[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 103 (Thursday, May 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30925-30926]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12363]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29320]

Order Limiting Scheduled Operations at John F. Kennedy
International Airport

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Limited Waiver of the Slot Usage Requirement.

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

SUMMARY: This action grants with conditions a limited waiver of the
slot usage requirement for operating authorizations (slots) at John F.
Kennedy International Airport (JFK) due to construction at the airport
during the winter 2014/2015 and summer 2015 scheduling seasons. This
waiver applies only to JFK slots for the period from March 1, 2015,
through October 24, 2015.

DATES: Effective upon publication. The deadlines for temporary slot
returns under this waiver are December 15, 2014, for slots from March 1
through March 28, 2015, and January 15, 2015, for slots from March 29
through October 24, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hawks, Office of the Chief
Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) will
conduct extensive construction on JFK runway 4L/22R. Runway safety area
and other preparatory work will begin in 2014 and is not expected to
have significant operational impacts. Extensive operational impacts are
expected in 2015 as the airport rehabilitates Runway 4L/22R, widens the
runway to 200 feet required for Group VI aircraft, improves taxiway
fillets required for Group VI aircraft, and constructs access and high
speed taxiways. The work will also impact Runways 13L/31R and 13R/31L
as they intersect with Runway 4L/22R. Runway 13L/31R will be closed
from March 1 through April 9, 2015. Runway 4L/22R will be open during
this time with reduced length. Runway 13R/31L will operate with reduced
length from April 10 through September 21, 2015.
    The FAA, Port Authority, and airport stakeholders have been meeting
for several months to review the construction plans and schedules,
assess the potential operational impacts, and identify mitigation
options. Updates will be discussed at various FAA and airport meetings
over the coming months.

FAA Analysis

    Under the Order limiting scheduled operations at JFK, slots must be
used at least 80 percent of the time. This rule is expected to
accommodate routine weather and other cancellations under all but the
most unusual circumstances. Slots not meeting the minimum usage rules
will not receive historic precedence for the following corresponding
scheduling season.\1\ The FAA may grant a waiver from the slot usage
requirement in highly unusual and unpredictable conditions that are
beyond a carrier's control and affect a carrier's operations for a
period of five or more consecutive days. However, the FAA does not
routinely grant general waivers to the usage requirement except under
the most unusual circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 79 FR 16854 (Mar. 26, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has determined that the projected operational, congestion,
and delay impacts of the 2015 JFK runway construction meet the
requirements for a temporary waiver of the slot usage requirement. In
light of the projected runway capacity and throughput impacts during
construction, reducing operations to minimize congestion and delays is
in the public interest. The FAA expects to implement measures such as
those used during the JFK Runway 13R/31L construction in 2010 and
Newark Liberty International Airport Runway 4L/22R construction in
2014. These include seeking voluntary schedule reductions of historic
flights in the busiest hours, retiming flights to less congested
periods, increasing scheduled block time, limiting the allocation of
new slots to off peak hours, optimizing the use of airport capacity
based on demand and aircraft fleet mix, and revising air traffic
control operational plans and procedures as warranted. Carriers that
temporarily reduce flights and elect to temporarily return slots to the
FAA rather than transfer them for another carrier's use should not be
penalized by permanently losing the authority to operate.

FAA Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FAA has determined to issue
a limited slot usage waiver for the part of the winter 2014/2015
scheduling season and all of the summer 2015 scheduling season.
Granting a waiver for these slots is consistent with recent agency
decisions.\2\ This waiver applies only to JFK slots for the period from
March 1, 2015, through October 24, 2015.\3\ To obtain a waiver for a
specific slot held, a carrier must temporarily return to the FAA slots
that it will not operate during the waiver period. The carrier will
retain historical precedence for these temporarily returned slots.
These temporary slot returns permit the FAA to plan for days on which
construction closures and resulting operational impacts occur. If the
closure dates change due to weather or other factors, the FAA will
apply the waiver, including retroactively, if a carrier notifies the
FAA that the temporarily returned slots will not be operated on any new
closure dates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Notice of Temporary Waiver of the Minimum Usage Requirement
Under the Order Limiting Scheduled Operations at John F. Kennedy
International, 74 FR 52838 (Oct. 14, 2009) (granting waiver for JFK
runway construction); Notice of Limited Waiver of the Slot Usage
Requirement Under the Order Limiting Operations at Newark Liberty
International Airport, 78 FR 57674 (Sept. 19, 2013) (granting waiver
for EWR runway construction).
    \3\ The FAA is granting the waiver until the end of the summer
scheduling season rather than only until the planned September 22
reopening of the runway. It may not be practical for carriers to
resume some scheduled flights in late September and October.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA recognizes that carriers may make adjustments in schedules
based on operational assessments and modeling efforts that are
currently underway. The FAA also understands that some carriers

may need additional time to finalize schedules and potential reductions
beyond the regular winter 2014/2015 slot return deadline of August 15,
2014. Accordingly, the FAA will allow an additional slot return date to
allow for better planning by carriers and for discussions with the FAA
on potential schedule and slot adjustments to mitigate delays. For
slots from March 1 through March 28, 2015, the temporary slot return
deadline is Monday, December 15, 2014. For slots March 29 through
October 24, 2015, the slot return deadline is Thursday, January 15,
2015. Temporary slot returns should be submitted to the Slot
Administration Office by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>These return
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
notifications should indicate they are subject to this waiver.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 21, 2014.
Mark W. Bury,
Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation, and
Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2014-12363 Filed 5-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 251 (Tuesday, December 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79716-79718]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31226]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71180; File No. SR-FINRA-2013-039]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To
Disapprove Proposed Rule Change To Clarify the Classification and
Reporting of Certain Securities to FINRA

