[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67918-67924]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26743]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 382

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2011-0098]
RIN 2105-AD87

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel;
Accessibility of Aircraft and Stowage of Wheelchairs

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is issuing a final rule to
allow airlines to use the seat-strapping method (placing a wheelchair
across a row of seats using a strap kit that complies with applicable
Federal Aviation Administration or foreign government regulations on
the stowage of cargo in the cabin compartment) to transport a
passenger's manual folding wheelchair in the cabin of aircraft.

DATES: This rule is effective January 13, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amna Arshad or Blane A. Workie, Office
of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and
Proceedings, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER> (phone),<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax),
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(email). Arrangements to
receive this notice in an alternative format may be made by contacting
the above named individuals.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) prohibits discrimination by U.S.
and foreign carriers against passengers with disabilities. (See 49
U.S.C. 41705) Its implementing regulation, 14 CFR Part 382 (Part 382),
contains detailed standards and requirements to ensure carriers provide
nondiscriminatory service to passengers with disabilities. A
requirement that U.S. carriers provide in-cabin space for a folding
passenger wheelchair was originally adopted in 1990. (55 FR 8007.) At
that time the Department's intention was that new aircraft would have a
designated space (e.g., a closet or similar compartment) in which one
passenger's wheelchair could be stowed. The practice of seat-strapping,
placing a wheelchair across a row of seats using a strap kit that
complies with applicable Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or
foreign government regulations on the stowage of cargo in the cabin
compartment, was not authorized in the regulatory text or even
mentioned in the original rulemaking. However, it was subsequently
permitted under Department enforcement policy as an alternative to
compliance with the regulation's requirement with respect to
accommodating a passenger's manual folding wheelchair in the cabin on
covered aircraft (aircraft with a design passenger seat capacity of 100
or more seats that were ordered after April 5, 1990, or delivered after
April 5, 1992). Whenever we reference passenger seating capacity in
this or other economic or civil rights aviation rulemakings, we are
referring to the manufacturer's designed seating capacity.
    Part 382 was updated on May 13, 2008, to cover foreign air
carriers, among other things. (73 FR 27614.) The Department determined
in the final rule issued in 2008 that it was best not to retain the
seat-strapping policy in the new rule with respect to new aircraft
(i.e., aircraft ordered after May 13, 2009, or delivered after May 13,
2010), and required, consistent with the intent of the original 1990
rule, that new aircraft be capable of accommodating a passenger's
wheelchair in a priority stowage space in the cabin. See 14 CFR
382.123(c). The Department made this decision because of concerns that
seat-strapping: (1) Is an awkward way of transporting a wheelchair in
the cabin; (2) can result in less timely stowage and return of the
passenger's wheelchair; (3)

can be more conspicuous and bring unwanted attention to passengers with
disabilities; (4) can more likely result in damage to the passenger's
wheelchair; and (5) can result in last-minute surprise denials of
service to other passengers holding confirmed tickets on full flights.
Existing covered aircraft were not required to be retrofitted, however,
and airlines could continue to use seat-strapping on those aircraft.
    Within six months of issuance of the May 13, 2008, final rule, the
Department received two requests to continue the use of seat-strapping.
The Department also received a request to stow a passenger's manual
folding wheelchair in a designated cargo stowage space as an
alternative to stowing the passenger's wheelchair in the cabin of
aircraft. These requests were submitted pursuant to the ``equivalent
alternative'' provision of the May 13, 2008, final rule, which allows
carriers to request a determination that a carrier's policy, practice,
or other accommodation provides substantially equivalent accessibility
to passengers with disabilities, as compared with that provided under a
specified provision of Part 382. (See 14 CFR 382.9.)
    The Department denied the two requests to continue the use of seat-
strapping because it was contrary to the explicit language of the rule
and because a change in the substance of the rule must be addressed
through rulemaking. (See Response to Application of JetBlue Airways
Corp. for an Equivalent Alternative Determination from 14 CFR
382.123(c), Docket DOT-OST-2008-0273-0063 (filed July 22, 2009);
Response to Application of US Airways, Inc. for an Equivalent
Alternative Determination from 14 CFR 382.123(c), Docket DOT-OST-2008-
0273-0064 (filed July 22, 2009).) The Department, however, granted a
request to stow a passenger's manual folding wheelchair in a designated
cargo stowage space as an alternative to stowing the wheelchair in the
cabin, on a one-year trial basis, subject to numerous conditions to
ensure the same or greater accessibility to persons with a disability.
(See Response to Application of Aerovias Del Continente Americano S.A.,
for an Equivalent Alternative Determination from 14 CFR 382.67 and 14
CFR 382.123, Docket DOT-OST-2008-0273-0101.) On June 3, 2011, the
Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled
``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel;
Accessibility of Aircraft and Stowage of Wheelchairs'' in the Federal
Register. The Department announced in the NPRM that it was considering
amending the rule addressing the stowage of wheelchairs in aircraft
cabins. The Department sought comment on whether it should modify the
provisions in the May 13, 2008, rule pertaining to the stowage of one
passenger's manual folding wheelchair in the cabin of aircraft with 100
or more passenger seats (Sec.  382.67) in order to allow the continued
use of the seat-strapping method.
    In the NPRM, the Department asked a series of questions in the
following broad categories to assist it in determining the impact of
seat-strapping on passengers with a disability, other members of the
traveling public, and carriers: (1) Potential stigmatization associated
with the seat-strapping method and impact on other passengers that may
result from the seat-strapping method; (2) compliance cost if the
prohibition on the use of the seat-strapping method remains; (3)
complaints relating to damage to wheelchairs or delay in the stowage
and return and of a passenger's wheelchair; (4) training of carrier
employees; (5) identification of priority space for assistive devices;
(6) additional accommodations that may be required if the seat-
strapping method is permitted; and (7) other miscellaneous questions.
    The Department received fifteen comments in response to the NPRM.
Of these, seven comments were from airlines, representing the views of
Virgin Atlantic Airways, Spirit Airlines, JetBlue Airways, Virgin
America, United Airlines, US Airways, and Societe Air France. One
airline association, the Air Transport Association of America (now
Airlines for America), submitted a comment. Disability organizations
including Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Disability Rights
Education and Defense Fund each submitted a comment. Finally, five
individual consumers submitted comments. The Department has carefully
reviewed and considered the comments received. The commenters'
positions that are germane to the specific issues raised in the NPRM
are set forth below, as is the Department's response.

