number. Such Users would still be able to give
up that Restricted OCC Number during this ninety day period (i.e.,
until the number becomes restricted within the System).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(c); see also Cboe Options
Rule 5.10(c).
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(c)(1); see also Cboe
Options Rule 5.10(c)(1).
    \26\ This form will be available on the Exchange's website. The
Exchange will also maintain, on its website, a list of the
Restricted OCC Numbers, which will be updated on a regular basis,
and the Clearing Member's contact information to assist Users (to
the extent they are not already Authorized Users) with requesting
authorization for a Restricted OCC Number. The Exchange may utilize
additional means to inform its Members of such updates on a periodic
basis.
    \27\ Supra note 29.
    \28\ Supra note 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 21.12(c)(2) will set forth the process for Users to
give up a Clearing Member's Restricted OCC Number.\29\ Specifically, a
User desiring to give up a Restricted OCC Number must become an
Authorized User.\30\ The Clearing Member will be required to authorize
a User as described in subparagraph (1) or (3) of Rule 21.12(c) (i.e.,
through a Clearing Member Restriction Form), unless the Restricted OCC
Number is already subject to a Letter of Guarantee that the User is a
party to, as set forth in Rule 21.12(b)(6).\31\ Pursuant to proposed
Rule 21.12(c)(3), a Clearing Member may amend the list of its
Authorized Users or Restricted OCC Numbers by submitting a new Clearing
Member Restriction Form to the Exchange's MSD indicating the amendment
as described on the form.\32\ Once a Restricted OCC Number is effective
within the System pursuant to Rule 21.12(c)(1), the Exchange may permit
the Clearing Member to authorize, or remove authorization for, a User
to give up the Restricted OCC Number intra-day only in unusual
circumstances, and on the next business day in all regular
circumstances.\33\ The Exchange will promptly notify Users if they are
no longer authorized to give up a Clearing Member's Restricted OCC
Number.\34\ If a Clearing Member removes a Restricted OCC Number, any
User may give up that OCC clearing number once the removal has become
effective on or before the next business day, provided that Clearing
Member has been designated as a Designated Give Up.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(c)(2); see also Cboe
Options Rule 5.10(c)(2).
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id.
    \32\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(c)(3) and (e); see also
Cboe Options Rule 5.10(c)(3) and (e).
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, amended Rule 21.12 would provide that a User may
only give up (A) a Clearing Member that has