December 24, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On September 16, 2013, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') 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 clarify the classification and reporting of
certain securities to FINRA. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on September 30, 2013.\3\ The
Commission received two comments on the proposal.\4\ On November 12,
2013, FINRA granted the Commission an extension of time to act on the
proposal until December 29, 2013. This order institutes proceedings
under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \5\ to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70482 (September 23,
2013), 78 FR 59995 (September 30, 2013) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letters to the Commission from Sean Davy, Managing
Director, Capital Markets, SIFMA, dated October 21, 2013 (``SIFMA
Letter''); and Manisha Kimmel, Executive Director, Financial
Information Forum, dated October 31, 2013 (``FIF Letter'').
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    FINRA employs trade reporting rules that generally require that
members report over-the-counter (``OTC'') transactions in eligible debt
and equity securities to FINRA.\6\ FINRA Rule 6622 requires that
members report transactions in ``OTC Equity Securities'' to ORF \7\ and
the Rule 6700 Series requires members to report transactions in
``TRACE-Eligible Securities'' to TRACE.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See FINRA Rules 6282 (relating to the Alternative Display
Facility (``ADF'')), 6380A (relating to the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade
Reporting Facility), 6380B (relating to the FINRA/NYSE Trade
Reporting Facility), 6622 (relating to the OTC Reporting Facility
(``ORF'')), and 6730 (relating to the Trade Reporting and Compliance
Engine (``TRACE'')).
    \7\ FINRA Rule 6420(f) defines ``OTC Equity Security'' to
include ``any equity security that is not an `NMS stock' as that
term is defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of SEC Regulation NMS; provided,
however, that the term `OTC Equity Security' shall not include any
Restricted Equity Security.'' FINRA Rule 6420(k) defines
``Restricted Equity Security'' to mean ``any equity security that
meets the definition of `restricted security' as contained in
Securities Act Rule 144(a)(3).''
    \8\ FINRA Rule 6710(a) defines ``TRACE-Eligible Security'' to
include ``a debt security that is United States (`U.S.') dollar-
denominated and issued by a U.S. or foreign private issuer, and, if
a `restricted security' as defined in Securities Act Rule 144(a)(3),
sold pursuant to Securities Act Rule 144A.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current proposal would clarify how members would be required to
report two classes of securities--``depositary shares'' and ``capital
trust'' (or ``trust preferred'') securities--under these rules. Both
classes are ``hybrid'' securities, in that each has debt- and equity-
like features. According to FINRA, such hybrid securities are
frequently designed to straddle both classifications for a variety of
purposes, including the tax treatment applicable to issuers and
recipients when distributions are made (or not made) to holders of the
security, and the treatment of the principal as capital for issuers
subject to capital requirements.\9\ FINRA states that it has received
requests for guidance whether such hybrid securities should
appropriately be classified as equities, and thus reported to ORF, or
debt securities, and thus reported to TRACE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Notice, 78 FR at 59996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has proposed to classify depositary shares, when not listed
on an equity facility of a national securities exchange,\10\ as OTC
Equity Securities under FINRA Rule 6420(f).\11\ As such, depositary
shares would be equity securities reportable to ORF. According to
FINRA, depositary shares generally are securities that represent a
fractional interest in a share of preferred stock, and preferred stocks
are considered equity securities. FINRA notes further that depositary
shares generally entitle the holder, through the depositary, to a
proportional fractional interest in the rights, powers, and preferences
of the preferred stock represented by the depositary share.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ FINRA's proposed interpretation would apply solely to a
hybrid security that is not listed on an equity facility of a
national securities exchange. See, e.g., FINRA Trade Reporting
Notice, February 22, 2008 (applying TRACE reporting requirements,
distinguishing between listed and unlisted securities, and required
members to report transactions in unlisted convertible debt and
unlisted equity-linked notes to TRACE, and OTC transactions in
convertible debt and equity-linked notes listed on an equity
facility of a national securities exchange to an appropriate FINRA
equity trade reporting facility for NMS stocks (the ADF or a trade
reporting facility (``TRF'')). For purposes of FINRA's proposed rule
change, the term ``listed on an equity facility of a national
securities exchange'' would mean a security that qualifies as an NMS
stock (as defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS) as
distinguished from a security that is listed on a bond facility of a
national securities exchange.
    \11\ See supra note 7.
    \12\ See Notice, 78 FR at 59996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, FINRA members would be required to request a
symbol for a depository share, if one had not already been assigned,
and to report transactions in depositary shares in accordance with ORF
requirements. Thus, the price of the transaction would be reported as
the dollar price per share and volume should be reported as the number
of depositary shares traded.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See FINRA Rule 6622; see also Trade Reporting FAQ 101.6,
available at www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/Guidance/p038942#101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to capital trust (or trust preferred) securities,
FINRA has proposed to include such securities within the definition of
``TRACE-Eligible Security'' under FINRA Rule 6710(a).\14\ Thus, members
would be required to report transactions in such securities to TRACE
according to applicable TRACE reporting requirements. For example,
members would be required to report price as a percentage of par value
and volume as the total par value of the transaction (not the number of
bonds traded).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 8.
    \15\ See FINRA Rule 6730.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In explaining its proposed classification of capital trust
securities, FINRA noted that, historically, many of these securities--
particularly those issued with $1,000 par value and not listed on an
equity facility of a national securities exchange--were reported to
Fixed Income Pricing System (``FIPS'') prior to the implementation of
TRACE.\16\ When TRACE was proposed, reporting of FIPS securities was to
be transferred to TRACE.\17\ FINRA also noted that, as part of the
original TRACE proposal, FINRA (then NASD) specifically identified
capital trust securities in a list of instruments that NASD considered
TRACE-Eligible Securities, which would be reported to

TRACE and otherwise subject to the Rule 6700 Series requirements.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ FINRA (formerly, the National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'')) operated FIPS through its then-subsidiary,
NASDAQ. FIPS commenced operation in April 1994 and collected
transaction and quotation information on domestic, registered, non-
convertible high-yield corporate bonds. OTC capital trust securities
and trust preferred securities were treated as FIPS securities and
often included in the regularly published lists of the most
actively-traded FIPS securities, referred to as the ``FIPS 50.'' See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43873 (January 23, 2001), 66 FR
8131 (January 29, 2001) (Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to
Amendment No. 4, Relating to the Creation of a Corporate Bond Trade
Reporting and Transaction Dissemination Facility and the Elimination
of Nasdaq's Fixed Income Pricing System) (File No. SR-NASD-99-65)
(``TRACE Approval Order'').
    \17\ See, e.g., TRACE Approval Order, 66 FR at 8132-8133, nn. 13
and 16.
    \18\ In SR-NASD-99-65, FINRA (then NASD) indicated that capital
trust securities would be TRACE-Eligible Securities. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 42201 (December 3, 1999), 64 FR 69305,
69309 (December 10, 1999) (Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Creation of a Corporate Bond Trade Reporting and
Transaction Dissemination Facility and the Elimination of Nasdaq's
Fixed Income Pricing System (``FIPS'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA stated that the proposed rule change would apply only on a
prospective basis. It would not require FINRA members to review old
trades and cancel and re-report those trades if they were reported
contrary to the terms of the proposal. If the proposal became
effective, however, it would require FINRA members to cancel and re-
report trades that occurred after the date of the proposal's
effectiveness if those trades were reported incorrectly.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Notice, 78 FR at 59996-97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Letters

