[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 89 (Thursday, May 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26423-26425]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10584]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC14-61-000.
    Applicants: New Harquahala Generating Company, LLC, New Athens
Generating Company, LLC, Millennium Power Partners, L.P., MACH Gen,
LLC.
    Description: Response to Request for Additional Information of MACH
Gen, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140501-5281.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2298-005.
    Applicants: Enserco Energy LLC.
    Description: Amendment to Notice of Change in Status to be
effective 6/11/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140501-5199.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2154-004.
    Applicants: Twin Eagle Resource Management, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to Change in Status to be effective 6/11/
2014.
    Filed Date: 5/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140501-5198.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1857-000; EL14-3-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Supplement to April 3, 2014 Response to request for
additional information regarding delivered price test analysis filed on
November 7, 2013 of Idaho Power Company.
    Filed Date: 4/29/14.
    Accession Number: 20140429-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-776-003.
    Applicants: Ohio Valley Electric Corporation.
    Description: Ohio Valley Electric Corporation submits tariff filing
per 35: Amendment to Point to Point Transmission Service to be
effective 11/12/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140501-5272.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1245-000.
    Applicants: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.
    Description: Motion of FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. for Shortened
Notice Period for the April 29, 2014 submission.
    Filed Date: 4/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140430-5619.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/12/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1630-002.
    Applicants: Mantua Creek Solar, LLC.
    Description: Mantua Creek Solar, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Mantua Creek Solar, LLC Amendment to Application for MBR and
Tariff to be effective 4/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140501-5303.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1833-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-05-01--SA 1756 METC-Consumers (G479B) to be
effective 5/2/2014..
    Filed Date: 5/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140501-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1834-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.
    Description: May 2014 Membership Filing to be effective 5/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 5/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140501-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1835-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2014-05-01 BOD Expansion to be
effective 7/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140501-5239.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1836-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Southwestern Public Service Company submits tariff
filing per 35.15: 5-1-14--RS139--141--143 NOCs to be effective 3/1/
2014.
    Filed Date: 5/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140501-5249.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1837-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Southwestern Public Service Company submits tariff
filing per 35.15: 5-1-14--RS145 NOT Filing to be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140501-5250.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1838-000.
    Applicants: 511 Plaza Energy, LLC.
    Description: 511 Plaza Energy, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.15:
Cancellation of MBR Tariff to be effective 5/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140501-5276.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1839-000.
    Applicants: Sargent Canyon Cogeneration Company.
    Description: Sargent Canyon Cogeneration Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Revisions to market-based rate tariff to
be effective 5/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140501-5277.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1840-000.
    Applicants: Coalinga Cogeneration Company.
    Description: Coalinga Cogeneration Company submits tariff filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Change in status and revisions to MBR tariff to
be effective 5/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140501-5279.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1841-000.
    Applicants: Kern River Cogeneration Company.
    Description: Kern River Cogeneration Company submits tariff filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Change in status and revisions to MBR tariff to
be effective 5/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140501-5282.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1842-000.
    Applicants: Mid-Set Cogeneration Company.
    Description: Mid-Set Cogeneration Company submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Change in status and revisions to MBR tariff to be
effective 5/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140501-5285.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1843-000.
    Applicants: Salinas River Cogeneration Company.
    Description: Salinas River Cogeneration Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Change in status and revisions to MBR
tariff to be effective 5/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140501-5287.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1844-000.
    Applicants: Sycamore Cogeneration Company.
    Description: Sycamore Cogeneration Company submits tariff filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Change in status and revisions to MBR tariff to
be effective 5/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140501-5293.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES14-40-000.
    Applicants: Potomac Electric Power Company, Delmarva Power & Light
Company, PHI Service Company.
    Description: Joint Application to Issue Securities of PHI Service
Company on behalf of Delmarva Power & Light Company and Potomac
Electric Power Company.
    Filed Date: 4/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140430-5618.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA14-1-000.
    Applicants: E.ON Global Commodities North America LLC, EC&R O&M,
LLC, Munnsville Wind Farm, LLC, Pioneer Trail Wind Farm, LLC, Settlers
Trail Wind Farm, LLC, Stony Creek Wind Farm, LLC, Wildcat Wind Farm I,
LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of the E.ON CRNA
Sellers under LA14-1.
    Filed Date: 4/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140430-5611.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: LA14-1-000.
    Applicants: Ashtabula Wind, LLC, Ashtabula Wind II, LLC, Ashtabula
Wind III, LLC, Backbone Mountain Windpower LLC, Badger Windpower, LLC,
Baldwin Wind, LLC, Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC, Blackwell Wind,
LLC, Butler Ridge Wind Energy Center, LLC, Cimarron Wind Energy, LLC,
Crystal Lake Wind, LLC, Crystal Lake Wind II, LLC, Crystal Lake Wind
III, LLC, Day County Wind, LLC, Diablo Winds, LLC, Desert Sunlight 250,
LLC, Desert Sunlight 300, LLC, Elk City Wind, LLC, Elk City II Wind,
LLC, Energy Storage Holdings, LLC, Ensign Wind, LLC, ESI Vansycle
Partners, L.P., Florida Power & Light Co., FPL Energy Burleigh County
Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Cabazon Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Cape, LLC, FPL
Energy Cowboy Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Green Power Wind, LLC, FPL Energy
Hancock County Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Illinois Wind, LLC, FPL Energy
Marcus Hook, L.P., FPL Energy MH50 L.P., FPL Energy Montezuma Wind,
LLC, FPL Energy Mower County, LLC, FPL Energy New Mexico Wind, LLC, FPL
Energy North Dakota Wind, LLC, FPL Energy North Dakota Wind II, LLC,
FPL Energy Oklahoma Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Oliver Wind I, LLC, FPL
Energy Oliver Wind II, LLC, FPL Energy Sooner Wind, LLC, FPL Energy
South Dakota Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Stateline II, Inc., FPL Energy
Vansycle, LLC, FPL Energy Wyman, LLC, FPL Energy Wyman IV, LLC, Garden
Wind, LLC, Genesis Solar, LLC, Gray County Wind Energy, LLC, Hatch
Solar Energy Center I, LLC, Hawkeye Power Partners, LLC, High Majestic
Wind Energy Center, LLC, High Winds, LLC, High Majestic Wind II, LLC,
Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC, Lake Benton Power Partners II, LLC,
Langdon Wind, LLC, Limon Wind, LLC, Limon Wind II, LLC, Logan Wind
Energy LLC, Mantua Creek Solar, LLC, Meyersdale Windpower LLC, Mill Run
Windpower, LLC, Minco Wind, LLC, Minco Wind II, LLC, Minco Wind III,
LLC, Minco Wind Interconnection Services, LLC, Mountain View Solar,
LLC, NEPM II, LLC, NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, NextEra Energy
Montezuma II Wind, LLC, NextEra Energy Power Marketing, LLC, NextEra
Energy Point Beach, LLC, NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, NextEra Energy
Services Massachusetts, LLC, Northeast Energy Associates, A Limited