previously been identified and processed by the Exchange as a
Designated Give Up for that User, provided that the Designated Give Up
has not Opted In, or provided that the User is an Authorized User of
that Designated Give Up, or (B) a Guarantor for that user.\36\ This
proposed requirement would be enforced by the Exchange's trading
systems.\37\ Specifically, the Exchange has configured its trading
systems to only accept orders from a User that identifies a Designated
Give Up or Guarantor for that User. For any Restricted OCC Number, the
Exchange's trading systems will only accept orders for that number from
an Authorized User that has also designated that Clearing Member as a
Designated Give Up. The System would reject any order entered by a User
not meeting the aforementioned criteria. The Exchange notes that it
would notify a User in writing when an identified Designated Give Up
becomes effective (i.e., when a Clearing Member has been identified by
the User as a Designated Give Up, has been enabled by the Exchange's
trading systems to be given up).\38\ A Guarantor for a User, by virtue
of having an effective Letter of Guarantee on file with the Exchange,
would be enabled to be given up for that User without any further
action by the User.\39\ The Exchange notes that this configuration
(i.e., the trading systems accepting only orders that identify a
Designated Give Up or a Guarantor) is intended to help reduce keypunch
errors (errors involving erroneous data entry), and prevent the User
from mistakenly giving up the name of a Clearing Member that it does
not have the ability to give up a trade. However, in light of Clearing
Members having the ability to restrict their OCC numbers from being
given up by unauthorized Users, the Exchange does not propose to adopt
a process for Clearing Members to ``reject'' trades.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(b)(3); see also Cboe
Options Rule 5.10(b)(3).
    \37\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(d); see also Cboe Options
Rule 5.10(d).
    \38\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(e); see also Cboe Options
Rule 5.10(e).
    \39\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(b)(6); see also Cboe
Options Rule 5.10(b)(6).
    \40\ See paragraph (f) of existing EDGX Options Rule 21.12 and
C2 Options Rule 6.30(f). The Exchange notes, that the EDGX Options
and C2 Options Proposed Give Up Rule seeks to eliminate existing
paragraph (f). Further, Cboe Options Rule 5.10 does not have a
process for Clearing Members to ``reject'' trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes in Rule 21.12(f) three scenarios in
which a give up on a transaction may be changed without Exchange
involvement.\41\ First, if an executing User has the ability through an
Exchange system to do so, it could change the give up on a trade to
another Designated Give Up, provided it's an Authorized User for any
Restricted OCC Number, or its Guarantor.\42\ The Exchange notes that
Users often make these changes when, for example, there is a keypunch
error. The ability of the executing User to make any such change would
end at the ``Trade Date Cutoff Time''.\43\ Next, the modified rule
would provide that, if a Designated Give Up has the ability to do so,
it may change the give up on a transaction for which it was given up to
(A) another Clearing Member affiliated with the Designated Give Up or
(B) a Clearing Member for which the Designated Give Up is a back office
agent.\44\ The ability to make such a change would end at the Trade
Date Cutoff Time.\45\ The Exchange notes that often Clearing Members
themselves have the ability to change a give up on a trade for which it
was given up to another Clearing Member affiliate or Clearing Member
for which the Designated Give Up is a back office agent. Therefore,
Exchange involvement in these instances is not necessary. In addition,
the proposed rule provides that if both a Designated Give Up or
Guarantor and a Clearing Member have the ability through an Exchange
system to do so, the Designated Give Up or Guarantor and Clearing
Member may each enter trade records into the Exchange's systems on the
next trading day (``T+1'') that would effect a transfer of the trade in
a non-expired option series from that Designated Give Up (or Guarantor)
to that Clearing Member.\46\ The Designated Give Up or Guarantor could
not make any such change after the T+1 Cutoff Time.\47\ The Exchange
notes that a Designated Give Up or Guarantor must notify, in writing,
the Exchange and all the parties to the trade, of any such change made
pursuant to this provision.\48\ This notification alerts the parties
and the Exchange that a change to the give up has been made. Finally,
the Designated Give Up or Guarantor would be responsible for monitoring
the trade and ensuring that the other Clearing Member has entered its
side of the transaction timely and correctly. If either a Designated
Give Up (or Guarantor) or Clearing Member cannot themselves enter trade
records into the Exchange's systems to effect a transfer of the trade
from one to the other, the Designated Give Up (or Guarantor) may
request the ability from the Exchange to enter both sides of the
transaction in accordance with amended Rule 21.12(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(f); see also Cboe Options
Rule 5.10(f).
    \42\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(f)(1); see also Cboe
Options Rule 5.10(f)(1).
    \43\ The ``Trade Date Cutoff Time'' is established by the
Clearing Corporation (or 15 minutes thereafter if the Exchange
receives and is able to process a request to extend its time of
final trade submission to the Clearing Corporation). Id.
    \44\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(f)(2); see also Cboe
Options Rule 5.10(f)(2).
    \45\ Id.
    \46\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(f)(3); see also Cboe
Options Rule 5.10(f)(3).
    \47\ The ``T+1 Cutoff Time'' is 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time on T+1;
see proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(f)(3); see also Cboe Options Rule
5.10(f)(3) (which provides a cutoff time of 12:00 p.m. Central
Time).
    \48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes Rule 21.12(g) to state that a Clearing Member
would be financially responsible for all trades for which it is the
give up at the Applicable Cutoff Time (for purposes of the proposed
rule, the ``Applicable Cutoff Time'' shall refer to the T+1 Cutoff Time
for non-expiring option series and to the Trade Date Cutoff Time for
expiring option series).\49\ The Exchange notes, however, that nothing
in the proposed rule shall preclude a different party from being
responsible for the trade outside of the Rules of the Exchange pursuant
to OCC Rules, any agreement between the applicable parties, other
applicable rules and regulations, arbitration, court proceedings or
otherwise.\50\ Additionally, the proposed Rule does not preclude these
factors from being considered in a different forum (e.g., court or
arbitration), nor does it preclude any Clearing Member that violates
any provision of amended Rule 21.12 from being subject to disciplinary
actions in accordance with Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(g); see also Cboe Options
Rule 5.10(g).
    \50\ See proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to Exchange Rule
21.12 (``Nothing herein will be deemed to preclude the clearance of
Exchange transactions by a non-User pursuant to the By-Laws of the
Options Clearing Corporation so long as a Clearing Member who is a
User is also designated as having responsibility under these Rules
for the clearance of such transactions.''); see also Interpretation
and Policy .01 to Cboe Options Rule 5.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to adopt subparagraph (h) of Rule 21.12
to provide that an intentional misuse of this Rule is impermissible,
and may be treated as a violation of Rule 3.1, titled ``Business
Conduct of Members''.\51\ This language will make clear that the
Exchange will regulate an intentional