    As noted above, the Commission received two comment letters
concerning the proposal.\20\ Both comment letters express concern with
FINRA's proposed guidance regarding trade reporting of hybrid preferred
securities, such as depositary shares, and contend that hybrid
securities currently being reported to TRACE should continue to be
reported to TRACE. FINRA has not yet submitted a response to the
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenters make several arguments as to why depositary shares
should continue to be reported to TRACE, rather than to ORF, as the
proposal would require. According to the commenters, it is longstanding
market practice to treat depositary shares more like debt than equity
securities. The commenters also claim that it would be overly
burdensome for market participants to make the technological changes
required to report trades in depositary shares to ORF rather than
TRACE.
    One of the commenters states that investors evaluate hybrid
securities, including depositary shares, based upon their fixed income
attributes. According to this commenter, depositary shares with a par
value of $1,000 have historically been traded and settled with a debt
convention, meaning on the basis of yield and credit quality rather
than on the potential for capital appreciation.\21\ As a result, the
commenter states, investors in hybrid securities, often institutional
investors, make portfolio allocations based on yield, time to first
call, and credit rating among other debt-like characteristics.\22\ The
commenter acknowledges, however, that hybrid securities, including
depositary shares, may also be issued with par values less than $1,000,
and that such smaller par value securities most often trade as equity
securities in an equity format.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See SIFMA Letter at 6. See also FIF Letter at 1 (stating
generally that the depositary shares ``are traded as fixed income
securities'').
    \22\ See SIFMA Letter at 6.
    \23\ See id. at 7, n. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This commenter takes the position that there is justification to
support the current market practice of treating depositary shares with
$1,000 par value or greater as debt securities. For instance, the
commenter notes that hybrid securities, including depositary shares,
generally hold a similar priority in the capital structure, meaning
they are paid after all other debt and prior to common equity.\24\
Additionally, according to the commenter, hybrid securities tend to
share core characteristics such as a fixed coupon or dividend and a
lack of voting rights beyond statutory requirements, similar to the
voting rights associated with debt indentures. Hybrid securities also
may or may not be callable, and they may have a specific maturity
date.\25\ Finally, the commenter cites a number of cases where it
believes the Commission has suggested that preferred securities may
properly be classified as debt securities.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See id. at 6.
    \25\ See id.
    \26\ See id. at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, this commenter also identifies what it believes may be
a significant harmful consequence of changing market practice with
respect to the classification of depositary shares. The commenter notes
that hybrid preferred securities, including depositary shares, are
often issued by banks because of how the securities are treated for
purposes of calculating a bank's regulatory capital. The commenter
states that such securities are likely to become more important to
banks as new, stricter standards concerning banks' capital ratios take
effect. Absent a robust secondary market, the commenter contends, banks
may be limited in their ability to issue hybrid preferred securities,
which could impact their ability to comply with regulatory capital
requirements. The commenter believes that, to the extent the proposal
would change the way depositary shares are traded, it could dampen the
secondary market by creating investor confusion or rendering the
securities ineligible for inclusion in fixed income indices.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both commenters question the ability of market participants to
adapt their systems to comply with the proposed reclassification of
depositary shares. As one commenter notes, the data fields captured by
FINRA's ORF are different than those captured by TRACE. For example,
ORF collects for each transaction the price per share and number of
shares traded. It does not have a data field for an accrued coupon or
dividend, information captured as part of debt transactions reported to
TRACE.\28\ Along the same lines, the second commenter notes that
investors may prefer to receive confirmations of their depositary share
trades with the additional data fields that TRACE collects but ORF does
not.\29\ Furthermore, the second commenter points out, many firms have
bifurcated trading, operations, and technology architecture for
equities and debt that is tailored to the order lifecycle needs of each
type of instrument, including order entry, market data, trade
reporting, and settlement.\30\ In this commenter's view, the costs of
altering such architecture are not warranted.\31\ The first commenter
expressed similar sentiment, and it also urged FINRA to allow
sufficient implementation time should it proceed with the proposal.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See id. at 7.
    \29\ See FIF Letter at 4.
    \30\ See id. at 1.
    \31\ See id. at 3-4. This commenter also lists a number of other
potential downstream impacts that it believes FINRA should consider
at greater length before proceeding with the proposal. See id. at 2-
3.
    \32\ See SIFMA Letter at 12-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aside from arguing for a particular treatment for depositary
shares, the first commenter expressed its belief that the proposal does
not contain sufficient guidance to clearly apply to the range of hybrid
securities traded throughout the marketplace. This commenter offered
several alternative formulations of the guidance that it believes would
more thoroughly define the criteria by which a security would be
classified as reportable to ORF or TRACE.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See id. at 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings to Determine Whether to Disapprove SR-FINRA-2013-039
and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \34\ to determine whether the proposals should
be disapproved. Institution of such

proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposals. Institution of disapproval proceedings
does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described in greater
detail below, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to
provide additional comment on the proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B),\35\ the Commission is providing
notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. The
Commission notes that Section 15A(b)(9) of the Act \36\ requires that
FINRA's rules be designed to, among other things, promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Commenters
have raised concerns about whether the proposed reclassification of
depositary shares for trade reporting purposes could cause harm to the
market for hybrid preferred securities. They have also questioned
whether the proposal could cause investor confusion, and whether it is
sufficiently detailed to provide adequate guidance to market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See id.
    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that these concerns raise questions as to
whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of
the Section 15A(b)(9) of the Act, including whether they would promote
just and equitable principles of trade, perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and
the public interest. As of the date of this order, FINRA had not yet
addressed the comments by, for example, amending the proposal to
respond to comments or arguing that the proposal should be approved by
the Commission in its present form notwithstanding the comments. The
self-regulatory organization submitting the proposal bears the burden
of demonstrating that it is consistent with the Act, and given the
outstanding comments, FINRA has not at this time satisfied that
burden.\37\ Accordingly, the Commission believes that it is appropriate
at this time to issue this order to institute proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether to disapprove the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
concerns identified above, as well as any others they may have with the
proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change
is inconsistent with Section 15A(b)(9) or any other provision of the
Act, or the rules and regulation thereunder. Although there do not
appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would
be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments,
the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for
an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposed rule changes should be
[approved or] disapproved by January 21, 2014. Any person who wishes to
file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that
rebuttal by February 4, 2014.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2013-039 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2013-039. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, 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; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
FINRA-2013-039 and should be submitted on or before January 21, 2014.
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by February 4, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-31226 Filed 12-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33762-33764]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11777]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88954; File No. SR-ICC-2020-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Clearing Rules

May 27, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On April 10, 2020, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section

19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and
Rule 19b-4,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Chapter 2 of the ICC
Rules relating to requirements applicable to ICC's Clearing
Participants. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on April 20, 2020.\3\ The Commission did not receive
comments regarding the proposed rule change. For the reasons discussed
below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice
of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Clearing Rules, Exchange
Act Release No. 88628 (Apr. 14, 2020); 85 FR 21907 (Apr. 20, 2020)
(SR-ICC-2020-007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    As discussed below, the proposed rule change would amend Chapter 2
of the ICC Rules, which relates to requirements applicable to ICC's
Clearing Participants.
    The proposed rule change would amend ICC Rule 201(b), which sets
out the standards that each of ICC's Clearing Participants must meet,
to add a new standard in standard in subparagraph (xiv). New
subparagraph (xiv) would require that a Clearing Participant
participate in default management simulations, new technology testing
and other exercises, as notified by ICE Clear Credit from time to time.
    The proposed rule change would also amend Rule 206(a), which
requires that each Clearing Participant immediately notify ICC, orally
and in writing, upon the occurrence of certain specified events. The
proposed rule change would amend Rule 206(a) to delete the requirement
that Clearing Participants provide notices orally, so that instead
Clearing Participants would only be required to provide notice in
writing.
    Finally, the proposed rule change would amend Rule 206(c), which
requires a Clearing Participant that is a broker-dealer to notify ICC
of, among other things, any matter of which the Clearing Participant
must notify FINRA under FINRA Rule 3070. The proposed rule change would
replace ``FINRA Rule 3070'' with ``FINRA Rule 4530(a)(1)(A),(C),(E) and
4530(b) (or any similar rules),'' as FINRA Rule 3070 is no longer
applicable and has been superseded by FINRA Rule 4530.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ FINRA Rule 4530 generally requires that its members promptly
report to FINRA after the member or an associated person of the
member has been found to have violated any securities or other rules
and regulations of a regulatory body, is named as a defendant or
respondent in any proceeding brought by a domestic or foreign
regulatory body, or is indicted, or convicted of, or pleads guilty
to any felony or any misdemeanor that involves the purchase or sale
of any security, etc. Further, this rule also generally requires
that each member shall promptly report to FINRA after the member has
concluded or reasonably should have concluded that an associated
person of the member or the member itself has violated any
securities or other rules and regulations of a regulatory body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\5\ For the reasons given below, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \6\ and Rule 17Ad-22(d)(2).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of ICC be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, as well
as to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of ICC or for which it is responsible.\8\ By
updating the standards for membership applicable to Clearing
Participants as discussed above, the proposed rule change should help
to ensure that ICC's Clearing Participants participate in default
testing and other testing conducted by ICC. In addition, the proposed
rule change should help to ensure that all of ICC's Clearing
Participants are prepared for, and ready to take actions in response
to, a Clearing Participant default, thereby helping to improve ICC's
management of a Clearing Participant default. Because the Commission
believes that a Clearing Participant default, if not properly managed,
could cause ICC to incur losses which could hinder its clearance and
settlement of securities transactions and safeguarding of securities
and funds in its custody or control, the Commission believes this
aspect of the proposed rule change should help to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in ICC's custody and
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, by eliminating the requirement for oral notices and
updating the reference to the current FINRA rulerequiring notification
by a Clearing Participant that is a broker-dealer of violations of
regulatory rules and regulations, the proposed rule change should help
to ensure that ICC receives notice from a Clearing Participant of
events or situations which could affect the Clearing Participant's
ability to satisfy the standards and obligations applicable to it as a
participant in ICC. The proposed rule change would allow ICC to respond
as needed to mitigate any potential negative effects to ICC arising
from such events or situations that could hinder ICC's clearance and
settlement of securities transactions and safeguarding of securities
and funds in its custody or control. Consequently, the Commission
believes this aspect of the proposed rule change should help to promote
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in
ICC's custody and control.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change
should promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and assure the safeguarding of securities and
funds in ICC's custody and control, consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(d)(2)