Partnership, North Jersey Energy Associates, A Limited Partnership,
North Sky River Energy, LLC, Northern Colorado Wind Energy, LLC,
Osceola Windpower, LLC, Osceola Windpower II, LLC, Paradise Solar Urban
Renewal, L.L.C., Peetz Table Wind Energy, LLC, Pennsylvania Windfarms,
Inc., Perrin Ranch Wind, LLC, Pheasant Run Wind, LLC, Pheasant Run Wind
II, LLC, Red Mesa Wind, LLC, Sky River LLC, Somerset Windpower, LLC,
Steele Flats Wind Project, LLC, Story Wind, LLC, Tuscola Bay Wind, LLC,
Tuscola Wind II, LLC, Vasco Winds, LLC, Waymart Wind Farm, L.P.,
Wessington Wind Energy Center, LLC, White Oak Energy LLC, Wilton Wind
II, LLC, Windpower Partners 1993, L.P.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of the NextEra
Energy Companies.
    Filed Date: 4/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140430-5612.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: LA14-1-000.
    Applicants: All Dams Generation, LLC, Arlington. Valley Solar
Energy II, LLC, Bluegrass Generation Company, L.L.C., Calhoun Power
Company, LLC, Centinela Solar Energy, LLC, Cherokee County Cogeneration
Partners, LLC, DeSoto County Generating Company, LLC, Doswell Limited
Partnership, Lake Lynn Generation, LLC, Las Vegas Power Company, LLC,
LS Power Marketing, LLC, LSP University Park, LLC, PE Hydro Generation,
LLC, Renaissance Power, L.L.C., Riverside Generating Company, L.L.C.,
Rocky Road Power, LLC, Seneca Generation, LLC, Tilton Energy LLC,
University Park Energy, LLC, Wallingford Energy LLC, West Deptford
Energy, LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of the LS MBR
Sellers.
    Filed Date: 4/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140430-5613.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: LA14-1-000.
    Applicants: Beebe Renewable Energy, LLC, Exelon Generation Company,
LLC, Harvest Windfarm, LLC, Harvest II Windfarm, LLC, Michigan Wind 1,
LLC, Michigan Wind 2, LLC, Constellation Mystic Power, LLC, Exelon
Framingham LLC, Exelon New Boston, LLC, Exelon West Medway LLC, Exelon
Wyman, LLC, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, LLC, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC,
Constellation Power Source Generation, LLC, Criterion Power Partners,
LLC, Handsome Lake Energy, LLC, Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation,
Cassia Gulch Wind Park LLC, High Mesa Energy, LLC, Tuana Springs
Energy, LLC, CER Generation II, LLC, Cow Branch Wind Power, L.L.C., CR
Clearing, LLC, Wind Capital Holdings, LLC, CER Generation, LLC, AV
Solar Ranch 1, LLC, Exelon Wind 4, LLC,Wildcat Wind, LLC, Shooting Star
Wind Project, LLC, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Commonwealth
Edison Company, Constellation Energy Commodities Group Maine, LLC,
Constellation NewEnergy, Inc., PECO Energy Company.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of the Exelon MBR
entities.
    Filed Date: 4/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140430-5614.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/14.

    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 385.214) on or before 5
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: May 1, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-10584 Filed 5-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27055-27061]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12422]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-10505; 34-83379; IC-33114; File No. S7-13-18]

Request for Comments on the Processing Fees Charged by
Intermediaries for Distributing Materials Other Than Proxy Materials To
Fund Investors

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission is seeking public
comment on the framework under which intermediaries may charge fees for
distributing certain non-proxy disclosure materials to fund investors,
such as shareholder reports and

prospectuses (``Fund Materials''), particularly where those fees may be
borne by the fund and, in turn, its investors.

DATES: Comments should be received by October 31, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File No. S7-13-18 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-13-18. 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 of submission. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's website (http://www.sec.gov). Comments are
also 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.
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 publicly available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Matthew DeLesDernier and John Lee,
Senior Counsels, or Michael C. Pawluk, Senior Special Counsel, at (202)
551-6792, Investment Company Regulation Office, Division of Investment
Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-8549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') is seeking public comment on the framework for fees
charged by intermediaries for the distribution of Fund Materials to
investors that are beneficial owners of registered investment company
(``fund'') shares held in ``street name'' through an intermediary.

I. Introduction

    In a contemporaneous release, the Commission adopted rule 30e-3
under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Investment Company
Act'').\1\ The rule provides certain funds with the ability to satisfy
their obligations under the Investment Company Act to transmit
shareholder reports by making the report and other materials accessible
at a website address specified in a notice to investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.; Optional internet Availability of
Investment Company Shareholder Reports, Investment Company Act
Release No. 33115 (June 5, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the proposal of rule 30e-3,\2\ some commenters
expressed concerns about the rules of the New York Stock Exchange
(``NYSE'') and other self-regulatory organizations (``SROs'') such as
the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') under which
intermediaries are permitted to seek reimbursement for forwarding
shareholder reports and other fund materials to investors that are
beneficial owners of shares held in ``street name'' through the
intermediary.\3\ One commenter particularly noted that the NYSE rules
could result in increased processing fees that could negate potential
costs savings related to the implementation of rule 30e-3.\4\ In light
of these concerns, in 2016 the NYSE submitted certain amendments to its
rules concerning the application of these processing fees.\5\ As part
of that submission, the NYSE stated that the amendments were intended
solely to facilitate the new delivery method for fund shareholder
reports permitted by rule 30e-3 as proposed by the Commission.\6\ The
NYSE did not, at that time, propose to make additional changes to its
rules to address the other concerns expressed by the commenter and
further stated that those concerns should be given separate
consideration.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Investment Company Reporting Modernization, Investment
Company Act Release No. 31610 (May 20, 2015) [80 FR 33590 (June 12,
2015)].
    \3\ FINRA has noted that its rules ``correspond, in virtually
identical language'' to NYSE rules already adopted. FINRA Regulatory
Notice 14-03 (Jan. 2014), available at http://finra.complinet.com/net_file_store/new_rulebooks/f/i/FINRANotice_14_03.pdf. As discussed
below, these rules establish the maximum amount that a member of the
respective organization may receive for distributing fund materials
to beneficial owners as ``reasonable expenses'' eligible for
reimbursement under rules 14b-1 and 14b-2 under the Exchange Act of
1934 (``Exchange Act'') [15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.]. See infra Part
II.B. Rules of other SROs also correspond to NYSE rules 451 and 465
and FINRA rule 2251 governing the maximum reimbursement that
intermediaries are permitted to seek for forwarding Fund Materials,
and throughout this Release unless the context requires otherwise,
when referring to NYSE and/or FINRA rules, we are also referring to
these related SRO rules. See, e.g., NASDAQ rule 2251; NYSE MKT rule
576. Historically when NYSE initiates a rule change with respect to
these fees, other SROs, including FINRA, follow with corresponding
changes. Additionally, non-broker intermediaries, such as banks,
generally rely on the NYSE rule 451 fee schedule. See internet
Availability of Proxy Materials, Securities Exchange Act Release No.
55146 (Jan. 22, 2007) [72 FR 4147, 4157 n.118 (Jan. 29, 2007)].
    \4\ See Comment Letter of the Investment Company Institute (Mar.
14, 2016) on File No. S7-08-15, available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-15/s70815.shtml (``2016 ICI Comment Letter'').
Stakeholders have also discussed many of the concerns raised in
connection with proposed rule 30e-3 in connection with other
Commission releases. See infra Parts II-III.
    \5\ See Exchange Act Release No. 78589 (Aug. 16, 2016) [81 FR
56717 (Aug. 22, 2016)] (Notice) (``2016 Amendments Notice''). We
discuss below the changes made to the NYSE rule. See infra note 30
and accompanying text.
    \6\ 2016 Amendments Notice, supra note 5, at 56720.
    \7\ Id.; see also infra note 10 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the past when we have approved changes to the NYSE's rules
governing processing fees, we have emphasized that we expected the NYSE
to continue to periodically review these fees to ensure they are
related to reasonable expenses.\8\ In particular, we observed that such
monitoring is essential because technological advances should help to
reduce processing costs in the future.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1
Thereto by the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Amending Its Rules
Regarding the Transmission of Proxy and Other Shareholder
Communication Material and the Proxy Reimbursement Guidelines,
Exchange Act Release No. 45644 (Mar. 25, 2002) [67 FR 15440, 15444
(Apr. 1, 2002)] (``2002 Amendments Approval''); Order Granting
Approval to Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Rules 451 and 465,
and the Related Provisions of Section 402.10 of the NYSE Listed
Company Manual, Which Provide a Schedule for the Reimbursement of
Expenses by Issuers to NYSE Member Organizations for the Processing
of Proxy Materials and Other Issuer Communications Provided to
Investors Holding Securities in Street Name, and to Establish a
Five-Year Fee for the Development of an Enhanced Brokers internet
Platform, Exchange Act Release No. 70720 (Oct. 18, 2013) [78 FR
63530, 63531 (Oct. 24, 2013)] (``2013 Amendments Approval'').
    \9\ 2002 Amendments Approval, supra note 8, at 63531.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the adoption of rule 30e-3, we believe it is appropriate to
consider more broadly the overall framework for the fees that broker-
dealers and other intermediaries charge funds, as reimbursement for
distributing Fund Materials to investors. A number of industry
participants have expressed views regarding the appropriateness of the
current framework as it relates to Fund Materials--which was designed
primarily for delivery of operating company proxy materials.
Specifically, commenters have raised issues including the clarity of
SRO rules as they apply to Fund Materials; the value of the services
provided in exchange for the processing fees assessed; the degree

