[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 181 (Monday, September 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 58078]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23698]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Thirteenth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 214: Working Group 78:
Standards for Air Traffic Data Communication Services

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 214: Working Group 78:
Standards for Air Traffic Data Communication Services.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 214: Working Group 78: Standards
for Air Traffic Data Communication Services.

DATES: The meeting will be held September 26-30, 2011 from 9 a.m.- 5
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Parc tertiaire Silic, 3
avenue Charles Lindburg, BP 20351, 94628 RUNGIS Cedex, Paris, France.
Confirm attendance with Pascal Rohault at telephone number
<IP_ADDRESS>.00 or contact
pascal.rohault<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street,
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(202) 833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a RTCA Special Committee 214: Working Group 78:
Standards for Air Traffic Data Communication Services meeting. The
agenda will include:

Additional Information

    Additional information and all the documents to be considered can
be found in the Web site http://www.faa.gov/go/SC214.

Meeting Objectives

    1. Consider DO-224C Signal-in-Space Minimum Aviation System
Performance Standards (MASPS) for Advanced VHF Digital Data
Communications Including Compatibility with Digital Voice Techniques
for approval (RTCA Only).
     Consider DO-281B/ED-92B Minimum Operational Performance
Standards (MOPS) for Aircraft VDL Mode 2 Physical, Link and Network
Layer for release for final review and comment.

Agenda

Monday, September 26, 2011

     9:00-17:00 Sub group session.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

     9:00-17:00 Sub-Group Session.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

     Plenary Session 9:00-12:30.
     Welcome/Introduction/Administrative Remarks.
     Approval of the Agenda.
     Discuss comments received during public review of DO-224C.
Approve final changes.
     Decide on approval of DO-224C.
     Discuss comments received during plenary review of DO-
281B/ED-92B. Approve final changes.
     Decide on release of DO-281B/ED-92B for final review and
comment.
     Any Other Business.
     Adjourn.
     13:30-17:00 Sub-Group Session.

Thursday, September 28, 2011

     9:00-17:00 Plenary Session.

Friday, September 30, 2011

     9:00-16:00 Sub-Group Sessions.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 8, 2011.
Robert L. Bostiga,
Manager, Agency Committee Management Office, Business Operations Group,
AJP-92, NextGen & Operations Planning.
[FR Doc. 2011-23698 Filed 9-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 121]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28560]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 5, 2023.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: December 29, 2022.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-28560 Filed 12-29-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 154 (Friday, August 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48758-48762]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19264]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70117; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-100]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
to Its Fees for Routing of Orders Priced at $1 or More Under Rule
7018(a), as Well as Changes to Its Excess Order Fee Under Rule 7018(m)

August 5, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that, on July 25, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ is proposing changes to its fees for routing of orders
priced at $1 or