    Rule 17Ad-22(d)(2) requires that ICC establish, implement, maintain
and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
require participants to have sufficient financial resources and robust
operational capacity to meet obligations arising from participation in
ICC; have procedures in place to monitor that participation
requirements are met on an ongoing basis; and have participation
requirements that are objective and publicly disclosed, and permit fair
and open access.\10\ The adoption of a new standard applicable to
Clearing Participants--participation in default management simulations,
new technology testing and other exercises, as notified by ICE Clear
Credit from time to time--should establish a participation requirement
that is objective in that it applies to all Clearing Participants
equally, and is publicly disclosed, in that it would be part of ICC's
publicly available rulebook. Moreover, this new participation standard
should allow ICC to test a Clearing Participant's operational

response to a simulated default, thereby helping to ensure that a
Clearing Participant has robust operational capacity to meet
obligations arising from participation in ICC. Finally, the elimination
of the requirement for oral notices and updating of the reference to
the current FINRA rule should help to ensure that ICC receives notice
from a Clearing Participant of events or situations which could affect
the Clearing Participant's ability to satisfy the standards and
obligations applicable to it as a participant in ICC. Taken together,
the Commission believes that the proposed rule change should help ICC
to monitor that Clearing Participants are meeting their participation
requirements on an ongoing basis. For these reasons, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(2).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 17Ad-22(d)(2).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 17Ad-22(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \12\ and Rules 17Ad-22(d)(2).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\14\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2020-007), be, and hereby
is, approved.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \15\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-11777 Filed 6-1-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 30, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 189)]
[Notices]
[Page 57340-57345]
[DOCID:fr30se05-160]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52506; File No. SR-CBOE-2005-58]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval
to a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Exchange's Preferred
Designated Primary Market-Maker Program

September 23, 2005.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 27, 2005, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the CBOE. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons. In addition, the
Commission is granting accelerated approval of the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The CBOE proposes to amend its rules governing its Preferred
Designated Primary Market-Maker (``DPM'') program to allow non-DPM
Market-Makers to receive orders designated for a specific Market-Maker
(``Preferred orders'').\3\ Proposed new language is in italics;
proposed deletions are in [brackets].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ With the permission of the CBOE, the Commission made
clarifications to the description of the proposed rule change as
noted herein. Telephone conversation between David Hsu, Special
Counsel, Theodore Venuti, Attorney, Division of Market Regulation,
Commission, and Angelo Evangelou, Senior Managing Attorney, CBOE, on
August 11, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
Rule 8.13 Preferred Market-Maker Program
    (a) Generally. The Exchange may allow, on a class-by-class basis,
for the receipt of marketable orders, through the Exchange's Order
Routing System when the Exchange's disseminated quote is the NBBO, that
carry a designation from the member transmitting the order that
specifies a Market-Maker in that class as the ``Preferred Market-
Maker'' for that order. A qualifying recipient of a Preferred Market-
Maker order shall be afforded a participation entitlement as set forth
in subparagraph (c) below. The Preferred Market-Maker Program shall be
in effect until June 2, 2006 on a pilot basis.
    (b) Eligibility. Any Exchange Market-Maker type (e.g., Remote
Market-Maker, Lead Market-Maker, and Designated Primary Market-Maker)
may be designated as a Preferred Market-Maker, however, a recipient of
a Preferred Market-Maker order will only receive a participation
entitlement for such order if the following provisions are met:
    (i) The Preferred Market-Maker must have an appointment/allocation
in the relevant option class.
    (ii) The Preferred Market-Maker must be quoting at the best bid/
offer on the Exchange.
    (iii) The Preferred Market-Maker must comply with the quoting
obligations applicable to its Market-Maker type under Exchange rules
and must provide continuous two-sided quotations in at least 90% of the
series of each class for which it receives Preferred Market Maker
orders.
    (c) Entitlement Rate. Provided the provisions of subparagraph (b)
above have been met, the Preferred Market-Maker participation
entitlement shall be 40% when there are two or more Market-Makers also
quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange, and 50% when there is
only one other Market-Maker quoting at the best bid/offer on the
Exchange. In addition, the following shall apply:
    (i) A Preferred Market-Maker may not be allocated a total quantity
greater than the quantity that the Preferred Market-Maker is quoting at
the best bid/offer on the Exchange.
    (ii) The participation entitlement rate is based on the number of
contracts remaining after all public customer orders in the book at the
best bid/offer on the Exchange have been satisfied.
    (iii) If a Preferred Market-Maker receives a participation
entitlement under this Rule, then no other participation entitlements
set forth in Exchange Rules (e.g., Rule 8.87 Participation Entitlement
of DPMs and e-DPMs and Rule 8.15B Participation Entitlement of LMMs)
shall apply to such order.
* * * * *
Rule 6.45A.--Priority and Allocation of Equity Option Trades on the
CBOE Hybrid System
    Generally: The rules of priority and order allocation procedures
set forth in this rule shall apply only to equity option classes
designated by the Exchange to be traded on the CBOE Hybrid System and
has no applicability to index option and options on ETF classes. The
term ``market participant'' as used throughout this rule refers to a
Market-Maker, an in-crowd DPM, an e-DPM, a Remote Market-Maker, and a
floor broker representing orders in the trading crowd. The term ``in-
crowd market participant'' only includes an in-crowd Market-Maker, in-
crowd DPM, and floor broker representing orders in the trading crowd.
    (a) Allocation of Incoming Electronic Orders: The Exchange shall
apply, for each class of options, the following rules of trading
priority.
    (i) Ultimate Matching Algorithm (``UMA''): Under this method, a
market participant who enters a quotation or order and whose quote or
order is represented by the disseminated CBOE best bid or offer
(``BBO'') shall be eligible to receive allocations of incoming
electronic orders for up to the size of its quote or order, in
accordance with the principles described below. As an initial matter,
if the number of contracts represented in the disseminated quote is
less than the