to which SROs have tailored fees to reflect delivery of Fund
Materials--as distinct from operating company proxy or other materials;
the degree to which competition or its absence may affect the amount of
the fees assessed; and the appropriate SRO to maintain oversight of
such fees.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., 2016 ICI Comment Letter, supra note 4; Comment
Letter of Ariel Investment Trust (Sept. 8, 2016) on File No. SR-
NYSE-2016-55, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2016-55/nyse201655.shtml (``2016 Ariel Letter''); Comment Letter of
AST Fund Solutions (May 16, 2013) on File No. SR-NYSE-2013-07,
available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2013-07/nyse201307.shtml (``2013 AST Letter''); Comment Letter of Columbia
Mutual Funds (Sept. 15, 2016) on File No. SR-NYSE-2016-55, available
at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2016-55/nyse201655.shtml
(``2016 Columbia Letter''); Comment Letter of Dimensional Fund
Advisors LP (Sept. 12, 2016) on File No. SR-NYSE-2016-55, available
at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2016-55/nyse201655.shtml
(``2016 Dimensional Letter''); Comment Letter of Invesco Advisers,
Inc. (Sept. 12, 2016) on File No. SR-NYSE-2016-55, available at
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2016-55/nyse201655.shtml
(``2016 Invesco Letter''); Comment Letter of the Investment Company
Institute (Sept. 12, 2016) on File No. SR-NYSE-2016-55, available at
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2016-55/nyse201655.shtml
(``2016 ICI Letter II''); Comment Letter of the Investment Company
Institute (Mar. 15, 2013) on File No. SR-NYSE-2013-07, available at
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2013-07/nyse201307.shtml
(``2013 ICI Letter''); Comment Letter of MFS Investment Management
(Sept. 12, 2016) on File No. SR-NYSE-2016-55, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2016-55/nyse201655.shtml (``2016 MFS
Letter''); Comment Letter of T. Rowe Price Associates (Sept. 12,
2016) on File No. SR-NYSE-2016-55, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2016-55/nyse201655.shtml (``2016 T. Rowe Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SRO rules governing processing fees and related out-of-pocket
expenses are meant to reimburse intermediaries for the ``reasonable
expenses'' they incur in forwarding materials to beneficial
shareholders. These reimbursable amounts include the amounts
intermediaries pay under contract to third-party service providers who
deliver shareholder materials on their behalf. We understand that funds
generally pay these reimbursements from their own assets as expenses of
the fund.\11\ We are seeking public comment and additional data on the
framework for the fees charged by broker-dealers and other
intermediaries for the distribution of Fund Materials to investors to
better understand the potential effects on funds and their investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Comment Letter of the Independent Directors of the
BlackRock Equity-Liquidity Funds (Sept. 27, 2016) on File No. SR-
NYSE-2016-55, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2016-55/nyse201655.shtml; 2016 ICI Letter II, supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Overview of Current Framework for Forwarding Fund Materials