misuse of this Rule, and that such behavior would be a violation of
Exchange rules. The proposed language is similar to corresponding
provisions in other exchanges' give up rules.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See Cboe Options Rule 5.10(h), which states that
intentional misuse of Rule 5.10 may be treated as a violation of
Rule 8.1 (Just and Equitable Principles of Trade).
    \52\ See e.g., Cboe Options Rule 5.10(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to amend its current Member
Notification of Designated Give ups Form (``Designated Give ups
Form''). As of October 7, 2019 the Cboe affiliated Options Exchanges
are on the same technology platform. To provide further harmonization
across the Cboe affiliated Options Exchanges and provide more seamless
administration of the Give Up rule, the Exchange proposes to adopt the
forms currently applicable to the Cboe Exchange, Inc., which will be
applicable to all Cboe affiliated Options Exchanges. The proposed
Designated Give Up forms are included in Exhibit 3.
Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to announce the implementation date of the
proposed rule change in an Exchange Notice, to be published no later
than thirty (30) days following the operative date. The implementation
date will be no later than sixty (60) days following the operative
date.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\53\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \54\ 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
facilitation 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) \55\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \54\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \55\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Detailing in the rules how Users would give up Clearing Members
provides transparency and operational certainty. The Exchange believes
additional transparency removes a potential impediment to, and would
contribute to perfecting, the mechanism of a free and open market and a
national market system, and, in general, would protect investors and
the public interest. Moreover, the Exchange notes that amended Rule
21.12 requires Users to adhere to a standardized process to ensure a
seamless administration of the Rule. For example, all notifications
relating to a change in give up must be made in writing. The Exchange
believes that these requirements will aid the Exchange's efforts to
monitor and regulate Users and Clearing Members as they relate to
amended Rule 21.12 and changes in give ups, thereby protecting
investors and the public interest.
    Further, as discussed above, several clearing firms affiliated with
SIFMA have recently expressed concerns relating to the current give up
process, which permits Users to identify any Clearing Member as a
Designated Give Up for purposes of clearing particular transactions,
and have identified the current give up process (i.e., a process that
lacks authorization) as a significant source of risk for clearing
firms. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Rule 21.12
help alleviate this risk by enabling Clearing Members to `Opt In' to
restrict one or more of its OCC clearing numbers (i.e., Restricted OCC
Numbers), and to specify which Authorized Users may give up those
Restricted OCC Numbers. As described above, all other Users would be
required to receive written authorization from the Clearing Member
before they can give up that Clearing Member's Restricted OCC Number.
The Exchange believes that this authorization provides proper
safeguards and protections for Clearing Members as it provides controls
for Clearing Members to restrict access to their OCC clearing numbers,
allowing access only to those Authorized Users upon their request. The
Exchange also believes that its proposed Clearing Member Restriction
Form allows the Exchange to receive in a uniform fashion, written and
transparent authorization from Clearing Members, which ensures seamless
administration of the Rule.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Opt In process strikes the
right balance between the various views and interests across the
industry. For example, although the proposed rule would require Users
(other than Authorized Users) to seek authorization from Clearing
Members in order to have the ability to give them up, each User will
still have the ability to give up a Restricted OCC Number that is
subject to a Letter of Guarantee without obtaining any further
authorization if that User is party to that arrangement. The Exchange
also notes that to the extent the executing User has a clearing
arrangement with a Clearing Members (i.e., through a Letter of
Guarantee), a trade can be assigned to the executing User's Guarantor.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
reasonable and continues to provide certainty that a Clearing Members
would be responsible for a trade, which protects investors and the
public interest.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose an unnecessary burden on
intramarket competition because it would apply equally to all similarly
situated Members. The Exchange also notes that, should the proposed
changes make the Exchange more attractive for trading, market
participants trading on other exchanges can always elect to become
Members on the Exchange to take advantage of the trading opportunities.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change does not address any competitive
issues and ultimately, the target of the Exchange's proposal is to
provide transparency and operational certainty to the Exchange's give
up process, and also to reduce risk for Clearing Members. Clearing
firms make financial decisions based on risk and reward, and while it
is generally in their beneficial interest to clear transactions for
market participants in order to generate profit, it is the Exchange's
understanding from SIFMA and clearing firms that the current process
can create significant risk when the clearing firm can be given up on
any market participant's transaction, even where there is no prior
customer relationship or authorization for that designated transaction.
In the absence of a mechanism that governs a market participant's use
of a Clearing Member's services, the Exchange's proposal may indirectly
facilitate the ability of a Clearing Member to manage their existing
customer relationships while continuing to allow market participant
choice in broker execution services. While Clearing Members may compete
with executing brokers for order flow, the Exchange does not believe
this proposal imposes an undue burden on competition. Rather, the
Exchange believes that the proposed