number of contracts in an incoming electronic order(s), the incoming
electronic order(s) shall only be entitled to receive a number of
contracts up to the size of the disseminated quote, in accordance with
Rule 6.45A(a)(i)(B). The balance of the electronic order will be
eligible to be filled at the refreshed quote either electronically (in
accordance with paragraph (a)(i)(B) below) or manually (in accordance
with Rule 6.45A(b)) and, as such, may receive a split price execution.
(A) Priority of Orders in the Electronic Book
    (1) Public Customer Orders: Public customer orders in the
electronic book have priority. Multiple public customer orders in the
electronic book at the same price are ranked based on time priority. If
a public customer order(s) in the electronic book matches, or is
matched by, a market participant quote, the public customer order(s)
shall have priority and, the balance of the incoming order, if any,
will be allocated pursuant to Rule 6.45A(a)(i)(B).
    (2) Broker-dealer Orders: If pursuant to Rule 7.4(a) the
appropriate FPC determines to allow certain types of broker-dealer
orders to be placed in the electronic book, then for purposes of this
rule, the cumulative number of broker-dealer orders in the electronic
book at the best price shall be deemed one ``market participant''
regardless of the number of broker-dealer orders in the book. The
allocation due the broker-dealer orders in the electronic book by
virtue of their being deemed a ``market participant'' shall be
distributed among each broker-dealer order comprising the ``market
participant'' pursuant to Rule 6.45A(a)(i)(B).
(B) Allocation
    (1) Market Participant Quoting Alone at BBO: When a market
participant is quoting alone at the disseminated CBOE BBO and is not
subsequently matched in the quote by other market participants prior to
execution, it will be entitled to receive incoming electronic order(s)
up to the size of its quote. If another market participant joins in the
disseminated quote prior to execution of an incoming electronic
order(s) such that more than one market participant is quoting at the
BBO, incoming electronic order(s) will be distributed in accordance
with (B)(2) below.
    (2) More than One Market Participant Quoting at BBO: When more than
one market participant is quoting at the BBO, inbound electronic orders
shall be allocated pursuant to the following allocation algorithm:

Where:

Component A: The percentage to be used for Component A shall be an
equal percentage, derived by dividing 100 by the number of market
participants quoting at the BBO.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30SE05.034

Component B: Size Prorata Allocation. The percentage to be used for
Component B of the Allocation Algorithm formula is that percentage that
the size of each market participant's quote at the best price
represents relative to the total number of contracts in the
disseminated quote.
Final Weighting: The final weighting formula for equity options, which
shall be determined by the appropriate FPC and apply uniformly across
all options under its jurisdiction, shall be a weighted average of the
percentages derived for Components A and B multiplied by the size of
the incoming order. Initially, the weighting of components A and B
shall be equal, represented mathematically by the formula: ((Component
A Percentage + Component B Percentage)/2) * incoming order size.

    (C) [DPM] Participation Entitlement: If a [DPM or e-DPM] Market-
Maker is eligible for an allocation pursuant to the operation of the
Algorithm described in paragraph (a) of Rule 6.45A and is also eligible
for an allocation pursuant to a participation entitlement under Rules
8.13, 8.15B, or 8.87, the Market-Maker [DPM or e-DPM] shall be entitled
to receive an allocation (not to exceed the size of its [the DPM's or
e-DPM's] quote) equal to either:
    (1) The greater of the amount the Market-Maker [it] would be
entitled to pursuant to the participation entitlement [right
established pursuant to Rule 8.87 (and Regulatory Circulars issued
thereunder)] or the amount it would otherwise receive pursuant to the
operation of the Algorithm described above provided, however, that in
calculating a [the] DPM's allocation under the Algorithm, DPMs
utilizing more than one membership in the trading crowd where the
subject class is traded shall count as two market participants for
purposes of Component A of the Algorithm; or
    (2) The amount the Market-Maker [it] would be entitled to pursuant
to the participation entitlement. [right established pursuant to Rule
8.87 (and Regulatory Circulars issued thereunder).]
    The appropriate FPC shall determine which of the preceding two
entitlement formulas will be in effect for all classes under its
jurisdiction. All pronouncements regarding the entitlement formula
shall be made via Regulatory Circular. The participation entitlement
percentage is expressed as a percentage of the remaining quantity after
all public customer orders in the electronic book have been executed.
    (b)-(e) No change.
    * * * Interpretations and Policies:
    .01-.02. No change.
* * * * *
Rule 6.45B--Priority and Allocation of Trades in Index Options and
Options on ETFs on the CBOE Hybrid System
    Generally: The rules of priority and order allocation procedures
set forth in this rule shall apply only to index options and options on
ETFs that have been designated for trading on the CBOE Hybrid System.
The term ``market participant'' as used throughout this rule refers to
a Market-Maker, a Remote Market-Maker, an in-crowd DPM or LMM, an e-DPM
with an appointment in the subject class, and a floor broker
representing orders in the trading crowd. The term ``in-crowd market
participant'' only includes an in-crowd Market-Maker, in-crowd DPM or
LMM, and floor broker representing orders in the trading crowd.
    (a) Allocation of Incoming Electronic Orders: The appropriate
Exchange