A. ``Street Name'' Account Arrangements

    Today, most fund investors are beneficial owners of shares held in
``street name'' through a ``securities intermediary,'' such as a
broker-dealer or bank.\12\ When investors hold shares directly with
their fund as registered or ``record'' owners, the fund's transfer
agent maintains the names and addresses of the investors in its
records. On the other hand, when an investor's shares are held in
street name through an intermediary, the intermediary maintains the
records of beneficial ownership. Such an investor has the ability to
instruct its intermediary to withhold his or her personally identifying
information from the issuers of securities that he or she owns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes of this release, we use the terms
``intermediary'' to refer to a ``securities intermediary'' and
``investors'' to refer to beneficial owners of fund shares held
through intermediaries. See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-20; Concept Release on
the U.S. Proxy System, Exchange Act Release No. 62495 (July 14,
2010) [75 FR 42982, 42985 n.30 (July 22, 2010)] (``Proxy Mechanics
Concept Release''); compare rule 22c-2 under the Investment Company
Act (recognizing a number of different types of ``financial
intermediaries,'' such as broker-dealers, banks, insurance
companies, and retirement plan administrators).
    Approximately 75 percent of accounts in mutual funds are
estimated to be held in street name. See Comment Letter of the
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (Aug. 11,
2015) on Investment Company Reporting Modernization, File No. S7-08-
15, available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-15/s70815.shtml.
In 2010, we estimated that 70 to 80 percent of all public issuers'
shares are held in street name. Proxy Mechanics Concept Release, at
42999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A fund required or wishing to communicate with those investors has
to rely on the intermediary to either forward the materials to the
investor or, at the fund's request, the intermediary provides a list of
non-objecting investors to the fund so that it may do so. To promote
direct communication between funds (and other issuers of securities)
and their investors, we have adopted rules to require intermediaries to
provide funds, at their request, with lists of the names and addresses
of investors who did not object to having such information provided to
issuers, often referred to as ``non-objecting beneficial owners'' (or
``NOBOs'').\13\ However, many investors whose shares are held in street
name accounts are ``objecting beneficial owners'' (or ``OBOs'') and may
be contacted only through the intermediary (or its agent) that has the
relationship with and is servicing the investor.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.14b-1(b); 17 CFR 240.14b-2(b).
    \14\ See Proxy Mechanics Concept Release, supra note 12, at
42999. Estimates of shares held by OBOs range from 52 to 60 percent
of all shares. Id.
    Rule 22c-2 under the Investment Company Act, which we adopted to
help address abuses associated with short-term trading of fund
shares, generally requires funds to enter into shareholder
information agreements with certain intermediaries that submit
orders to purchase or redeem fund shares on behalf of beneficial
owners, but the rule and such agreements do not require the
information that would be necessary to enable the fund to deliver or
transmit materials directly to beneficial owners. 17 CFR 270.22c-
2(a)(2)(i). These agreements provide the fund with certain limited
information about transactions by beneficial owners whose shares are
held in street name or ``omnibus'' accounts through those financial
intermediaries. 17 CFR 270.22c-2(c)(5). However, the rule does not
require this information provided under the terms of a shareholder
information agreement to include, for example, the name and address
of the beneficial owner. We excepted money market funds, funds that
issue securities that are listed on a national securities exchange,
and funds that affirmatively permit short-term trading of their
securities from the requirements of 22c-2 unless they elect to
impose a redemption fee under the rule. 17 CFR 270.22c-2(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intermediaries generally outsource their fund delivery obligations
to a third-party service provider that provides fulfillment
services.\15\ The fulfillment service provider enters into a contract
with the intermediary and acts as a billing and collection agent for
that intermediary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In the proxy context, these service providers are sometimes
characterized as ``proxy service providers.'' See 2013 Amendments
Approval, supra note 8. Because the scope of this Request for
Comment does not include delivery of fund proxy materials, we
generally refer to this type of service provider as a ``fulfillment
service provider.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Current Commission Rules Concerning Delivery or Transmission of
Issuer Materials to Intermediated Accounts

    Under Exchange Act rules 14b-1 and 14b-2, respectively, broker-
dealers and banks must distribute certain materials received from an
issuer or other soliciting party to their customers who are beneficial
owners of securities of that issuer only if the broker-dealers and
banks are assured reimbursement of reasonable expenses, both direct and
indirect, from the issuer. These rules provide that such materials may
include proxy statements, information statements, annual reports, proxy
cards, and other proxy soliciting materials.\16\ In addition, NYSE rule
465 requires NYSE member firms to forward interim reports and other
material being sent to stockholders by issuers if the member firm is
assured it will be reimbursed for all out-of-pocket costs, including
reasonable clerical expenses.\17\ In the

fund context, we understand that industry participants have used the
framework established by the Exchange Act rules and NYSE rules to
deliver materials including prospectuses, summary prospectuses, and
annual and semiannual reports to investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.14b-1(b); 17 CFR 240.14b-2(b).
    \17\ See NYSE rule 465 of listed company manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting our rules, we did not determine what constituted
``reasonable expenses'' that were eligible for reimbursement.\18\
Rather, as discussed below, the rules of SROs set forth these
amounts.\19\ We believed at the time that SROs would be best positioned
to make a fair evaluation and allocation of the costs associated with
the distribution of shareholder materials.\20\ Accordingly, it is the
SRO rules that establish the maximum amount that an SRO member may
receive for distributing materials to beneficial owners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Proxy Mechanics Concept Release, supra note 12, at 42995.
    \19\ See, e.g., NYSE rule 451.90(3); Supplementary Material
.01(a)(4) to FINRA rule 2251.
    \20\ See Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Amendment No. 1
to Proposed Rule Change Relating to a One-Year Pilot Program for
Transmission of Proxy and Other Shareholder Communication Material,
Exchange Act Release No. 38406 (Mar. 14, 1997) [62 FR 13922 (Mar.
24, 1997)]. This belief was in part attributed to SRO exchanges
acting as ``representatives of both issuers and brokers,'' however
we recognize that FINRA, as the sole national securities
association, has often led in promulgating fund-specific SRO rules
in certain areas that govern broker-dealers. See id.; infra note 36
and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Current NYSE Regulation of Fees for Forwarding Fund Materials to
Investors