Summary of Final Regulatory Analysis

    The final regulatory evaluation concludes that the monetized
benefits of the final rule exceed its monetized costs, even without
considering non-quantifiable benefits. This evaluation, outlined in the
table below, finds that the expected net present value of the benefits
of the rule over 20 years, at a 7% discount rate, will amount to $242
million to $272 million.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Present value
                                                        (millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Quantified Benefits....  20 years, 7%      $243 to $273.
                                discounting.
Total Quantified Costs *.....  20 years, 7%      $0.6.
                                discounting.
Net Quantified Benefits......  20 years, 7%      $242 to $272.
                                discounting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This rule will only impose monetary costs on carriers.

Information on additional benefits and costs for which quantitative
estimates could not be developed is provided in the Regulatory Analysis
and Notices section.

Comments and Responses

1. Potential Stigmatization and Impact on Other Passengers

Questions Posed in NPRM
    We asked whether there are concerns over potential stigmatization
or embarrassment associated with the seat-strapping method, including
how a passenger with a wheelchair might feel if he or she is made aware
that other passengers might be denied boarding in order to accommodate
the wheelchair in the cabin. We requested carriers to share what
procedures are currently used to minimize potential stigmatization or
embarrassment associated with the seat-strapping method. We also asked
whether passengers had any other concerns associated with the use of
the seat-strapping method such as increased likelihood of denied
boardings and requested carriers provide information regarding the
number of passengers denied boarding per year due to the use of the
seat-strapping method.
Comments
    In general, the airlines and the Air Transport Association of
America (ATA) favor the use of seat-strapping to stow a passenger
wheelchair in the cabin of aircraft and state that it is a safe and

well-tested method of wheelchair stowage. Several airlines state that
they receive very few onboard wheelchair requests and that it is
extremely rare for seat-strapping to result in a denied boarding of
another passenger. These commenters believe that the concern over
potential stigmatization or embarrassment associated with the seat-
strapping method is unfounded and state that they have no complaints in
their records from passengers to support this concern. Several airlines
note that it has been their experience that some passengers are
reassured by the visibility of their wheelchairs while seat-strapped in
the cabin.
    Airlines additionally state that current procedures prevent
stigmatization from happening as seat-strapping is done during the pre-
boarding process and the wheelchair is not identified with the
passenger. Several airlines also state that they speak to passengers
with disabilities in private and do not involve them in discussions
with passengers that may be denied boarding. Spirit Airlines states
that it blocks the row used for seat-strapping from advance seat
assignment and it is only assigned at the airport after all other seats
have been filled in order to minimize the possibility of moving or
denying boarding to other customers and any potential stigmatization.
According to the ATA, pre-boarding procedures, voluntary bumping, and
blocked seating for in-cabin wheelchair requests are all procedures
that can be implemented to minimize stigmatization and impact on other
passengers. Virgin Atlantic Airways is the only airline that did not
favor seat-strapping, as its current practice is to stow wheelchairs in
designated closets in the cabin of the aircraft. It states that seat-
strapping would cause a rise in denied boarding situations resulting in
inconvenience for other passengers.
    Individual commenters and disability associations oppose the seat-
strapping method and believe it is an awkward and unsafe method of
transporting a wheelchair in the cabin. According to these commenters,
the stigmatization of passengers who choose to have their wheelchair
stowed in the cabin and the possibility of denied boardings are likely
consequences of seat-strapping. They state that seat-strapping is done
in front of all passengers, which would cause other passengers to
complain about a wheelchair taking up two seats. One individual
commenter shared an incident where he requested seat-strapping, which
the airline did in the first row of the aircraft in front of all the
passengers, and he overheard two passengers commenting on how rude he
was for causing two individuals to be denied boarding. Another
passenger shared a similar story where the airline reportedly made a
scene of the seat-strapping while people were entering the aircraft,
and another incident where she had requested to stow her wheelchair in
the cabin and the airline told her the flight was full and that they
had no closet. These commenters believe that a designated onboard
stowage space would satisfy their ability to store their wheelchair
safely without adversely impacting other passengers.
DOT Response
    Having fully considered the comments, the Department has decided to
allow carriers to use the seat-strapping method to stow a passenger's
manual folding wheelchair in the cabin of aircraft. Based on the
comments received, the Department has concluded that the seat-strapping
method is an acceptable alternative to a closet or similar stowage
space for wheelchair stowage in the cabin because carriers can minimize
any stigmatization and impact on other passengers by implementing
alternative procedures such as voluntary bumping in exchange for
compensation, allowing passengers with wheelchairs to pre-board,
blocking seats to accommodate wheelchair stowage requests, and
strapping the wheelchair to the seats during the pre-boarding process.
The Department emphasizes that carriers must take specific well-defined
measures such as these to ensure that the use of the seat-strapping
method does not result in stigmatization or embarrassment of the
passenger choosing to stow their wheelchair in the cabin.