procedures committee will determine to apply, for each class of
options, one of the following rules of trading priority described in
paragraphs (i) or (ii). The Exchange will issue a Regulatory Circular
periodically specifying which priority rules will govern which classes
of options any time the appropriate Exchange committee changes the
priority.
(i) Price-Time or Pro-Rata Priority
    Price-Time Priority: Under this method, resting quotes and orders
in the book are prioritized according to price and time. If there are
two or more quotes or orders at the best price then priority is
afforded among these quotes or orders in the order in which they were
received by the Hybrid System; or
    Pro-Rata Priority: Under this method, resting quotes and orders in
the book are prioritized according to price. If there are two or more
quotes or orders at the best price then trades are allocated
proportionally according to size (in a pro-rata fashion). The
executable quantity is allocated to the nearest whole number, with
fractions \1/2\ or greater rounded up and fractions less than \1/2\
rounded down. If there are two market participants that both are
entitled to an additional \1/2\ contract and there is only one contract
remaining to be distributed, the additional contract will be
distributed to the market participant whose quote or order has time
priority.
Additional Priority Overlays Applicable to Price-Time or Pro-Rata
Priority Methods
    In addition to the base allocation methodologies set forth above,
the appropriate Exchange procedures committee may determine to apply,
on a class-by-class basis, either or both of the following designated
market participant overlay priorities. The Exchange will issue a
Regulatory Circular periodically which will specify which classes of
options are subject to these additional priorities as well as any time
the appropriate Exchange procedures committee changes these priorities.
    (1) Public Customer: When this priority overlay is in effect, the
highest bid and lowest offer shall have priority except that public
customer orders shall have priority over non-public customer orders at
the same price. If there are two or more public customer orders for the
same options series at the same price, priority shall be afforded to
such public customer orders in the sequence in which they are received
by the System, even if the Pro-Rata Priority allocation method is the
chosen allocation method. For purposes of this Rule, a Public Customer
order is an order for an account in which no member, non-member
participant in a joint-venture with a member, or non-member broker-
dealer (including a foreign broker-dealer) has an interest. (2)
Participation Entitlement: The appropriate Exchange procedures
committee may determine to grant Market-Makers [DPMs, LMMs, or e-DPMs]
participation entitlements pursuant to the provisions of Rule 8.87,
Rule 8.13, or 8.15B. In allocating the participation entitlement, all
of the following shall apply:
    (A) To be entitled to their participation entitlement, the Market-
Maker's [a DPM's or LMM's or e-DPM's] order and/or quote must be at the
best price on the Exchange.
    (B) The Market-Maker [A DPM or LMM or e-DPM] may not be allocated a
total quantity greater than the quantity that it [the DPM or LMM or e-
DPM] is quoting (including orders not part of quotes) at that price. If
Pro-Rata Priority is in effect, and the Market-Maker's [DPM's or LMM's
or e-DPM's] allocation of an order pursuant to its participation
entitlement is greater than its percentage share of quotes/orders at
the best price at the time that the participation entitlement is
granted, the Market-Maker [DPM or LMM or e-DPM] shall not receive any
further allocation of that order.
    (C) In establishing the counterparties to a particular trade, the
[DPM's or LMM's or e-DPM's] participation entitlement must first be
counted against that Market-Maker's [the DPM's or LMM's or e-DPM's]
highest priority bids or offers. (D) The participation entitlement
shall not be in effect unless the Public Customer priority is in effect
in a priority sequence ahead of the participation entitlement and then
the participation entitlement shall only apply to any remaining
balance.
    (ii) Ultimate Matching Algorithm (``UMA''): Under this method, a
market participant who enters a quotation and whose quote is
represented by the disseminated CBOE best bid or offer (``BBO'') shall
be eligible to receive allocations of incoming electronic orders for up
to the size of its quote, in accordance with the principles described
below. As an initial matter, if the number of contracts represented in
the disseminated quote is less than the number of contracts in an
incoming electronic order(s), the incoming electronic order(s) shall
only be entitled to receive a number of contracts up to the size of the
disseminated quote, in accordance with Rule 6.45B(a)(ii)(B). The
balance of the electronic order will be eligible to be filled at the
refreshed quote either electronically (in accordance with paragraph
(a)(ii)(B) below) or manually (in accordance with Rule 6.45B(b)) and,
as such, may receive a split price execution.
(A) Priority of Orders in the Electronic Book
    (1) Public Customer Orders: Public customer orders in the
electronic book have priority. Multiple public customer orders in the
electronic book at the same price are ranked based on time priority. If
a public customer order(s) in the electronic book matches, or is
matched by, a market participant quote, the public customer order(s)
shall have priority and, the balance of the incoming order, if any,
will be allocated pursuant to Rule 6.45B(a)(ii).
    (2) Broker-dealer Orders: If pursuant to Rule 7.4(a) the
appropriate Exchange procedures committee determines to allow certain
types of broker-dealer orders to be placed in the electronic book, then
for purposes of this rule, the cumulative number of broker-dealer
orders in the electronic book at the best price shall be deemed one
``market participant'' regardless of the number of broker-dealer orders
in the book. The allocation due the broker-dealer orders in the
electronic book by virtue of their being deemed a ``market
participant'' shall be distributed among each broker-dealer order
comprising the ``market participant'' pursuant to Rule 6.45B(a)(ii)(B).
(B) Allocation
    (1) Market Participant Quoting Alone at BBO: When a market
participant is quoting alone at the disseminated CBOE BBO and is not
subsequently matched in the quote by other market participants prior to
execution, it will be entitled to receive incoming electronic order(s)
up to the size of its quote. If another market participant joins in the
disseminated quote prior to execution of an incoming electronic
order(s) such that more than one market participant is quoting at the
BBO, incoming electronic order(s) will be distributed in accordance
with (B)(2) below.
    (2) More than One Market Participant Quoting at BBO: When more than
one market participant is quoting at the BBO, inbound electronic orders
shall be allocated pursuant to the following allocation algorithm:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30SE05.035

Where:
Component A: The percentage to be used for Component A shall be an
equal percentage, derived by dividing 100 by the number of market
participants quoting at the BBO.
Component B: Size Pro-rata Allocation. The percentage to be used for
Component B of the Allocation Algorithm formula is that percentage that
the size of each market participant's quote at the best price
represents relative to the total number of contracts in the
disseminated quote.
Final Weighting: The final weighting formula, which shall be
established by the appropriate Exchange procedures committee and may
vary by product, shall be a weighted average of the percentages derived
for Components A and B multiplied by the size of the incoming order.
Changes made to the percentage weightings of Components A and B shall
be announced to the membership via Regulatory Circular at least one day
before implementation of the change.

    (C) Participation Entitlement: If a Market-Maker [DPM, LMM, or e-
DPM] is eligible for an allocation pursuant to the operation of the
Algorithm described in paragraph (a) of Rule 6.45B and is also eligible
for an allocation pursuant to a participation entitlement under Rules
8.13, 8.15B, or 8.87, the Market-Maker [DPM, LMM, or e-DPM] may be
entitled to receive an allocation (not to exceed the size of its quote)
equal to either:
    (1) The greater of the amount it would be entitled to pursuant to
the participation entitlement [right established pursuant to Rule 8.87
or 8.15B (and Regulatory Circulars issued thereunder)] or the amount it
would otherwise receive pursuant to the operation of the Algorithm
described above provided, however, that in calculating a [the] DPM's or
LMM's allocation under the Algorithm, DPMs or LMMs utilizing more than
one membership in the trading crowd where the subject class is traded
shall count as two market participants for purposes of Component A of
the Algorithm; or
    (2) The amount it would be entitled to pursuant to the
participation entitlement [right established pursuant to Rule 8.87 or
8.15B (and Regulatory Circulars issued thereunder)]; or
    (3) The amount it would be entitled to receive pursuant to the
operation of the Algorithm described above provided, however, that in
calculating a [the] DPM's or LMM's allocation under the Algorithm, DPMs
or LMMs utilizing more than one membership in the trading crowd where
the subject class is traded shall count as two market participants for
purposes of Component A of the Algorithm.
    The appropriate Exchange procedures committee shall determine which
of the preceding three entitlement formulas will be in effect on a
class-by-class basis. All pronouncements regarding the entitlement
formula shall be made via Regulatory Circular. The participation
entitlement percentage is expressed as a percentage of the remaining
quantity after all public customer orders in the electronic book have
been executed.
    (b)-(d) No change.
    * * * Interpretations and Policies:
    .01-.02. No change.
* * * * *
Rule 8.15B Participation Entitlement of LMMs
    (a) The appropriate Market Performance Committee may establish, on
a class-by-class basis, a participation entitlement formula that is
applicable to LMMs.
    (b) To be entitled to a participation entitlement, the LMM must be
quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange and the LMM may not be
allocated a total quantity greater than the quantity for which the LMM
is quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange. The participation
entitlement is based on the number of contracts remaining after all
public customer orders in the book at the best bid/offer on the
Exchange have been satisfied. The participation entitlement set forth
in this Rule shall not apply in instances where a Preferred Market-
Maker receives a participation entitlement pursuant to Rule 8.13.
    (c) The LMM participation entitlement shall be: 50% when there is
one Market-Maker also quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange;
40% when there are two Market-Makers also quoting at the best bid/offer
on the Exchange; and, 30% when there are three or more Market-Makers
also quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange. If more than one
LMM is entitled to a participation entitlement, such entitlement shall
be distributed equally among all eligible LMMs provided, however, that
an LMM may not be allocated a total quantity greater than the quantity
for which the LMM is quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange.
    The appropriate Market Performance Committee may determine, on a
class-by-class basis, to decrease the LMM participation entitlement
percentages from the percentages specified in paragraph (c). Such
changes will be announced to the membership in advance of
implementation via Regulatory Circular.
* * * * *
Rule 8.87. Participation Entitlement of DPMs and e-DPMs
    (a) Subject to the review of the Board of Directors, the MTS
Committee may establish from time to time a participation entitlement
formula that is applicable to all DPMs.
    (b) The participation entitlement for DPMs and e-DPMs (as defined
in Rule 8.92) shall operate as follows:
    (1) Generally.
    (i) To be entitled to a participation entitlement, the DPM/e-DPM
must be quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange.
    (ii) A DPM/e-DPM may not be allocated a total quantity greater than
the quantity that the DPM/e-DPM is quoting at the best bid/offer on the
Exchange.
    (iii) The participation entitlement is based on the number of
contracts remaining after all public customer orders in the book at the
best bid/offer on the Exchange have been satisfied.
    (2) Participation Rates applicable to DPM Complex. The collective
DPM/e-DPM participation entitlement shall be: 50% when there is one
Market-Maker also quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange; 40%
when there are two Market-Makers also quoting at the best bid/offer on
the Exchange; and, 30% when there are three or more Market-Makers also
quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange.
    (3) Allocation of Participation Entitlement Between DPMs and e-
DPMs. The participation entitlement