rule change balances the need for Clearing Members to manage risks and
allows them to address outlier behavior from executing brokers while
still allowing freedom of choice to select an executing broker.

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 written comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \56\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \57\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \57\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \58\ permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. In its filing, the Exchange
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The
Exchange represented that the proposal establishes a rule regarding the
give up of a Clearing Member in order to help clearing firms manage
risk while continuing to allow market participants choice in broker
execution services. The Commission notes that it recently approved a
substantially similar proposed rule change from Phlx, after which other
options exchanges subsequently adopted subatantially similarly
rules.\59\ The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, because the Exchange's proposal raises no new issues.
Further, such waiver will permit the Exchange, without further delay,
to begin implementing the new standardized give up process, thus
aligning its give up process with that of the other option exchanges.
Accordingly, the Commission waives the 30-day operative delay and
designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \59\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85136 (February 14,
2019), 84 FR 5526 (February 21, 2019) (Phlx-2018-72) (order
approving a proposed rule change to establish rules governing give
ups). See also supra note 18 (citing the filings in which other
options exchanges adopted substantially similar rules).
    \60\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or 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-CboeBZX-2020-002 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-CboeBZX-2020-002. 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-CboeBZX-2020-002 and should be submitted
on or before February 13, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-01029 Filed 1-22-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


A P P E N D I X C C 1 APPENDIX C Management Conference Membership Peconic Estuary Program CCMP A P P E N D I X C C 2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP A P P E N D I X C C 3 Policy Committee Kathleen Callahan, Chair Director, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection USEPA Region II 290 Broadway   24th Floor New York, NY 10007 Robert Gaffney, Suffolk County Executive H. L. Dennison Bldg Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Ray Cowen, Director Region I NYSDEC   Bldg # 40 SUNY @ Stony Brook Stony Brook, NY 11794 Jean Cochran, Supervisor Town of Southold P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Management Committee (* Non voting member)