2. Compliance Cost

Questions Posed in NPRM
    We asked about costs to carriers if prohibition on the use of the
seat-strapping method continued and about any effects, other than cost,
that the continued prohibition would have on carriers. We sought
comment on the benefits to using the seat-strapping method, aside from
cost savings to carriers, over the requirement to have a priority
stowage space. We also requested information regarding any increased
costs to carriers that would result from allowing the seat-strapping
method.
Comments
    The airlines and the ATA are concerned about compliance cost if the
prohibition on the use of the seat-strapping remains. These commenters
state that in addition to the cost of adding an in-cabin closet or
similar stowage space in each new aircraft, which ranges from $25,000
to $75,000 per aircraft, the airlines would face millions of dollars of
lost revenue over the life of each aircraft due to the permanent loss
of a row of seats. These commenters state that a ban on seat-strapping
would lead to fewer permanent seats for passengers, and they contend
that seat-strapping would allow airlines to offer lower fares for
consumers. According to these commenters, seat-strapping provides an
equivalent alternative to a dedicated stowage space for a wheelchair in
the cabin at a fraction of the cost.
    Virgin Atlantic states that it stows wheelchairs in designated
closets in the cabin of the aircraft and that it would incur great
expense if it were required to use the seat-strapping method, including
the price to purchase and deploy seat-strapping kits, the cost of
training crew on how to safely strap wheelchairs, training ground crew
on how to ensure proper handling of denied boarding situations, and
creating, printing and distributing materials such as procedures,
notices and training manuals.
DOT Response
    Given that almost all the commenting carriers have stated that they
have not received any passenger complaints against the seat-strapping
method, and given the dearth of public comments against this method,
the Department feels it would not be justified in burdening the
carriers with the cost of a designated wheelchair stowage space in the
cabin of their aircraft, particularly with respect to the permanent
revenue loss from removing a row of seats. With proper safeguards, the
Department believes seat-strapping can be an effective means of
transporting wheelchairs.
    Virgin Atlantic's concern is misplaced. The Department is not
requiring carriers to use the seat-strapping method; it is simply
authorizing this procedure as an option. Virgin and all other carriers
remain free to use a closet or similar space in the cabin to
accommodate passenger wheelchairs if they choose. We note, however,
that this final rule requires carriers to be able to stow two folding
manual passenger wheelchairs on any covered aircraft, as opposed to the
prior requirement to be able to stow one such chair, if the carrier
chooses to use the seat-strapping method for wheelchair stowage and if
stowing a second passenger wheelchair in the cabin would not displace
additional passengers.

3. Complaints Regarding Damage to Wheelchairs and Timely Stowage and
Return of a Passenger's Wheelchair

Questions Posed in NPRM
    We asked for commenters to share any concerns they have regarding
damage to a wheelchair or less timely stowage and return of a
wheelchair if the seat-strapping method is allowed. We also asked
whether there were any complaints received regarding wheelchair damage
from using the seat-strapping method or from stowing a wheelchair in a
priority space in the cabin.
Comments
    According to the ATA and the airlines, complaints regarding damage
to wheelchairs are extremely rare. Almost all of the airlines reported
that they have no complaints related to in-cabin wheelchair stowage in
their records. Additionally, according to the ATA, its members have no
complaints in their records related to wheelchair damage as a result of
seat-strapping. These commenters also state that seat-strapping does
not result in less timely stowage or retrieval than if the wheelchair
was stowed in a closet.
    Individual commenters and disability associations state that seat-
strapping can result in less timely stowage and return of the
passenger's wheelchair. The Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA)
believes that it is likely that a carrier would place the wheelchair in
the last row of seats, rather than the first, which could cause it to
be the last item off the plane, and that a seat-strapped wheelchair is
more susceptible to damage as it is exposed to other people, carry-on
baggage, and food or beverage carts. Also, PVA states that the
securement process itself could cause damage to the wheelchair if an
employee is not properly trained in the procedure. These commenters
believe that a designated closet space would resolve all of these
concerns.
DOT Response
    The Department feels there is insufficient data to support the
comments that assert that seat-strapping will result in damage to
wheelchairs or increased incidents of denied boarding. We do not need
to speculate about the potential impact of seat-strapping, as the
process has been in use for more than ten years. According to the
airlines, there are no passenger complaints in their records about
wheelchair damage as a result of seat-strapping. The Department also
has not received any complaints about wheelchair damage as a result of
the use of the seat-strapping method. With respect to timely stowage
and return, the Department has concluded that since a passenger's
wheelchair is generally the last item an airline removes from the cabin
(whether it is stowed in the closet or in the first or last row of the
aircraft), a delay in stowage or return is unlikely. In addition, the
Department has not received any complaints regarding untimely stowage
or return of a passenger wheelchair as a result of the use of the seat-
strapping method.

4. Training

Questions Posed in NPRM
    We asked carriers how they currently ensure that their employees
know that passengers can use the seat-strapping method to stow
wheelchairs. We also asked whether the existing requirement for
carriers to train their public contact employees to proficiency on the
proper and safe operation of any equipment used to accommodate
passengers with a disability is sufficient to ensure carrier employees
know the proper manner in which to stow a wheelchair across a row of
seats using a strap kit.
Comments
    According to the comments from the airlines and the ATA, carriers
currently provide training to crewmembers, airport agents, and
Complaint Resolution Officials (CROs--disability specialists) on the
seat-strapping method, and include this method in various operation
manuals. Instructions are also included with the seat-strapping kits.
These commenters believe that the seat-strapping method is just as
efficient as storing a wheelchair in a closet and state that this is
supported by the fact that there are no complaints from passengers to
support damage or delayed returns of wheelchairs as a result of seat-
strapping. One individual noted that she requested to have her
wheelchair stowed in the cabin and it appeared to her that the airline
representative she was interacting with was not trained to do it.
DOT Response
    The Department has considered all of the comments and emphasizes
the importance in training airline personnel to ensure that passenger
wheelchairs are handled in a safe and proper manner to avoid any
damage. Given that airlines are responsible for any damage resulting
from mishandling of the wheelchairs or improper stowage using the seat-
strapping method, the Department believes it is in the airlines' best
interest to ensure proper training of their personnel in utilizing the
seat-strapping method.