shall be as follows: If the DPM and one or more e-DPMs are quoting at
the best bid/offer on the Exchange, the e-DPM participation entitlement
shall be one-half (50%) of the total DPM/e-DPM entitlement and shall be
divided equally by the number of e-DPMs quoting at the best bid/offer
on the Exchange. The remaining half shall be allocated to the DPM. If
the DPM is not quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange and one or
more e-DPMs are quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange, then the
e-DPMs shall be allocated the entire participation entitlement (divided
equally between them). If no e-DPMs are quoting at the best bid/offer
on the Exchange and the DPM is quoting at the best bid/offer on the
Exchange, then the DPM shall be allocated the entire participation
entitlement. If only the DPM and/or e-DPMs are quoting at the best bid/
offer on the Exchange (with no Market-Makers at that price), the
participation entitlement shall not be applicable and the allocation
procedures under Rule 6.45A shall apply.
    (4) [Allocation of] Participation Entitlement In Instances Where a
Preferred Market-Maker Receives a Participation Entitlement Pursuant to
Rule 8.13.
    The participation entitlement set forth in this Rule shall not
apply in instances where a Preferred Market-Maker receives a
participation entitlement pursuant to Rule 8.13. [Between DPMs and e-
DPMs for Orders Specifying a Preferred DPM. Notwithstanding the
provisions of subparagraph (b)(3) above, the Exchange may allow, on a
class-by-class basis, for the receipt of marketable orders, through the
Exchange's Order Routing System when the Exchange's disseminated quote
is the NBBO, that carry a designation from the member transmitting the
order that specifies a DPM or e-DPM in that class as the ``Preferred
DPM'' for that order.
    In such cases and after the provisions of subparagraph (b)(1)(i)
and (iii) above have been met, then the Preferred DPM participation
entitlement shall be 50% when there is one Market-Maker also quoting at
the best bid/offer on the Exchange; and 40% when there are two or more
Market-Makers also quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange,
subject to the following:
    (i) If the Preferred DPM is not quoting at the best bid/offer on
the Exchange then the participation entitlement set forth in
subparagraph (b)(3) above shall apply;
    (ii) In no case shall the Preferred DPM be allocated, pursuant to
this participation right, a total quantity greater than the quantity
that the Preferred DPM is quoting at the best bid/offer on the
Exchange.
    The Preferred DPM participation entitlement set forth in
subparagraph (b)(4) of this Rule shall be in effect until June 2, 2006
on a pilot basis.]
    * * * Interpretations and Policies:
    .01 No change.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    CBOE Rule 8.87 governs the application of the Exchange's recently
approved Preferred DPM Program.\4\ Under the program, order providers
can send an order to the Exchange designating a ``Preferred DPM'' from
among the DPM Complex.\5\ If the Preferred DPM is quoting at the
national best bid or offer (``NBBO'') at the time the order is received
on CBOE, the Preferred DPM, after public customer orders at the best
bid/offer on the Exchange are filled, is entitled to a 40% allocation
of the order when there are two or more Market-Makers also quoting at
the best bid/offer on the Exchange, and 50% when there is one Market-
Maker also quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51779 (June 2, 2005), 70
FR 33564 (June 8, 2005) (order approving File No. SR-CBOE-2004-71).
A modification to the applicable participation entitlement
percentages under the program was also recently effected. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51824 (June 10, 2005), 70 FR
35476 (June 20, 2005) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
of File No. SR-CBOE-2005-45). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 52021 (July 13, 2005), 70 FR 41462 (July 19, 2005)
(notice of filing and order granting accelerated approval to File
No. SR-CBOE-2005-50).
    \5\ The DPM Complex consists of the DPM and electronic DPMs in
the class. See supra note 3.
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Philadelphia Stock Exchange (``Phlx'') recently obtained
approval of a Directed Order Program that allows a recipient of a
directed order on the Phlx to receive a 40% participation entitlement
on designated orders received while that entity is quoting at the
NBBO.\7\ The International Securities Exchange (``ISE'') also recently
obtained approval to implement a preferencing program that allows a
preferenced ISE market maker to receive a 40% participation entitlement
on designated orders received while that market maker is quoting at the
NBBO.\8\ Unlike CBOE's program, these exchanges allow any non-
specialist market maker to receive ``preferred'' orders, provided such
market maker is fulfilling certain heightened quoting obligations. The
purpose of this filing is to expand CBOE's Preferred DPM Program to
allow any CBOE Market-Maker to receive Preferred orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51759 (May 27, 2005), 70
FR 32860 (June 6, 2005) (order approving File No. SR-Phlx-2004-91).
    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51818 (June 10, 2005),
70 FR 35146 (June 16, 2005) (order approving File No. SR-ISE-2005-
18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to accomplish this by renaming the program
the ``Preferred Market-Maker Program'' and creating new CBOE Rule 8.13
to govern the program. That rule is virtually identical to the portion
of CBOE Rule 8.87 that pertains to the Preferred DPM Program (which
would be deleted), except that the new rule (i) Would expand the
program to non-DPM Market-Makers (including Remote Market-Makers and
Lead Market-Makers), (ii) would provide that a Market-Maker would be
required to have an appointment in a class in order to receive
Preferred orders in that class, (iii) would provide that, to receive a
Preferred order, a Market-Maker would be required to provide continuous
two-sided quotations in at least 90% of the series of each class for
which it receives Preferred Market Maker orders; and (iv) would provide
that, if a participation entitlement is provided under CBOE Rule 8.13,
no other participation entitlement under any other rule would apply.
Provisions also would be added to the rules establishing participation
entitlements for DPMs and LMMs (CBOE Rule 8.87 and CBOE Rule 8.15B) to
expressly provide that participation entitlements under those rules
would not apply in instances where a participation entitlement is
granted pursuant to new CBOE Rule 8.13. Lastly, changes are proposed to
CBOE's Hybrid order allocation rules (CBOE Rule 6.45A for equity
options and CBOE Rule 6.45B for index options) to provide that Market-
Makers receiving a Preferred participation entitlement pursuant to CBOE
Rule 8.13 may be

allocated the greater of such entitlement or the quantity that the
Market-Maker would receive under the applicable matching algorithm of
the order allocation rule in effect. The matching algorithm rules
already contain such language for DPMs; the language now would merely
be expanded to include any Preferred Market-Maker.
    The Exchange notes that the Preferred DPM program is operating as a
one-year pilot program.
2. Statutory Basis
    The CBOE believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5),\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in the
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.