    Currently, NYSE rules 451 and 465 establish the fee structure for
which an NYSE member organization may be reimbursed for expenses
incurred in connection with the forwarding of certain issuer materials
to investors. Under these rules, members may request reimbursement of
expenses at less than the approved rates; however, no member may seek
reimbursement at rates higher than the approved rates or for items or
services not specifically listed without the prior notification to and
consent of the issuer.\21\ Issuers reimburse the vast majority of firms
that distribute their material to investors at the NYSE fee schedule
rates because the vast majority of the intermediaries are NYSE members
or members of FINRA, which has a rule that is similar to the NYSE's
rules.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See NYSE Supplementary Material to rule 451.93. Since 1937,
the NYSE has required issuers, as a matter of policy, to reimburse
its members for out of pocket costs of forwarding materials. See
Proxy Mechanics Concept Release, supra note 12, at 42995. Rules
formally established reimbursement rates in 1952, and such rules
have been revised periodically since then. Id.
    \22\ See Proxy Mechanics Concept Release, supra note 12, at
42995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the NYSE rules set forth the following processing and
other fees that are applied to the forwarding of Fund Materials:
     Interim Report Fee. A processing fee up to 15 cents for
each account for fund annual reports processed separately from proxy
materials, for ``interim reports,'' and for ``other material.'' \23\ In
the fund context, we understand that this rule has been interpreted to
apply, for example, to each distribution of fund annual and semiannual
reports, as well as annual mailings of summary prospectuses, statutory
prospectuses, and other materials sent to investors that are not proxy
distributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See NYSE rule 451.90(3); Supplementary Material .01(a)(4)
to FINRA rule 2251.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Preference Management Fee. A fee of up to 10 cents per
distribution of Fund Materials listed above for each ``suppressed''
account for which the intermediary has eliminated the need to send the
materials in paper format through the mails.\24\ This may include, for
example, documents delivered electronically \25\ and ``householded''
accounts where no distribution takes place.\26\ This fee is in addition
to, and not in lieu of, other fees permitted under the NYSE rule,
including the interim report fee.\27\ Thus, the aggregate processing
fee for distributing Fund Materials to suppressed accounts is 25 cents
per distribution (15 cents for an interim report fee plus 10 cents for
a preference management fee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See NYSE rule 451.90(4); Supplementary Material .01(a)(5)
to FINRA rule 2251. For additional discussion of the preference
management fee, see infra Part III.D. The preference management fee
is, however, higher--up to 32 cents--for certain proxy materials.
NYSE rule 451.90(4).
    \25\ See, e.g., Use of Electronic Media for Delivery Purposes,
Investment Company Act Release No. 21399 (Oct. 6, 1995) [60 FR 53458
(Oct. 13, 1995)] (providing Commission views on the use of
electronic media to deliver information to investors, with a focus
on electronic delivery of prospectuses, annual reports, and proxy
solicitation materials); Use of Electronic Media by Broker-Dealers,
Transfer Agents, and Investment Advisers for Delivery of
Information, Investment Company Act Release No. 21945 (May 9, 1996)
[61 FR 24644 (May 15, 1996)] (providing Commission views on
electronic delivery of required information by broker-dealers,
transfer agents, and investment advisers); Use of Electronic Media,
Investment Company Act Release No. 24426 (Apr. 28, 2000) [65 FR
25843 (May 4, 2000)] (providing updated interpretive guidance on the
use of electronic media to deliver documents on matters such as
telephonic and global consent, issuer liability for website content,
and legal principles that should be considered in conducting online
offerings).
    \26\ See, e.g., rule 154 under the Securities Act of 1933
(permitting householding of prospectuses) [17 CFR 230.154]; rules
30e-1(f) and 30e-2(b) under the Investment Company Act (permitting
householding of shareholder reports); rules 14a-3(e) and 14c-3(c)
under the Exchange Act (permitting householding of annual reports to
security holders, proxy statements and information statements, and
Notices of internet Availability of Proxy Statements) [17 CFR
240.14a-3(e); 17 CFR 240.14c-3(c)]. See generally Delivery of
Disclosure Documents to Households, Investment Company Act Release
No. 24123 (Nov. 4, 1999) [64 FR 62540 (Nov. 16, 1999)] (adopting
householding rules with respect to prospectuses and shareholder
reports); Delivery of Proxy Statements and Information Statements to
Households, Investment Company Act Release No. 24715 (Oct. 27, 2000)
[65 FR 65736 (Nov. 2, 2000)] (adopting householding rules with
respect to proxy statements and information statements).
    \27\ See NYSE rule 451.90(4); Supplementary Material .01(a)(5)
to FINRA rule 2251.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Notice and Access Fee. When a fund elects to send proxy
materials via the notice and access method, the rules permit an
additional notice and access fee.\28\ The notice and access fee is a
tiered fee based on the number of accounts per distribution with a
schedule that begins at 25 cents per account and ultimately declines to
5 cents per account.\29\ The Commission approved amendments specifying
the applicability of notice and access fees to distributions of fund
shareholder reports under Investment Company Act rule 30e-3.\30\ For
distribution of fund shareholder reports under rule 30e-3, an
intermediary may not charge a notice and access fee for any account
with respect to which a fund pays a preference management fee for the
same distribution.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See NYSE rule 451.90(5); Supplementary Material .01(a)(6)
to FINRA rule 2251. The notice and access model for the delivery of
proxy materials permits issuers to send investors a ``notice of
internet availability of proxy materials'' in lieu of the
traditional paper mailing of proxy materials. See 2013 Amendments
Approval, supra note 15, at 63535.
    \29\ See NYSE rule 451.90(5); Supplementary Material .01(a)(6)
to FINRA rule 2251. Under the schedule, every fund will pay the
highest rate (i.e., 25 cents) for the first 10,000 accounts, or
portion thereof, with decreasing rates applicable only on additional
accounts in the additional tiers, with rates gradually falling to
the fee of 5 cents for each account over 500,000 accounts. See id.
    \30\ See Exchange Act Release Nos. 83378 (June 5, 2018) (Order
Affirming Action by Delegated Authority Approving SR-NYSE-2016-55
and Discontinuing Stay); 79370 (Nov. 21, 2016) [81 FR 85655 (Nov.
28, 2016)] (Stay Order); 79355 (Nov. 18, 2016) [81 FR 85291 (Nov.
25, 2016)] (Approval Order) (``2016 Amendments Approval''); supra
note 5. For purposes of calculating rates for distribution of fund
shareholder reports under rule 30e-3, all accounts holding shares of
any class of stock of the applicable fund are aggregated in
determining the appropriate pricing tier. See NYSE rule 451.90(5).
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the processing, preference management, and notice
and access fees described above, the NYSE rules provide for
reimbursement for actual postage costs, the actual cost of envelopes
unless they are provided by the fund, and any actual communication
expenses incurred in receiving voting returns (in the case of proxy
distributions).
    The NYSE rules also provide for the form of a billing document to
be used

by its members to seek reimbursement.\32\ For each category of
distribution, such as ``interim reports,'' the NYSE member specifies
the number of reports mailed, the service fee, the number of envelopes
not supplied by the issuer used, the U.S. postage, the foreign postage,
the cost of mail, and the total cost assessed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ NYSE rule 465.30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Request for Comment

A. General Framework

    As discussed above, we are seeking public comment and additional
data on the framework for fees charged by intermediaries for the
distribution of shareholder reports and other Fund Materials to
investors.
Request for Comment
     Should the current rules regulating processing fees for
distributing materials to beneficial owners apply to forwarding Fund
Materials? Do the differences between proxy distributions and non-proxy
distributions create significant differences in the costs? Would
considering those types of fees separately help improve the evaluation
of what constitutes ``reasonable expenses'' in situations other than
proxy distributions?
     Are our rules under Section 14 of the Exchange Act (e.g.,
rules 14b-1 and 14b-2) well-tailored for the distribution of Fund
Materials? Would additional or other Commission rules be preferable? If
so, what should they provide? For example, should there be a different
set of rules that applies to the distribution of all types of fund
materials, including proxy materials? Should these rules apply only to
certain materials such as shareholder reports and/or prospectuses?
     We understand that processing fees and other expenses
connected with distributing Fund Materials to investors are considered
and treated as direct fund expenses. Is our understanding correct? If
not, who pays these fees and expenses and under what circumstances? How
are fund payments for forwarding material to beneficial shareholders
different from similar payments made by operating companies? Are fund
investors more directly affected by the payments than operating company
investors?
     Is the current fee and remittance structure for the
distribution of Fund Materials to investors reasonable? Should the fees
be presented differently to better explain how they are applied and
allow funds to verify that they are correct?
     Does the current fee framework encourage, discourage, or
not affect fund communications with investors beyond those
communications that are required?
     Do intermediaries and their agents provide funds with
invoices for processing fees assessed on Fund Material distributions?
If so, are they sufficiently detailed and transparent for the fund to
be able to evaluate their accuracy and whether they have been assessed
in a manner consistent with SRO rules? If such invoices are not
sufficiently detailed or transparent, what additional information
should be provided? Does a fund need information about any remittances
that the fulfillment service provider will pay to the intermediary in
connection with the services encompassed by the invoice?
     Do funds challenge fees assessed by intermediaries or
their agents for distribution of Fund Materials on the basis that the
fees are not reasonable? If so, under what circumstances? If not, what
are the impediments, if any, to doing so? How, if at all, would
withholding fees deemed to be unreasonable affect the fund or its
investors?
     With what frequency do funds make requests for the names
and addresses of NOBOs? What percentage of fund beneficial accounts are
NOBO accounts? Would low percentages of NOBOs relative to all fund
beneficial owners be a disincentive to use such lists? With what
frequency do funds make such requests to facilitate the distribution of
Fund Materials, or for other purposes? How can more direct
communication between funds and NOBOs be facilitated? Do funds
currently rely on intermediaries to forward materials to investors
rather than requesting a list of NOBOs? Does the current NYSE NOBO fee
structure discourage funds from directly sending Fund Materials to
NOBOs?