Janice Rollwagen, Chair Chief of Estuaries and Oceans Section USEPA   Region II 290 Broadway   24th Floor New York, NY 10007 Jean Cochran, Supervisor Town of Southold P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 * Don Henne USFWS Southern New England/ New York Bight P. O. Box 307 Charlestown, RI 02813 * Darrel J. Kost, NYSDOT NYS Office Building Veterans' Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Lisa Liquori, Chair TAC Town of East Hampton 300 Pantigo Road, Suite 105 East Hampton, NY 11937 * Charles McCaffrey NYS Department of State 41 State Street Albany, NY 12231 Kevin McDonald, Chair CAC Group for the SouthFork P. O. Box 569 Bridgehampton, NY 11932 Art Newell, Deputy Director Bureau of Marine Resources   NYSDEC   Region I 205 North Belle Meade Rd Setauket, NY 11733 * Bill O'Beirne, NOAA/ OCRM SSMC4/ 11th Floor 1305 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 George Proios Suffolk County Executive's Office H. L. Dennison Bldg Hauppauge, NY 11788 Assemblyman Fred Thiele P. O. Box 3062 Bridgehampton, NY 11932 Citizens Advisory Committee Kevin McDonald, Chair Group for the South Fork Bruce Anderson Suffolk Environmental Consulting Jennifer Andreoli Landmarks Anne Baird League of Women Voters of Hamptons Ed Bausman Betty Brown North Fork Environmental Council Alexander Budd Jim Cain Riverhead Conservation Advisory Board Joe Colao Floyd Carrington Shinnecock Marlin & Tuna Club Rameshwar Das Sandra Dumais Marine Education Center, CCE Clete Galasso Larry's Lighthouse Marina Alex Gregor Charles F. Guilloz Southampton Business Alliance Bill Gunther Brookhaven National Laboratory Billy Hajek Accabonac Protection Committee Emerson Hasbrouck Cornell Cooperative Extension Harvey Hellering Andrew Jones Eve Kaplan North Fork Environmental Council John Kelly, M. D.

Robert Kent New York Sea Grant Mark Ketcham Alan & Donna Kuchas Jean Lane Steve Latson Southold Town Baymens Assoc.

Stuart R. Lowrie, Ph. D. The Nature Conservancy Mrs. Lorry Mangan Peconic Estuary Program CCMP A P P E N D I X C C 4 Jeanne Marriner Save the Peconic Bays Gayle Marriner Smith Eco Vision Robert McAlevy Red Cedar Point Association Lynn Mendelman, Ph. D. Mendelman Associates Richard Mendelman Seacoast Enterprises Associates, Inc.

Carol Morrison Concerned Citizens of Montauk Patricia Mundus Peter Needham Association of Marine Industries Mal Nevel Shelter Island Baymens Assoc.

Johanna Northam Suffolk County League of Women Voters Desiree & Louis Passantino Georgette Preston Michael Reichel Mike Rewinski Frederick Arthur Ross Ken Rubino East End Waterways Tours Diana Schwenk Bill Smith Fish Unlimited Tim Sullivan Marianne Tillman Earl Voorhees Audrey Watson Pres., Mattituck Chamber of Commerce Peter Wenczel Southold Town Baymen's Assoc.

Victor Zupa Local Government Committee Jay Schneiderman, Supervisor Town of East Hampton Vincent Cannuscio, Supervisor Town of Southampton Gerard F. Siller, Supervisor Town of Shelter Island Jean W. Cochran, Supervisor Town of Southold John LaValle, Supervisor Town of Brookhaven Robert Kozakiewicz, Supervisor Town of Riverhead David E. Kapell, Mayor Village of Greenport Timothy Hogue, Mayor Village of Dering Harbor Paul F. Rickenbach, Jr., Mayor Village of East Hampton Robert Ratcliffe, Mayor Village of North Haven Thelma Georgeson, Mayor Village of Quogue William Young, Jr., Mayor Village of Sag Harbor Douglas Murtha, Co Chairperson Village of Southampton Robert Strebel, Mayor Village of Westhampton Beach James Drew, Councilman Town of Southampton Fredrick Stelle, Trustee Town of North Haven Chris Kent, Councilman Town of Riverhead Sharon Kast Town of Shelter Island Technical Advisory Committee*

Lisa Liquori, Chair Town of East Hampton Susan Antenen The Nature Conservancy Rick Balla USEPA  Region II Henry Bokuniewicz, Ph. D. Marine Sciences Research Center SUNY at Stony Brook Marci L. Bortman, Ph. D. The Nature Conservancy Maria Brown EEA, Inc.