5. Identification of Priority Space for Stowage of Assistive Devices

Questions Posed in NPRM
    We asked whether the Department should require carriers to visually
identify via a placard or other mechanism that wheelchairs, other
mobility aids, and other assistive devices have priority for stowage in
the cabin compartment over other items. We also inquired as to whether
there was any benefit in requiring airlines to inform passengers of the
location of the seats where a folding manual wheelchair may be stowed.
Comments
    The airlines and ATA believe that there are no benefits to
identifying priority space for the stowage of assistive devices or
informing passengers of the location of seats where a folding manual
wheelchair may be stowed. They state that a placard or other visual
identification would lead to further stigmatization or embarrassment of
passengers who wish to stow their wheelchairs onboard the aircraft.
Virgin Atlantic Airways notes that a placard is used to identify the
location for the crew and it is not necessary for the passenger to know
of the location as the passenger would be unable to retrieve their own
wheelchair without assistance. The ATA notes that there is no benefit
to informing the passengers of the location of the space as it may be
different on various aircraft and may change due to inoperable seats,
or an aircraft change may change the stowage location. However, the ATA
states that if the Department adopts this requirement, it should limit
it to information provided at the airport, since gate agents typically
have this information on hand. JetBlue Airways states that it has found
it beneficial to provide passengers with notice on its Web site that
seats designated for passengers with disabilities are not available for
assignment until the day of travel and that passengers who request to
sit in the row designated for seat-strapping may be relocated if a
passenger requests onboard stowage.
    In general, disability associations and individual commenters
believe that carriers should visually identify the priority stowage
space in the cabin in order to ensure that assistive devices have
priority for stowage in the cabin compartment over other items. The PVA
and an individual commenter state that visual identification of the
priority stowage space will educate air carrier

and contract personnel as well as other passengers that the space is
prioritized for passenger wheelchairs. Neither the disability
associations nor the individual commenters addressed whether there was
any benefit in requiring airlines to inform passengers of the location
of seats where a folding manual wheelchair may be stowed via the seat-
strapping method.
DOT Response
    The Department has reviewed and carefully considered the comments
regarding the identification of priority space for stowage of assistive
devices. With regard to whether carriers should be required to inform
passengers of the location of the seats where a folding manual
wheelchair may be strapped, the Department agrees with commenters that
placing a placard or other visual identification on such seats would be
of limited benefit and could potentially have a stigmatizing effect on
passengers. Accordingly, the Department will not require visual
identification of the seats where the seat-strapping method of carrying
wheelchairs is utilized.
    However, with regard to in-cabin closets, the Department is
requiring carriers to visually identify via a placard or other
mechanism that wheelchairs, other mobility aids, and other assistive
devices must be stowed in this area with priority over other items,
such as crew luggage. Travelers with disabilities have recounted
stories of when airline personnel did not appear to know that their
wheelchairs had priority for stowage in a closet over other items
brought onto the aircraft by other passengers or crew enplaning at the
same airport. Visual identification of the stowage space is expected to
increase the likelihood that a passenger's wheelchair or other
assistive device will be transported in the in-cabin closet where it is
much less likely to be damaged during transport. Accordingly, the
Department believes that there are important benefits derived from
requiring airlines to visually identify that assistive devices have
priority in the closet.

6. Additional Accommodations if Seat Strapping Method Is Allowed

Questions Posed in NPRM
    We inquired whether the current dimensions of a wheelchair that
must fit without disassembly in the priority space should be increased
if the Department allows the use of the seat-strapping method, and if
so, what those dimensions should be. We also asked if carriers should
be required to accommodate more than one wheelchair in the passenger
cabin when the stowage of additional wheelchairs would not displace
other passengers.
Comments
    The airlines and the ATA believe that the current dimensions (13
inches by 36 inches by 42 inches or less) of a wheelchair that must fit
without disassembly in the priority space should not be increased as
these dimensions meet the needs of passengers and can readily be
accommodated by seat-strapping. Virgin Atlantic Airways states that any
larger size should only be required for wheelchairs that are seat-
strapped, as the stowage closets are designed for the current
dimensions.
    The airlines and the ATA believe that accommodating more than one
wheelchair is not necessary and should not be required. Airlines state
that onboard stowage of wheelchairs is not common enough that it is
necessary to require carriers to accommodate two passenger chairs. They
note that requiring them to accommodate more than one wheelchair would
necessitate additional seat-strapping kits and disrupt more passengers.
The airlines further state that they should have the option to
accommodate more wheelchairs if there is room in the cabin, but that it
should not be a requirement.
DOT Response
    Based on the comments received, the Department does not see a need
to change the dimensions of a wheelchair that must fit without
disassembly in the priority space. However, the Department has decided
to require carriers to accommodate one more folding wheelchair in the
passenger cabin if the carrier uses the seat-strapping method for
wheelchair stowage and if accommodating a second passenger wheelchair
in the cabin would not displace other passengers. The Department
believes that carriers choosing to use the seat-strapping method do not
have the space constraints that carriers with an in-cabin closet have
and would be able to accommodate a second wheelchair as long as it
would not displace other passengers, thereby benefitting consumers at
minimal to no cost. Carriers may choose to stow both wheelchairs in a
single row of seats in a method accepted by the Federal Aviation
Administration or applicable foreign government. The requirement to
ensure that there is a priority space for at least two wheelchairs only
applies to new aircraft (aircraft ordered after May 13, 2009, or
delivered after May 13, 2010).