more under Rule 7018(a), as well as changes to its Excess Order Fee
under Rule 7018(m). The changes pursuant to this proposal are effective
upon filing, and the Exchange will implement the proposed rule changes
on August 1, 2013.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
Routing Fees
    NASDAQ is proposing to adjust certain of the fees it charges for
routing orders in securities priced above $1. Currently, for directed
orders \3\ in securities listed on exchanges other than the New York
Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') that are sent to NASDAQ OMX BX (``BX''),
NASDAQ charges no fee and provides no credit, while charging $0.0035
per share executed for directed orders sent to other execution venues.
Similarly, for directed orders in securities listed on NYSE that are
sent to BX, NASDAQ charges no fee and provides no credit. If directed
orders in securities listed on NYSE are sent to NYSE, NASDAQ charges
(i) $0.0028 per share executed for a member with an average daily
volume through the NASDAQ Market Center in all securities during the
month of more than 35 million shares of liquidity provided through one
or more of its market participant identifiers (``MPIDs''), and (ii)
$0.0029 per share executed for other members.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As provided in Rule 4751, directed orders are directed to an
exchange other than NASDAQ, as designated by the entering party,
without checking the NASDAQ book. If unexecuted, the order (or
unexecuted portion thereof) is returned to the entering party.
Directed orders may be designated as intermarket sweep orders by the
entering party.
    \4\ It should be noted that Rule 7018(a)(2) currently has text
that distinguishes among directed orders that are designated as
intermarket sweep orders, directed orders sent to BX, directed
orders sent to NASDAQ OMX PSX, and other directed orders, but the
applicable fees are as described above: $0.0029 per share executed
for all directed orders sent to NYSE (unless the member qualifies
for the volume-based tier described above), no fee or credit if sent
to BX, and $0.0035 per share executed if sent to any venue other
than BX or NYSE. The proposed rule change will also simplify the
applicable rule text by eliminating classifications of directed
order with identical fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective August 1, 2013, NASDAQ will make its fee for routing
directed orders to BX and NYSE $0.0035 per share executed, equal to its
fee for routing directed orders to all other venues. Thus, the change
will make the applicable fees more uniform by eliminating an aspect of
the pricing schedule that may have provided undue encouragement to
those members that use NASDAQ's routing services to route directed
orders to BX or NYSE rather than using routing strategies that access a
variety of venues. Moreover, NASDAQ notes that although BX currently
pays a credit with respect to orders that access liquidity, NASDAQ
currently charges $0.0035 per share executed for directed orders that
are sent to the BATS-Y Exchange and the EDGA Exchange, venues that also
pay a credit for orders that access liquidity. Thus, the change will
result in a consistent fee for routing directed orders to all such
venues. The change is also consistent with NASDAQ's long-standing
practice of charging a high fee for use of directed orders, which
represent a special service of the NASDAQ routing broker and which,
when designated as intermarket sweep orders, require additional after-
the-fact surveillance to determine whether the member's designation was
compliant with the requirements of Regulation NMS.
    For orders using NASDAQ's TFTY, SOLV, CART, or SAVE \5\ routing
strategies that execute at BX, NASDAQ currently provides a credit of
$0.0004 (equivalent to the credit provided by BX). Effective August 1,
2013, NASDAQ will eliminate this credit, such that there will be no fee
or credit when such orders execute at BX. Thus, as is the case with
other routed orders, the fee for orders that execute at BX using these
routing strategies will reflect a markup that NASDAQ believes will be
consistent with the value of the service provided and that will assist
NASDAQ in covering its costs of operating a routing service and earning
a return.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These routing strategies are described in NASDAQ Rule 4758.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excess Order Fee
    In 2012, NASDAQ introduced an Excess Order Fee, imposed on MPIDs
that have characteristics indicative of inefficient order entry
practices.\6\ As NASDAQ explained at the time, inefficient order entry
practices may place excessive burdens on the systems of NASDAQ and its
members and may negatively impact the usefulness and life cycle cost of
market data.\7\ Market participants that flood the market with orders
that are rapidly cancelled or that are priced away from the inside
market do little to support meaningful price discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 66951 (May 9, 2012), 77
FR 28647 (May 15, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-055) (establishing fee);
67292 (June 28, 2012), 77 FR 39773 (July 5, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-
073) (modifying terms and conditions of fee).
    \7\ See generally Recommendations Regarding Regulatory Reponses
to the Market Events of May 6, 2010, Joint CFTC-SEC Advisory
Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues, at 11 (February 18, 2011)
(``The SEC and CFTC should also consider addressing the
disproportionate impact that [high frequency trading] has on
Exchange message traffic and market surveillance costs. . . . The
Committee recognizes that there are valid reasons for algorithmic
strategies to drive high cancellation rates, but we believe that
this is an area that deserves further study. At a minimum, we
believe that the participants of those strategies should properly
absorb the externalized costs of their activity.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, the determination of whether to impose the fee on a
particular MPID has been made by calculating the ratio between (i)
entered orders, weighted by the distance of the order from the national
best bid or offer (``NBBO''), and (ii) orders that execute in whole or
in part. The fee has been imposed on MPIDs with an ``Order Entry
Ratio'' of more than 100. The Order Entry Ratio is calculated, and the
Excess Order Fee imposed, on a monthly basis. NASDAQ is now proposing
to modify the fee, such that it will be calculated and assessed on the
basis of all of a member's trading activity on NASDAQ, rather than on
an MPID basis. The purpose of this change is to ensure that members do
not act in a manner inconsistent with the intent of the fee by
spreading inefficient order activity across multiple MPIDs in a manner
that allows the MPIDs to avoid a charge that would not be avoided if
all of the member's activity were aggregated. Thus, the change replaces
the term ``MPID'' with the term ``member'' throughout the text of Rule
7018(m). The rule, as amended, will operate as follows:
    For each member, the Order Entry Ratio will be the ratio of (i) the
member's ``Weighted Order Total'' to (ii) the greater of one (1) or the
number of