B. SRO Rules

    Although the NYSE's rules currently apply to the forwarding of Fund
Materials to investors, the NYSE has observed that it ``has no
involvement in the mutual fund industry'' and that it ``may not be best
positioned to take on the regulatory role in setting fees for mutual
funds.'' \33\ The NYSE and some commenters have recommended that FINRA
should take on this role.\34\ As noted above, FINRA has adopted rules
that generally mirror the previously adopted NYSE rules.\35\ FINRA also
has adopted rules governing broker-dealers' sales practices and other
conduct with respect to funds.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 2016 Amendments Notice, supra note 5, at 56718.
    \34\ Id.; see also 2016 Ariel Letter, supra note 10; 2016
Columbia Letter, supra note 10; 2016 Dimensional Letter, supra note
10; 2016 Invesco Letter, supra note 10; 2016 ICI Comment Letter,
supra note 4; 2016 ICI Letter II, supra note 10; 2016 MFS Letter,
supra note 10; 2016 T. Rowe Letter, supra note 10.
    \35\ Compare FINRA rule 2251 with NYSE rule 451; see supra note
19 and accompanying text.
    \36\ For example, FINRA rules bar broker-dealers who are members
from selling funds that impose combined sales charges that exceed
certain limits, including ``asset-based sales charges'' and
shareholder servicing fees. FINRA rule 2341; see also Mutual Fund
Distribution Fees, Investment Company Act Release No. 29367 (July
21, 2010) [75 FR 47064, 47069 (Aug. 4, 2010)]. FINRA also requires
the filing of certain fund advertising material. FINRA rule 2210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
     Should FINRA be the SRO for setting the structure and
level of processing fees for funds? If not, should another entity other
than an SRO be responsible? If so, who?
     Are there particular areas of expertise such as funds'
operations, distribution methods, and sales practices that would be
most relevant in setting processing fees? If so, what expertise and
does this expertise vary from one SRO to another?

C. Fulfillment Service Providers

    We understand that while the fund typically pays the processing
fees charged by an intermediary's fulfillment service provider, the
fund has little or no control over the process by which the fulfillment
service provider is selected, the terms of the contract between the
intermediary and the service provider, or the fees that are ultimately
incurred and billed for the distribution of Fund Materials to
investors.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Proxy Mechanics Concept Release, supra note 12, at
42997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It remains our understanding that the fulfillment service provider
generally bills funds the maximum fees allowed by the NYSE rules, and
in some cases, the fulfillment service provider is contractually
obligated to its intermediary clients to do so. However, commenters
have stated that the fees that the fulfillment service provider charges
certain intermediary clients for its services sometimes are less than
the fees charged to funds on the intermediaries' behalf. The result is
a remittance or rebate from the fulfillment service provider to those
intermediaries.\38\ Some commenters

have asserted that fees charged for distribution of materials to
intermediated accounts ``far exceed'' the costs a fund incurs for
distributing the same materials to investors whose shares are
registered directly with the fund's transfer agent.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See 2013 ICI Letter, supra note 10; Comment Letter of the
Securities Transfer Association (Mar. 4, 2013) on File No. SR-NYSE-
2013-07, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2013-07/nyse201307.shtml (``2013 STA Letter''); but see Comment Letter of
Broadridge Financial Solutions (Sep. 12, 2106) on File No. SR-NYSE-
2016-55, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2016-55/nyse201655-8.pdf. Under rule 14b-1 under the Exchange Act,
intermediaries are permitted to seek reimbursement of not only
``direct'' reasonable expenses but also ``indirect'' reasonable
expenses. See 17 CFR 240.14b-1(c)(2)(i).
    \39\ See supra note 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are interested in commenters' views on such remittance and
rebate practices.
Request for Comment
     Is the current framework for the distribution of Fund
Materials to fund investors--in which the fulfillment service provider
is selected by an intermediary but costs incurred are paid by the
fund--appropriate? Does the current framework encourage intermediaries
to reduce costs for funds? Should funds have more control over the
selection of, services billed to, and payments made to fulfillment
service providers? What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of
such alternatives?
     How do fees charged to funds on an intermediary's behalf
for delivery of Fund Materials compare with fees negotiated for
comparable services between funds and their service providers for
distributions of similar materials to investors holding shares directly
with the fund or NOBOs known to the fund? If they are different, are
they higher or lower, and by how much? If they are different, why are
they different? For example, are the services provided also different,
such as in quality or complexity? If so, is the magnitude of the
difference in processing methods or services provided commensurate with
the difference in fees? Does the magnitude of the difference vary
depending on the manner in which the materials are delivered, such as
in paper through the mail, by electronic delivery, or through a notice
and access system?
     What factors may affect the level of competition in the
market for fulfillment service providers and their fees? Does the
presence or absence of competition affect the level of fees assessed or
the size of remittances?
     What steps, if any, should the Commission take to promote
competition in the market for the distribution of Fund Materials to
investors?
     To what extent do intermediaries receive remittances or
rebates from fulfillment service providers for non-proxy deliveries?
What, if any, additional related costs do intermediaries incur in
connection with non-proxy distributions? Do intermediaries and/or their
fulfillment service providers inform funds as to the amounts and
related costs and services associated with such remittances?

D. Preference Management Fee

    Under the current framework, once a paper mailing is suppressed,
the intermediary, or its agent, collects a preference management fee
for each distribution of Fund Materials, even though the continuing
role of the intermediary, or its agent, with respect to subsequent
delivery of documents to investors, is limited to keeping track of the
investor's election. While corporate issuers typically only incur this
fee annually in connection with soliciting proxies for their annual
meeting, funds often pay this fee multiple times per year for the
distribution of a fund's annual and semiannual reports to shareholders,
prospectuses, and other Fund Materials.
    We understand that tracking an investor's preferences or elections
typically occurs at the account level for all securities held for all
types of issuers. The elections, moreover, may also apply to other
customer communications, including account statements, confirmation
statements, tax documents, and other materials. The costs of
maintaining customer elections for those latter materials would not
generally be subject to reimbursement by issuers under Exchange Act
rules 14b-1 and 14b-2 and NYSE rules 451 and 465, but would instead be
borne by the intermediaries themselves.\40\ In addition, we understand
that this fee is applied for each distribution of Fund Materials, not
only where the need to send materials in paper format has been
eliminated due to the procurement by the intermediary of affirmative
consent to electronic delivery of those materials, but also when our
rules concerning ``householding'' are relied upon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Rules 14b-1 and 14b-2 also do not require reasonable
reimbursement for activities related to sending these materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ None of the questions in this release should be interpreted
to reflect any conclusion regarding the appropriate role, if any, of
the Commission in setting fees in this area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Should the application of the preference management fee
for Fund Materials be eliminated on an ongoing basis once an investor
elects electronic delivery? Should the fee continue to be permitted to
be assessed on a per-distribution basis or with some other frequency,
such as annually? How often does a typical investor change a delivery
preference once paper deliveries have stopped with respect to that
investor? Do delivery preferences depend on type of document? Does the
difference in frequency between proxy deliveries and non-proxy
deliveries justify separating preference management fees for forwarding
of proxy materials from preference management fees for forwarding non-
proxy materials?
     How, if at all, does the application of the preference
management fee affect overall electronic delivery rates for Fund
Materials distributions? How, if at all, does it affect the level of
processing fees and aggregate costs that funds pay? Is it appropriate
that aggregate processing fees (exclusive of expenses such as printing
and mailing) are greater for Fund Materials that are ``suppressed''
(e.g., sent by email or not sent at all in the case of householded
accounts) than for those delivered in paper?
     What proportion of the total expense of maintaining
delivery preference elections is reimbursed by issuers in the context
of individual distributions of forwarded materials? What proportion of
those total expenses does the securities intermediary bear in the
course of sending its own materials to its customers? Are those
proportions commensurate with the effort and expense involved in
carrying out each type of distribution?
     Compared with other issuers, do funds pay more in
preference management fees on either a per-account or per-distribution
basis? If so, why?