7. Other

Questions Posed in NPRM
    We asked for comments on whether the Department should prohibit or
allow U.S. and foreign carriers to remove existing closets or other
priority spaces used for stowing a passenger's wheelchair in the cabins
of aircraft covered by Part 382. We also asked whether the Department
should allow the use of the seat-strapping method only on single-aisle
aircraft on the basis that there is sufficient space for a closet or
other priority stowage space on twin-aisle aircraft. We requested
commenters to provide any information or data that are relevant to the
Department's decision.
Comments
    One individual commenter contended that it is reasonable to require
airlines to carry two wheelchairs in the cabin of twin-aisle aircraft.
According to two individual commenters, the Department should prohibit
carriers from removing existing closets or other priority stowage
spaces. According to the ATA, the Department should allow the removal
of the closet space as long as the carrier has other areas to stow
other devices and also allow seat-strapping for both single and twin-
aisle aircraft. JetBlue Airways states that the Department should not
distinguish between single and twin-aisle aircraft and that the
decision to seat-strap or stow in closets should remain with the
carriers.
DOT Response
    After considering the comments, the Department sees no compelling
reason to limit carriers' options with respect to stowing passengers'
wheelchairs in the cabin and has decided to allow carriers to decide
whether to remove existing closets or other priority spaces currently
used for stowing a passenger's wheelchair in the cabin as long as the
carrier has a workable, approved method for in-cabin wheelchair
stowage. Additionally, the Department has decided not to distinguish
between single-aisle and twin-aisle aircraft and has concluded that the
seat-strapping method is suitable for use in both types of aircraft.

Regulatory Analysis and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures, and Executive Order 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    This action has been determined to be significant under Executive
Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures. It

has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance
with Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and
Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) and
is consistent with the requirements in both orders. Executive Order
13563 refers to non-quantifiable values, including equity and fairness.
    The Final Regulatory Evaluation estimates that the final rule will
impose a maximum one-time potential cost of compliance of $0.6 million
present value over the next 20 years. This cost estimate represents the
use of a worst-case approach that assumes a second seat-strapping kit
will be used on all impacted aircraft as the result of carriers'
adoption of the seat-strapping method as an alternative to permanent
wheelchair stowage. The worst-case approach was used because the
approach most likely resulting in lower potential cost estimates of
extra or second seat-strapping kits is difficult to quantify monetarily
due a multitude of uncertain factors (e.g., the frequency of requests
for wheelchairs by passengers with disabilities on airlines, the
frequency of full airline flights when wheelchair requests are made,
the number of extra seat-strapping kits needed as standbys per airline
flight). Additionally, this final rule requires carriers to label
priority stowage space in their cabins. The total estimated cost of
compliance with this part of the rule is expected to be minimal with
the total discounted cost ranging from $15,700 to $21,400 between 2014
and 2033.
    On balance, any costs incurred by carriers over the next 20 years
for extra seat-strapping kits or for labeling priority stowage areas
are expected to have an insignificant impact on the total potential
benefits of the rule. Specifically, the benefits of allowing carriers
to use seat-strapping will likely result in a total net revenue gain
over a 20-year period of $242-$272 million present value. This
represents revenue derived from seats that will not have to be removed
in order to make space for a permanent wheelchair stowage area. There
are also benefits with regard to the requirement that carriers identify
the in-cabin priority stowage space such as ensuring that other
passengers and/or airline employees know that manual wheelchairs and
other assistive devices have priority in the in-cabin closets of
aircraft over other carry-on items or crew luggage and increasing the
likelihood that manual wheelchairs and other assistive devices will be
transported in the cabin rather than in the cargo compartment.
    The rule is also expected to generate additional benefits to
passengers with disabilities as a result of the second wheelchair
requirement. A second wheelchair requirement would provide an
additional passenger who may prefer in-cabin stowage for various
reasons (for example, to avoid the possibility of damage occurring to
the wheelchair in the cargo compartment or for a sense of reassurance
by the visibility of his or her wheelchair) the opportunity to be able
to request it as long as it would not displace other passengers. The
potential benefits of a second wheelchair requirement are difficult to
quantify monetarily because of a multitude of uncertain factors similar
to those described previously for estimating potentially lower costs of
extra seat-strapping kits. Although not used in this evaluation because
of the lack of information, it is reasonable to assume carriers will
only purchase the number of extra seat-strapping kits in accordance
with their projected demand for more than one wheelchair on flights. A
copy of the Final Regulatory Evaluation has been placed in the docket.

B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This Final Rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). This
final rule does not include any provision that: (1) Has substantial
direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national
government and the States, or the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government; (2) imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments; or
(3) preempts State law. States are already preempted from regulating in
this area by the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. 41713. Therefore,
the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do
not apply.

C. Executive Order 13084

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because this final rule
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian
Tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on
them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order
13084 do not apply.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an
agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities
unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
I hereby certify that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A direct air
carrier or a foreign air carrier is a small business if it provides air
transportation only with small aircraft (i.e., aircraft designed to
have a maximum passenger capacity of not more than 60 seats or a
maximum payload capacity of not more than 18,000 pounds). See 14 CFR
399.73. The subject matter of this rule only affects aircraft with 100
or more passenger seats. Therefore, this requirement does not apply to
small businesses.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule imposes no new information reporting or record keeping
necessitating clearance by the Office of Management and Budget.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this rule.