Emilie Cademartori Town of Brookhaven Scott Campbell Shelter Island Robert Cerrato, Ph. D. Marine Sciences Research Center SUNY at Stony Brook Karen Chytalo NYSDEC Marine Habitat Protection Kirk Cochran, Ph. D. Marine Sciences Research Center SUNY at Stony Brook Allan S. Connell USDA  NRCS Jim Daly Suffolk County Planning Department Dewitt Davies, Ph. D. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP A P P E N D I X C C 5 Suffolk County Planning Department Walter Dawydiak Suffolk County Department of Health Services Dick Draper NYSDEC Division of Water Sandy Dumais Cornell Cooperative Extension Lauretta Fischer Suffolk County Planning Department Barnaby Friedman The Nature Conservancy Alan Fuchs NYSDEC Division of Water Jonathan Garber USEPA Environmental Research Lab/ ORD Joseph Gergela, III Long Island Farm Bureau Tom Halavik USFWS Southern New England/ NY Bight Richard Hanley Riverhead Planning Department Emerson Hasbrouck Cornell Cooperative Extension John Herring NYSDOS Coastal Resources Scott Hughes NYSDEC Marine Habitat Protection Thomas Iwanejko Suffolk County Department of Public Works Andrew Jones Jeff Kassner Town of Brookhaven Robert Kent New York Sea Grant Ed Kilgus, Association of Marine Industries Executive Secretary Shawn Kiernan Town of Southampton Laura Klahre Suffolk County Department of Health Services Lee Koppleman, Ph. D. LI Regional Planning Board Heather Lanza The Nature Conservancy Chris LaPorta NYSDEC Bureau of Shellfisheries Tony Leung NYSDEC Division of Water Carl Lind Suffolk County Planning Department Ed Lynch SCDPW Waterways Jack Mattice, Ph. D. New York Sea Grant Kevin McAllister Peconic BayKeeper Charles McCarthy SCCC Eastern Campus Dennis McChesney USEPA Region 2 Thomas McMahon Suffolk County Soil & Water Conservation District Skip Medeiros Brookhaven National Laboratory Vito Minei Suffolk County Department of Health Services Aslam Mirza NYSDEC Division of Water Jerrold H. Mulnick Food & Drug Administration Bronius Nemickas U. S. Geological Survey Nancy Niedowski NYSDOS Div. Coastal Resources Robert Parris U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Laurence Penny Town of East Hampton Natural Resources Chris Pickerell Cornell Cooperative Extension George Proios County Executive's Office Steve Ridler NYSDOS Karim Rimawi, Ph. D. NYSDOH Bureau of Env. Radiation Gregg Rivara Cornell Cooperative Extension Sam Sadove Tradewinds Env. Restoration Cornelia Schlenk New York Sea Grant Robert Schneck NYSDEC Division of Water Chris Schubert U. S. Geological Survey Mathew Sclafani, Ph. D. NYSDEC Marine Habitat Protection Valerie Scopaz Town of Southold Kim Shaw Suffolk County Department of Health Services Marty Shea Town of Southampton Christopher Smith Peconic Estuary Program CCMP A P P E N D I X C C 6 Cornell Cooperative Extension Laura Smith Town of Southampton Laura Star NYSDEC Division of Water Ken Testa Town of Riverhead Steve Tettlebach LIU  Southampton University Roger Tollefson New York Seafood Council Ron Verbarg Suffolk County Planning Department Alice Weber NYSDEC Finfish & Crustaceans Judith Weis, Ph. D. Professor of Zoology Rutgers University Marguerite Wolffsohn Town of East Hampton * The Technical Advisory Committee list also includes key members of the Habitat Restoration Work Group, Critical Lands Protection Plan Work Group, and the Nitrogen Management Work Groups. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP A P P E N D I X C C 2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP A P P E N D I X C C 3