E. Processing Fees to Managed Accounts

    For certain ``managed accounts,'' the processing fees are assessed
for all accounts, even though the fund materials are only required to
be distributed to the investment manager.\42\ The NYSE rules apply a
smaller preference management fee for distributions of certain proxy
materials to managed accounts than they do to other types of
intermediated accounts. Also, the rules prohibit the application of any
fees, including a preference

management fee, for managed accounts with five or fewer shares.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Proxy Mechanics Concept Release. The NYSE rules provide
that, for this purpose a ``managed account'' ``shall mean an account
at [an intermediary] which is invested in a portfolio of securities
selected by a professional advisor, and for which the account holder
is charged a separate asset-based fee for a range of services which
may include ongoing advice, custody[,] and execution services.'' See
NYSE rule 451.90(6).
    \43\ The preference management fee, which is otherwise permitted
to be up to 32 cents for each such distribution per ``suppressed''
account, is 16 cents instead. NYSE rule 451.90(4). The preference
management fee for distributing interim reports, annual reports
mailed separately and other material is 10 cents irrespective of
whether it is being charged for a regular account or a managed
account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
     How are processing fees for Fund Materials assessed with
respect to managed accounts? Should certain kinds of accounts, such as
separately managed accounts, where multiple investors may delegate
their investment decisions to a single investment manager, be eligible
for further different treatment under the current fee structure? If so,
why and how should they be treated differently?
     Is the current application of processing fees for
distributions of Fund Materials to managed account investors
appropriate? Should such distributions to managed accounts be charged
at a reduced rate as they are in the proxy distribution context? \44\
If so, what rate?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     What services do intermediaries or fulfillment service
providers typically provide to managed account investors?

F. Other Arrangements Between a Fund and Intermediary

    As discussed above, unlike in the operating company context, a
``securities intermediary'' through which shares are held in street
name is also generally a ``financial intermediary'' under Investment
Company Act rule 22c-2. Therefore, a fund is required to contract with
the financial intermediary to share information about the submission of
purchase and redemption orders.\45\ In some cases, financial
intermediaries may enter into ``sub-transfer agent'' or ``sub-
accounting'' servicing arrangements with funds to provide
administrative or shareholder services to investors whose shares are
held in ``omnibus accounts.'' Many funds also have ``selling''
agreements with certain intermediaries for the distribution of fund
shares.\46\ An operating company, by contrast, may have no direct
relationship with the intermediary. Some commenters have questioned
whether fund payments under the SRO rules may be duplicative of
payments made for similar services under contractual arrangements
between a fund and an intermediary.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See supra note 12. See rule 22c-2 under the Investment
Company Act [17 CFR 270.22c-2] (permitting certain funds to impose
redemption fees for holders redeeming securities within seven
calendar days after purchase). We understand, however, that certain
funds whose shares are traded in the secondary market, such as
exchange-traded funds and closed-end funds, may be intermediated in
the same manner as operating companies and thus do not have the same
contractual relationships with the intermediary that many open-end
funds do.
    \46\ See generally Division of Investment Management Guidance
Update No. 2016-01 (Jan. 2016) (discussing mutual fund distribution
and sub-accounting fees); rule 12b-1 under the Investment Company
Act [17 CFR 270.12b-1].
    \47\ See, e.g., 2013 ICI Letter, supra note 10 (questioning,
``for example, the extent to which preference management fees might
be duplicative in light of contractual arrangements between [funds]
and broker-dealers holding street name accounts that already provide
for compensation to the broker-dealer to maintain distribution
preferences'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment
     Do funds present facts and circumstances that merit
differentiating them from other types of issuers as to appropriate
levels of processing fees for the distribution of Fund Materials to
beneficial owners? How, if at all, are fund payments to intermediaries
pursuant to plans adopted by funds pursuant to rule 12b-1 under the
Investment Company Act (``12b-1 plans''), shareholder service
agreements, or other similar arrangements with intermediaries relevant
considerations in differentiating Fund Material distributions from
distributions of operating company materials?
     Does this framework result in duplicative payments from a
fund to an intermediary for the same services? Does the presence of any
such arrangement bear on the appropriateness of the practice of paying
remittances?
     Do operating companies have arrangements with
intermediaries similar to agreements related to 12b-1 plans?
     How does the presence of sub-transfer agent, sub-
accounting, or selling arrangements affect the appropriateness of the
payment of a preference management fee or notice and access fees? Are
such payments duplicative?
     Would some funds be more adversely impacted by potential
fee duplication than others?
     Are the costs of distributing shareholder reports and
other materials to fund investors covered by administrative services,
recordkeeping, or other similar contractual arrangements? If the fee
schedule did not apply in such cases, would the costs of distributing
Fund Materials to fund investors increase or decrease? Why?

IV. General Request for Comment

    This request for comment is not intended to limit the scope of
comments, views, issues, or approaches to be considered. In addition to
investors and funds, we welcome comment from other market participants
and particularly welcome statistical, empirical, and other data from
commenters that may support their views or support or refute the views
or issues raised by other commenters.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: June 5, 2018.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12422 Filed 6-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 73)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20234-20236]
[DOCID:fr15ap08-26]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1120; FRL-8554-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Reasonably Available Control Technology Requirements for
Marine Vessel and Barge Loading

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Maryland Department of Environment. The
revision pertains to the control of

volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions by establishing reasonable
available control technology (RACT) requirements for marine vessel and
barge loading. EPA is proposing to approve the revision to the Maryland
SIP in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 15, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2007-1120 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1120, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2007-1120. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800
Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gobeail McKinley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 24, 2007, the Maryland Department
of Environment (MDE) submitted a revision to its SIP to establish RACT
requirements for marine vessel and barge loading. The SIP revision
(Maryland SIP 07-12) consists of amendments to Regulation .01
and adoption of new Regulation .08 under COMAR 26.11.13--Control of
Gasoline and Volatile Organic Compound Storage and Handling.