    Issued this November 1, 2013, in Washington, DC
Anthony R. Foxx,
Secretary of Transportation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 382

    Air carriers, Civil rights, and Individuals with disabilities.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department is
amending 14 CFR Part 382, as follows:

PART 382-NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN AIR TRAVEL

0
1. The authority citation for part 382 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41705.

0
2. Section 382.67 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  382.67  What is the requirement for priority space in the cabin
to store passengers' wheelchairs?

    (a) As a carrier, you must ensure that there is priority space
(i.e., a closet, or a row of seats where a wheelchair may be strapped
using a strap kit that complies with applicable Federal Aviation
Administration or applicable foreign government regulations on the
stowage of cargo in the cabin compartment) in the cabin of sufficient
size to stow at least one typical adult-sized folding, collapsible, or
break-

down manual passenger wheelchair, the dimensions of which are 13 inches
by 36 inches by 42 inches or less without having to remove the wheels
or otherwise disassemble it. This section applies to any aircraft with
100 or more passenger seats and this space must be other than the
overhead compartments and under-seat spaces routinely used for
passengers' carry-on items.
    (b) If you are a carrier that uses the seat-strapping method to
stow a manual passenger wheelchair, you must ensure that there is
priority space for at least two such wheelchairs, if stowing the second
passenger wheelchair would not displace passengers.
    (c) If you are a carrier that uses a closet as the priority space
to stow a manual passenger wheelchair, you must install a sign or
placard prominently on the closet indicating that such wheelchairs and
other assistive devices are to be stowed in this area with priority
over other items brought onto the aircraft by other passengers or crew,
including crew luggage, as set forth in Sec.  382.123.
    (d) If passengers holding confirmed reservations are not able to
travel on a flight because their seats are being used to stow a
passenger's wheelchair as required by paragraph (a) of this section,
carriers must compensate those passengers in an amount to be calculated
as provided for in instances of involuntary denied boarding under 14
CFR part 250, where part 250 applies.
    (e) As a carrier, you must never request or suggest that a
passenger not stow his or her wheelchair in the cabin to accommodate
other passengers (e.g., informing a passenger that stowing his or her
wheelchair in the cabin will require other passengers to be removed
from the flight), or for any other non-safety related reason (e.g.,
that it is easier for the carrier if the wheelchair is stowed in the
cargo compartment).
    (f) As a carrier, you must offer pre-boarding to a passenger
stowing his or her wheelchair in the cabin.
    (g) As a foreign carrier, you must meet the requirement of this
section for new aircraft ordered after May 13, 2009, or delivered after
May 13, 2010. As a U.S. carrier, this section applies to you with
respect to new aircraft you operate that were ordered after April 5,
1990, or which were delivered after April 5, 1992.

Sec.  382.123  [Amended]

0
3. In Sec.  382.123, paragraph (c) is removed.
[FR Doc. 2013-26743 Filed 11-7-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9705-9706]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03739]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-453-000.
    Applicants: Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Penalty Refund Report.
    Filed Date: 2/12/15.
    Accession Number: 20150212-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-454-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas submits report of the penalty and
daily delivery variance charge (DDVC) revenues that have been credited
to shippers.
    Filed Date: 2/12/15.
    Accession Number: 20150212-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-455-000.
    Applicants: Sierrita Gas Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Parking and
Lending Service Filing to be effective 4/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/12/15.
    Accession Number: 20150212-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-456-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 20150212
Negotiated Rate to be effective 2/13/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150212-5169.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-457-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Neg Rate 2015-02-
12 Concord to be effective 2/12/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/12/15.
    Accession Number: 20150212-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-458-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.601: Integrys Energy
FTS-1 Agmts to be effective 2/13/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150213-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-459-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.403(d)(2): Fuel Tracker
(04/01/15) to be effective 4/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150213-5267.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-460-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: TETLP Mainline-
Lateral Fuel Option to be effective 5/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150218-5008.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to
the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 18, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-03739 Filed 2-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 68)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18055-18056]
[DOCID:fr10ap06-20]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0015; FRL-7779-7]
RIN 2070-AJ18

Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonates; Proposed Significant New Use Rule;
Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This document extends the public comment period established
for the Proposed Significant New Use Rule for Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonates
in the Federal Register issued on March 10, 2006 (71 FR 12311) (FRL-
7740-6). In that proposed rule, EPA proposed to amend a significant new
use rule (SNUR) under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) to include certain perfluoroalkyl sulfonates (PFAS)
substances. EPA proposed to amend the PFAS SNUR at 40 CFR 721.9582 by
adding a new Table 3 containing the remaining PFAS chemicals on the
TSCA Inventory that are not already regulated by the SNUR. EPA believes
that action is necessary because these chemical substances may be
hazardous to human health and the environment. The required notice will
provide EPA the opportunity to evaluate intended significant new uses
and associated activities before they occur and, if necessary, to
prohibit or limit those uses or activities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 10, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES
in the Federal Register document of March 10, 2006 (71 FR 12311).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    For technical information contact: Amy Breedlove, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    The Agency included in the proposed rule a list of those who may be
potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. What Action is EPA taking?