displayed, non-marketable orders \8\ sent to NASDAQ by the member
during the month that execute in full or in part.\9\ The Weighted Order
Total is the number of displayed, non-marketable orders sent to NASDAQ
by the member, as adjusted by a ``Weighting Factor.'' The applicable
Weighting Factor is applied to each order based on its price in
comparison to the NBBO at the time of order entry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The fee focuses on displayed orders since they have the most
significant impact on investor confusion and the quality of market
data.
    \9\ Thus, in an extreme case where no orders entered by the
member executed, this component of the ratio would be assumed to be
1, so as to avoid the impossibility of dividing by zero.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Order's Price versus NBBO at Entry            Weighting Factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 0.20% away.......................  0x
0.20% to 0.99% away........................  1x
1.00% to 1.99% away........................  2x
2.00% or more away.........................  3x
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, in calculating the Weighted Order Total, an order that was
more than 2.0% away from the NBBO would be equivalent to three orders
that were 0.50% away. Due to the applicable Weighting Factor of 0x,
orders entered less than 0.20% away from the NBBO would not be included
in the Weighted Order Total, but would be included in the ``executed''
orders component of the Order Entry Ratio if they execute in full or
part. Orders sent by market makers in securities in which they are
registered, through the MPID applicable to the registration, are
excluded from both components of the ratio.\10\ In addition, members
with a daily average Weighted Order Total of less than 100,000 during
the month will not be subject to the Excess Order Fee. Finally, the fee
is based on orders received by NASDAQ during regular market hours
(generally, 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.),\11\ and will exclude orders
received at other times, even if they execute during regular market
hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This is the case because market makers are already subject
to rule-based standards designed to promote the efficiency and
quality of their order entry practices. See Rule 4613. Although Rule
4613 allows market makers to quote at spreads much wider than 2%,
NASDAQ's assessment of market maker performance has led it to
conclude that market makers do not generally engage in the
inefficient practices at which the new fee is aimed. NASDAQ will
continually assess this data and revisit the applicability of the
fee to market makers and/or the requirements of Rule 4613 as needed
to promote efficient quotation practices by market makers.
    \11\ Regular market hours may be different in some
circumstances, such as on the day after Thanksgiving, when regular
market hours on all exchanges traditionally end at 1:00 p.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following example illustrates the calculation of the Order
Entry Ratio:
     A member enters 35,000,000 displayed, liquidity-providing
orders:
    [cir] The member is registered as a market maker with respect to
20,000,000 of the orders. These orders are excluded from the
calculation.
    [cir] 10,000,000 orders are entered at the NBBO. The Weighting
Factor for these orders is 0x.
    [cir] 5,000,000 orders are entered at a price that is 1.50% away
from the NBBO. The Weighting Factor for these orders is 2x.
     Of the 15,000,000 orders included in the calculation,
90,000 are executed.
     The Weighted Order Total is (10,000,000 x 0) + (5,000,000
x 2) = 10,000,000. The Order Entry Ratio is 10,000,000/90,000 = 111.
    If a member has an Order Entry Ratio of more than 100, the amount
of the Order Entry Fee will be calculated by determining the member's
``Excess Weighted Orders.'' Excess Weighted Orders are calculated by
subtracting (i) the Weighted Order Total that would result in the
member having an Order Entry Ratio of 100 from (ii) the member's actual
Weighted Order Total. In the example above, the Weighted Order Total
that would result in an Order Entry Ratio of 100 is 9,000,000, since
9,000,000/90,000 = 100. Accordingly, the Excess Weighted Orders would
be 10,000,000-9,000,000 = 1,000,000.
    The Excess Order Fee charged to the member will then be determined
by multiplying the ``Applicable Rate'' by the number of Excess Weighted
Orders. The Applicable Rate is determined based on the member's Order
Entry Ratio:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Order Entry Ratio                     Applicable Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
101-1,000..................................  $0.005
More than 1,000............................  0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the example above, the Applicable Rate would be $0.005, based on the
member's Order Entry Ratio of 111. Accordingly, the monthly Excess
Order Fee would be 1,000,000 x $0.005 = $5,000.
    NASDAQ continues to expect that the impact of the fee, as modified,
will be narrow because the change will encourage potentially affected
market participants to modify their order entry practices in order to
avoid the fee, thereby improving the market for all participants.
Accordingly, NASDAQ does not expect to earn significant revenues from
the modified fee.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\12\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which NASDAQ operates or controls, and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ believes that the adoption of a uniform fee of $0.0035 per
share executed for directed orders is reasonable because NASDAQ already
charges this fee for directed orders sent to most venues, charging
lower fees only with respect to BX and NYSE. The fee level is
consistent with NASDAQ's long-standing practice of charging a high fee
for use of directed orders, which represent a special service of the
NASDAQ routing broker and which, when designated as intermarket sweep
orders, require additional after-the-fact surveillance to determine
whether the member's designation was compliant with the requirements of
Regulation NMS. The change is consistent with an equitable allocation
of fees because it is assessed solely upon members that opt to use
NASDAQ's directed order functionality. The change is not unfairly
discriminatory because it will result in NASDAQ charging the same fee
for all directed orders in securities priced above $1, regardless of
the activity level of the member, the listing venue of the security, or
the venue to which the order is directed.
    NASDAQ believes that the change to fees for TFTY, SOLV, CART, and
SAVE orders that execute at BX is reasonable because even though market
participants will receive no credit with respect to such orders, they
will also pay no fee.\14\ NASDAQ believes that the change is consistent
with an equitable allocation of fees because it is allocated solely to
members that use NASDAQ's routing services and opt to use the specified
routing strategies. The change is not unfairly discriminatory because
it will make the economics applicable to executions on BX of orders
using the specified routing strategies less disparate from the fee
applicable to such executions using other routing strategies. Moreover,
the change is not discriminatory in that it applies equally to all
members using the specified routing strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ By contrast, the fee for routed orders that execute at BX
using the STGY, SCAN, SKNY, or SKIP routing strategies is $0.0030
per share executed.