I. Background

    This SIP revision was submitted pursuant to the reasonable
available control technology requirements of sections 182 and 184 of
the Clean Air Act. RACT is the lowest emission limit that a particular
source is capable of meeting by the application of the control
technology that is reasonably available considering technological and
economic feasibility. Maryland is located in the Ozone Transport Region
(OTR) that was statutorily created by section 184 of the CAA.
    Section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires States to implement RACT
regulations on all VOC sources that have the potential to emit 50 tons
per year (TPY) or more. In addition, section 182(b)(2) requires States
to implement RACT regulations on all ``major'' sources of VOC in
moderate or above ozone nonattainment areas. Major VOC sources are
those with the potential to emit at least 100 TPY in moderate areas, 50
TPY in serious areas, and 25 TPY in severe areas.
    Maryland is in the OTR and the State is required to implement RACT
regulations for all sources with the potential to emit 50 TPY or more,
throughout the State. In Maryland's severe ozone nonattainment areas,
RACT is required for all VOC sources with the potential to emit 25 TPY
or more.
    The amendment to Regulation .01 and adoption of new Regulation .08
under COMAR 26.11.13 control emissions of volatile organic compounds
throughout the state. MDE submitted this SIP revision request pursuant
to the reasonable available control technology requirements of sections
182 and 184 of the Clean Air Act. Although the EPA has developed a
maximum achievable control technology standard for barge loading (40
CFR Part 63 Subpart Y), the liquid throughput threshold requiring
controls is very high. For this reason, MDE has adopted RACT
requirements for marine vessel and barge loading.
    A marine vessel is defined as any tank ship or barge that
transports VOCs in bulk as cargo. Marine tank vessel loading operations
are facilities that load and unload liquid commodities in bulk. Due to
the increased demand for ethanol which is blended with gasoline, there
is a renewed interest in transferring liquid products from stationary
storage tanks into marine vessels or barges for further distribution.
During marine tank vessel and barge loading operations, emissions
result as the liquid that is being loaded into the vessel displaces
vapors from the vessel's tank. VOC vapors are released from the vent of
the barge in quantities that may be significant and contribute to
ground level ozone. Maryland has decided to revise their RACT
requirements to include marine vessel and barge loading.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The Maryland Department of the Environment is requesting a revision
to the state's SIP to establish reasonable available control technology
requirements for marine vessel and barging loading. The amendment to
COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> consist of a new definition that defines a marine
vessel as any tank ship or barge that transports VOCs in bulk as cargo.
The new regulation COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> requires owners or operators of
barge loading facilities in Baltimore City or Anne Arundel, Baltimore,
Calvert, Carroll, Cecil, Charles, Frederick, Harford, Howard,
Montgomery, and Prince George's Counties to reduce capture of VOC
vapors by 90 percent if emissions from the barge loading equal or
exceed 25 TPY. In the rest of the state

(Allegheny, Caroline, Dorchester, Garrett, Kent, Queen Anne's, St.
Mary's, Somerset, Talbot, Washington, Wicomico, and Worchester
Counties), controls are required if emissions are equal to or exceed 50
TPY.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Maryland SIP revision for the
establishment of RACT requirements to control VOC emissions from marine
vessel and barging loading, which the state submitted on October 24,
2007. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule to approve Maryland's amendments to
the control of volatile organic compound emissions by establishing
reasonable available control technology requirements for marine vessel
and barge loading does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: April 9, 2008.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
 [FR Doc. E8-8005 Filed 4-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 121 (Monday, June 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41436-41437]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13450]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97764; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2023-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule

June 20, 2023.
    On March 1, 2023, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend its
fee schedule. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on March 9, 2023.\3\ On April 28, 2023, the

Commission temporarily suspended the proposed rule change and
instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove
the proposed rule change.\4\ On June 14, 2023, the Exchange withdrew
the proposed rule change (CboeEDGX-2023-016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97042 (March 3,
2023), 88 FR 14657. The comment letters received on the proposed
rule change are available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboeedgx-2023-016/srcboeedgx2023016.htm.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97406, 88 FR 28641
(May 4, 2023).
    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13450 Filed 6-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24248-24250]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11141]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0449; Product Identifier 2018-NM-042-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by a report of uncommanded deployment of the
ground spoilers when the power levers were advanced for takeoff, which
was caused by faulty switches in the power lever module. This proposed
AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 9, 2018.

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 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 416-375-
4539; email [email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0449; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John P. DeLuca, Aerospace Engineer,
Avionics and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch,
1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-
7369; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0449;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-042-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on
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 NPRM.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2017-35, dated November 29, 2017 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model

DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    There has been an incident of uncommanded deployment of the
ground spoilers when the power levers were advanced for take-off.
The warning horn sounded and the pilot rejected the take-off. The
subsequent investigation determined the root cause of the spoiler
deployment was faulty switches in the power lever module. An
uncommanded deployment of the ground spoilers may lead to a runway
excursion.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the incorporation of a new
Certification Maintenance Requirement (CMR) task to check the ground
spoiler switches in the power lever module.

    Required actions include revising the maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on
the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0449.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Q400 Dash 8 (Bombardier) Temporary Revision
ALI-0173, dated March 14, 2017, to Section 1-27, Certification
Maintenance Requirements of the Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM)
Part 2, of Product Support Manual (PSM) 1-84-7. This service
information describes CMR Task 276000-110, ``Operational Check of the
Ground Spoiler Switches in the Power Lever Module.'' This service
information 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 and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 86 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
    We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection
program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we
recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the
past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per
airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program
changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-
operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.
Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90
work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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):

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2018-0449; Product Identifier 2018-
NM-042-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 9, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400, -401, and
-402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001
and subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of uncommanded deployment of
the ground spoilers when the power levers were advanced for takeoff,
which was caused by faulty switches in the power lever module. We
are issuing this AD to address faulty switches in the power lever
module, which could result in uncommanded deployment of the ground
spoilers and a possible runway excursion.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
information specified in Certification Maintenance Requirements

(CMR) Task 276000-110 of Q400 Dash 8 (Bombardier) Temporary Revision
ALI-0173, dated March 14, 2017, to Section 1-27, Certification
Maintenance Requirements of the Maintenance Requirements Manual
(MRM) Part 2, of Product Support Manual (PSM) 1-84-7.

(h) Initial Compliance Time

    The initial compliance time for doing the CMR Task 276000-110
specified in paragraph (g) of this AD is within 8,000 flight hours
after the effective date of this AD.

(i) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or
intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of
this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO 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 manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2017-35, dated November
29, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0449.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact John P. DeLuca,
Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Administrative Services Section,
FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]; internet
http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St, Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 15, 2018.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-11141 Filed 5-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Attn: Mr. Zeller

As an individual consumer, I request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. I ask that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

I am a consumer of the products proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. There is simply not enough time provided for me to respond to the issues and questions. In order to provide relevant answers, I require a greater amount of time to do the necessary research to provide a well educated and concise case to submit for consideration. Individuals have little opportunity to provide feedback and we need to make it count.

E-cigarettes have had a very positive impact in not only my life, but my husband’s and my elderly mother (72 years of age). Making changes to the industry will have a profound effect on us and millions of others. The FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and has done so in the past. We deserve the right to present our comments on this life altering legislation.

Thank you for your time and consideration.