    This document extends the public comment period established in the
Federal Register issued on March 10, 2006 (71 FR 12311). In that
document, EPA proposed to amend a significant new use rule (SNUR) under
section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to include
certain perfluoroalkyl sulfonates (PFAS) substances. EPA proposed to
amend the PFAS SNUR at 40 CFR 721.9582 by adding a new Table 3
containing the remaining PFAS chemicals on the TSCA Inventory that are
not already regulated by the SNUR. EPA is hereby extending the comment
period, which was set to end on April 10, 2006, to May 10, 2006.

III. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to
determine that a use of a chemical substance is a ``significant new
use.'' EPA must make this determination by promulgating a rule after
considering all relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA
section 5(a)(2). These factors include the projected production volume
of a chemical substance; the extent to which a use changes or increases
the type, form, magnitude, or duration of exposure to the substance;
and the reasonably anticipated manner of producing, processing,
distributing, or disposing of the substance. EPA construes the statute
to allow consideration of any other relevant factors, in addition to
those listed in section 5(a)(2). Once EPA determines that a use of a
chemical substance is a significant new use, and promulgates a SNUR,
section 5(a)(1)(B) of TSCA requires persons to submit a Significant New
Use Notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture,
import, or process the chemical substance for that use.

IV. Do Any Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Apply to this Action?

    No. This action is not a rulemaking, it merely extends the date by
which public comments on a proposed rule must be submitted to EPA on a
proposed rule that previously published

in the Federal Register of March 10, 2006 (71 FR 12311). For
information about the applicability of the statutory and executive
order reviews to the proposed rule, please refer to the discussion in
Unit XII. of that document (71 FR 12311).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 4, 2006.
Charles M. Auer,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