sec.gov/ rules/sro. shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2005-58 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-58. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www. sec.gov/

rules/sro. shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-58 and should be
submitted on or before October 21, 2005.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder, applicable to a national securities
exchange.\11\ In particular, the Commission believes that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ which
requires among other things, that the rules of the Exchange are
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The Commission notes that the Preferred DPM Program
currently operates on a pilot basis.\13\ The proposal would expand the
Preferred DPM Program to allow any non-DPM Market-Maker to receive
Preferred orders in a class. The Commission notes that a non-DPM
Market-Maker: (i) Must have an appointment in a class; (ii) must
provide continuous two-sided quotations in at least 90% of the series
of that class; and (iii) must be quoting at the best bid/offer on the
Exchange (which would be the NBBO) in order to receive a participation
entitlement in that class under the Preferred Market-Maker Program. In
addition, the Commission notes that it has approved similar
preferencing programs on other options exchanges.\14\ Furthermore, the
Commission notes that the Exchange represented that it will proactively
conduct surveillance for, and enforce against, coordinated actions
between a Market-Maker and an order entry firm.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15
U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ See supra note 4.
    \14\ See supra notes 7 and 8.
    \15\ See letter from Angelo Evangelou, Managing Senior Attorney,
Legal Division, CBOE, to John Roeser, Assistant Director, Division
of Market Regulation, Commission, dated September 19, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CBOE has requested that the Commission find good cause for
approving the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after
publication of notice thereof in the Federal Register. The Commission
believes that granting accelerated approval of the proposal should
allow the CBOE to immediately implement its Preferred Market-Maker
Program. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\16\ for approving the proposed rule change
prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice
thereof in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\17\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2005-58) be, and hereby
is, approved on an accelerated basis, for a pilot period to expire on
June 2, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5324 Filed 9-29-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40385-40386]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17460]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Meeting of the National Parks Overflights Advisory
Group

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National
Park Service (NPS), in accordance with the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act of 2000, announce the next meeting of the National Parks
Overflights Advisory Group (NPOAG). This notification provides the
date, location, and agenda for the meeting.
    Date and Location: The NPOAG will meet on September 18, 2018. The
meeting will take place in the Mohave Room of the Las Vegas Hilton
Garden Inn, located at 1340 West Warm Springs Road, Henderson, NV
89014. The meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on
September 18, 2018. This NPOAG meeting will be open to the public.
Because seating is limited, members of the public wishing to attend
will need to contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT by September 3, 2018 to ensure sufficient meeting space is
available to accommodate all attendees.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Lusk, AWP-1SP, Special Programs
Staff, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region
Headquarters, 777 South Aviation Boulevard, Suite 150, El Segundo, CA
92045, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (NPATMA),
enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 106-181, required the
establishment of the NPOAG within one year after its enactment. The Act
requires that the NPOAG be a balanced group of representatives of
general aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental
concerns, and Native American tribes. The Administrator of the FAA and
the Director of NPS (or their designees) serve as ex officio members of
the group. Representatives of the Administrator and Director serve
alternating 1-year terms as chairperson of the advisory group.
    The duties of the NPOAG include providing advice, information, and
recommendations to the FAA Administrator and the NPS Director on;
implementation of Public Law 106-181; quiet aircraft technology; other
measures that might accommodate interests to visitors of national
parks; and at the request of the Administrator and the Director, on
safety, environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour
operations over national parks or tribal lands.

Agenda for the September 18, 2018 NPOAG Meeting

    The agenda for the meeting will include, but is not limited to, an
update on ongoing park specific air tour planning projects, commercial
air tour reporting, and the Grand Canyon quiet technology seasonal
relief incentive.

Attendance at the Meeting and Submission of Written Comments

    Although this is not a public meeting, interested persons may
attend. Because seating is limited, if you plan to attend please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT so that
meeting space may be made to accommodate all attendees. Written
comments regarding the meeting will be accepted directly from attendees
or may be sent to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

Record of the Meeting

    If you cannot attend the NPOAG meeting, a summary record of the
meeting will be made available under the NPOAG section of the FAA ATMP
website at:http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/arc/programs/air_tour_management_plan/parks_overflights_group/minutes.cfm or through the Special Programs Staff, Western-Pacific
Region, 777 South Aviation Boulevard, Suite 150, El Segundo, CA 90245,
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in El Segundo, CA on August 7, 2018.
Keith Lusk,
Program Manager, Special Programs Staff, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2018-17460 Filed 8-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41715-41716]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13532]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2023-0079]

Request for Information on Advanced Air Mobility; Extension of
Comment Period

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for information; extension of comment
period.

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

SUMMARY: On May 17, 2023, the Department of Transportation (DOT)
published a request for information (RFI) seeking public input on the
development of a national strategy on Advanced Air Mobility as required
by the Advanced Air Mobility Coordination and Leadership Act. The
comment period for the RFI was scheduled to end on July 17, 2023. DOT
received several requests to extend the comment period. DOT is
extending the comment period for the RFI by 30 days.

DATES: The comment period to the RFI published on May 17, 2023 at 88 FR

31593, is extended from July 17, 2023, to August 16, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit responses and other comments identified by
``RFI Response: Advanced Air Mobility'' and Docket No. DOT-OST-2023-
0079, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include ``RFI Response:
Advanced Air Mobility'' and Docket No. DOT-OST-2023-0079 in the subject
line of the email.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Docket Operations Office, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday
through Friday, except on Federal holidays. Include ``RFI Response:
Advanced Air Mobility'' and Docket No. DOT-OST-2023-0079 on the cover
page of the submission. Because paper mail in the Washington, DC, area
is subject to delay, commenters are strongly encouraged to submit
comments electronically.
    Instructions: All submissions should include the docket number for
this request for information. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov. All comments, including
attachments and other supporting material, will become part of the
public record and subject to public disclosure. Comments generally will
not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Any
submissions received after the deadline may not be accepted or
considered.
    Confidential Business Information (CBI): CBI is commercial or
financial information that is customarily and actually treated as
private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5
U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments in
response to this RFI contain commercial or financial information that
is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private,
and that is relevant or responsive to this RFI, it is important that
you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each
page of your submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN'' to indicate that
it contains proprietary information. DOT will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under FOIA and not place them in the public
docket of this RFI. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to the
name and physical or email address listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauralyn Jean Remo Temprosa, Associate
Director, Office of Aviation Analysis, Office of the Secretary, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building
Room W86-310, Washington, DC 20590. [email protected], (202)
366-5903.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 17, 2023, DOT published a RFI in the
Federal Register seeking public comment on critical issues of
importance in drafting a national advanced air mobility (AAM) strategy.
(88 FR 31593) The RFI stated that the comment period would close on
July 17, 2023. DOT received several requests to extend the comment
period. The requestors state that comments to the RFI are due within
two weeks of the Federal Aviation Administration's request for comments
on the agency's review of the Civil Aviation Noise Policy, that having
two complicated and technical Federal Register notices due nearly at
the same time, during the middle of summer vacation, creates an undue
hardship on the public, and that a more robust response would require
an additional 60 days. DOT is granting commenters' request for an
extension of the comment period to the RFI through August 16, 2023.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2023.
Carlos Monje,
Under Secretary for Policy, Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2023-13532 Filed 6-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P