[FR Doc. 06-3400 Filed 4-5-06; 1:17 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3732-3736]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00914]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Release No. 34-87976; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2020-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX 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 15, 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 EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
````EDGX'''') 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 EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX 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/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), 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 existing Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe
Options'') Rule 5.10, proposed Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2 Options'')
Rule 6.30, and proposed Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX Options'') Rule
21.12.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Clearing Member'' means an Options Member that is
self-clearing or an Options Member that clears EDGX Options
Transactions for other Members of EDGX 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-C2-2020-001 (filed January 2, 2020) and SR-CboeBZX-
2020-002 (filed January 2, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    By way of background, Exchange Rule 21.12 provides that when a User
executes a transaction on the Exchange, it must give up the name of the
Clearing Member (the ``Give Up'') through which the transaction will be
cleared. Rule 21.12 also provides that a User may only give up a
``Designated Give Up'' \8\ or its ``Guarantor.'' \9\ This limitation is
enforced by the Exchange's trading systems.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Exchange Rule 21.12(b)(1).
    \9\ See Exchange Rule 21.12(b)(2).
    \10\ See Exchange Rule 21.12(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A ``Designated Give Up'' of a User refers to a Clearing Member
identified to the Exchange by that User as a Clearing Member the User
requests the ability to give up and that has been processed by the
Exchange as a Designated Give Up.\11\ To designate a ``Designated Give
Up'' every User (other than a Market-Maker) must submit written
notification, in a form and manner prescribed by the Exchange.\12\
Specifically, the Exchange uses a standardized form (``Notification
Form'') that a User needs to complete and submit to the Exchange's
Membership Services Department (``MSD'').\13\ The Exchange notes that a
User may currently designate any Clearing Member as a Designated Give
Up.\14\ Additionally, there is no minimum or maximum number of
Designated Give Ups that a User must identify. Paragraph (d) of Rule
21.12 also requires that the Exchange notify a Clearing Member, in
writing and as soon as practicable, of each User that has identified it
as a Designated Give Up. The Exchange however, will not accept any
instructions from a Clearing Member to prohibit a User from designating
the Clearing Member as a Designated Give Up. Additionally, there is no
subjective evaluation of a User's list of proposed Designated Give Ups
by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Supra note 7.
    \12\ See Exchange Rule 21.12(b)(3).
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of Rule 21.12, a ``Guarantor'' of an executing User
refers to a Clearing Member that has issued a Letter of Guarantee for
the executing User under the Rules of the Exchange that are in effect
at the time of the execution of the applicable trade.\15\ An executing
User may give up its Guarantor without having to first designate it to
the Exchange as a ``Designated Give Up.'' \16\ Additionally, the
Exchange notes that a Market-Maker is only enabled to give up the
Guarantor of the Market-Maker pursuant to Exchange Rule 22.8 and also
does not need to identify any Designated Give Ups.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Supra note 8.
    \16\ The Exchange already knows each User's Guarantor and as
such, no further designation or identification is required of Users
to enable their respective Guarantors. See Exchange Rule
21.12(b)(6).
    \17\ See Exchange Rule 21.12(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 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) (``Cboe Options Rule 5.10 Amendment''). 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 existing give up process on Cboe Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    Based on the above, the Exchange now seeks to amend its rules
regarding the current give up process in order to allow a Clearing
Member to ``opt in'', at the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
clearing number level, to a feature that, if enabled by the Clearing
Member, will allow the Clearing Member to specify which Users are
authorized to give up that OCC clearing number. As proposed, Rule 21.12
will continue to require that Users identify to the Exchange, via the
Notification Form, all Clearing Members that the User would like to
have the ability to give up (i.e., Designated Give Ups).\19\ However,
the Exchange proposes to modify the language of paragraph (a) to
provide that a User may indicate, at the time of the trade or through
post trade allocation, any OCC number of the

Clearing Member through which the transaction will be cleared.\20\ The
Exchange proposes to also add to Rule 21.12(a) that Clearing Members
may elect to ``Opt In,'' as defined in paragraph (c) of the proposed
Rule and described further below, and restrict one or more of its OCC
number(s) (``Restricted OCC Number'').\21\ A User may Give Up a
Restricted OCC Number provided the User has written authorization as
described in paragraph (c)(2) (``Authorized User'').\22\ The Exchange
notes that if a User identifies a particular Clearing Member as a
Designated Give Up, but that Clearing Member has restricted its OCC
number(s) and has not authorized the User to give it up, then the
Exchange will not give effect to the designation on the Notification
Form (i.e., the User will not be able to give up that Clearing Member
even though it was identified as a Designated Give Up). Similarly, if a
Clearing Member authorizes a User to give up its Restricted OCC
Number(s), the Exchange will not enable that Clearing Member as a give
up for that User until and unless the User identifies that Clearing
Member as a Designated Give Up on a Notification Form. In light of
Clearing Members having the ability to restrict their OCC numbers from
being given up by unauthorized Users, the Exchange also proposes to
eliminate the process for Clearing Members to ``reject'' trades. As
such, the Exchange proposes to eliminate subparagraphs (e) and (f) of
Rule 21.12 and any other references to the process in Rule 21.12.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
    \20\ The Exchange notes that Cboe Options plans to amend
paragraph (a) of Rule 5.10 to conform to proposed paragraph (a) of
EDGX Options Rule 21.12 and C2 Options Rule 6.30 with a slight
modification as it relates to floor trading on Cboe Options.
    \21\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(a); see also Cboe Options
Rule 21.12(a).
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ The Exchange notes that Cboe Options similarly eliminated
the process for which Clearing Trading Permit Holders may ``reject''
trades in Rule 5.10. See the Cboe Options Rule 5.10 Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 21.12(c) provides that Clearing Members may request
the Exchange restrict one or more of their OCC clearing numbers (``Opt
In'') from being given up unless otherwise authorized.\24\ 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.\25\ An Opt In would remain in
effect until the Clearing Member terminates the Opt In as described in
proposed subparagraph (3).\26\ 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.\27\ Proposed
Rule 21.12(c)(1) will set forth the process by which a Clearing Member
may Opt In.\28\ Specifically, a Clearing Member may Opt In by sending a
completed ``Clearing Member Restriction Form'' listing all Restricted
OCC Numbers and Authorized Users.\29\ 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 OCC.\30\
The Clearing Member would be required to submit the Clearing Member
Restriction Form to the Exchange's MSD as described on the form.\31\
Once submitted, the Exchange requires ninety days before a Restricted
OCC Number is effective within the System.\32\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(c); see also Cboe Options
Rule 5.10(c).
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(c)(1); see also Cboe
Options Rule 5.10(c)(1).
    \29\ 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.
    \30\ Supra note 29.
    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 21.12(c)(2) will set forth the process for Users to
give up a Clearing Member's Restricted OCC Number.\33\ Specifically, a
User desiring to give up a Restricted OCC Number must become an
Authorized User.\34\ 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).\35\ 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.\36\ 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.\37\ The Exchange will promptly notify Users if they are
no longer authorized to give up a Clearing Member's Restricted OCC
Number.\38\ 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.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(c)(2); see also Cboe
Option Rule 5.10(c)(2).
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(c)(3); see also Cboe
Options Rule 5.10(c)(3).
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend current subparagraph (c)
(System) (to be relettered to paragraph (d)) of Rule 21.12 to clarify
that in addition to the Exchange's system not accepting orders that
identify a give up that is not at the time a Designated Give Up or a
Guarantor, the System will also reject any order that designates a
Restricted OCC Number for which the User is not an Authorized User.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(d); see also Cboe Options
Rule 5.10(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend current paragraph (d) (Notice to
Clearing Members) (to be relettered to paragraph (e)) of Rule 21.12 to
provide that the Exchange will provide notice to Users that they are
authorized or unauthorized by Clearing Members.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(e); see also Cboe Options
Rule 5.10(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend current paragraph (g) (Other
Give Up Changes) (to be relettered to subparagraph (f)) of Rule 21.12
to provide that a User may change the give up on the trade to another
Designated Give Up, provided it's an Authorized User for any Restricted
OCC Number, or to its Grantor.\42\ Additionally, the Exchange seeks to
define a specific ``Trade Date Cutoff Time'' \43\ and ``T+1

Cutoff Time'' in the rule text of proposed paragraph (f).\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See proposed Exchange Rule 21.12(f); see also Cboe Options
Rule 5.10(f).
    \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). See proposed
Exchange Rule 21.12(f)(1); see also Cboe Options Rule 5.10(f)(1).
    \44\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proses to amend current paragraph (h) (Responsibility)
(to be relettered to paragraph (g)) of Rule 21.12 to eliminate any
applicable reference to current paragraph (e) or (f) of the Rule and to
conform with Cboe Options Rule 5.10(g).
    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.'' \45\ 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.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 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).
    \46\ 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 Exchange and each of its affiliated
options exchanges (i.e., C2 Options, BZX Options, and Cboe Options
(collectively, ``Cboe Markets'')) are on the same technology platform.
To provide further harmonization across the Cboe Markets and provide
more seamless administration of the Give up rule, the Exchange proposes
to eliminate the current Designated Give Ups Form and adopt a new form
which would be applicable to all Cboe Markets going forward. The
proposed Designated Give Ups Form is 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.\47\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \48\ 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) \49\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Particularly, 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 Member (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 Member
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
reduce risk for Clearing Members under the current give up model.
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 \50\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \51\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \51\ 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) \52\ 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.\53\ 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.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \53\ 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).
    \54\ 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-CboeEDGX-2020-001 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-CboeEDGX-2020-001. 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-CboeEDGX-2020-001 and should be
submitted on or before February 12, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\55\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-00914 Filed 1-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P