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

    With respect to the Excess Order Fee, NASDAQ stated in its original
filing to institute the fee that it is reasonable because it is
designed to achieve improvements in the quality of displayed liquidity
and market data that will benefit all market participants. In addition,
although the level of the fee may theoretically be very high, the fee
is reasonable because market participants may readily avoid the fee by
making improvements in their order entry practices that reduce the
number of orders they enter, bring the prices of their orders closer to
the NBBO, and/or increase the percentage of their orders that execute.
Similarly, the change proposed herein is reasonable because it will
provide further incentive to members to improve order entry practices
by insuring that they cannot evade the fee by spreading activity across
multiple MPIDs.
    For similar reasons, the fee is consistent with an equitable
allocation of fees, because although the fee may apply to only a small
number of market participants, the fee would be applied to them in
order to encourage better order entry practices that will benefit all
market participants. The change is also equitable because it will
further encourage better order entry practices across a wider group of
market participants. Finally, NASDAQ believes that the fee is not
unfairly discriminatory. Although the fee may apply to only a small
number of market participants, it will be imposed because of the
negative externalities that such market participants impose on others
through inefficient order entry practices. Accordingly, NASDAQ believes
that it is fair to impose the fee on these market participants in order
to incentivize them to modify their behavior and thereby benefit the
market. The change is likewise not unfairly discriminatory because it
will negatively affect members only if they have been evading the
incentives to improve order entry practices provided by the fee.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.\15\ NASDAQ notes
that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities
available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment,
NASDAQ must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with
other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been
exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to
exchanges, while also seeking to earn a reasonable profit from its
trading and routing services. Because competitors are free to modify
their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily
adjust their order routing practices, NASDAQ believes that the degree
to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on
competition is extremely limited. In this instance, the changes to
routing fees do not impose a burden on competition because NASDAQ's
routing services are optional and are the subject of competition from
other exchanges and broker-dealers that offer routing services, as well
as the ability of members to develop their own routing capabilities.
Accordingly, if the changes are unattractive to market participants, it
is likely that NASDAQ will lose market share as a result of them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the change to the Excess Order Fee, NASDAQ believes
that the change, like the original fee, will constrain market
participants from pursuing certain inefficient and potentially abusive
trading strategies. To the extent that this change may be construed as
a burden on competition, NASDAQ believes that it is appropriate in
order to allow NASDAQ to better achieve this purpose.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\17\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-100 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-NASDAQ-2013-100. 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. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-100 and should
be submitted on or before August 30, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-19264 Filed 8-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 87 (Monday, May 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19820-19823]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09146]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85752; File No. SR-MSRB-2019-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change To Eliminate MSRB Rule G-29, on Availability of Board Rules

April 30, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on April 19, 2019 the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board (``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described

in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
MSRB. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change seeking
to eliminate MSRB Rule G-29, requiring that each broker, dealer and
municipal securities dealer shall keep in each office in which any of
the activities set forth in rule G-3(a)(i) \3\ of the Board are
conducted, a copy of all rules of the Board as from time to time in
effect and shall make such rules available for examination by customers
promptly upon request (the ``proposed rule change'' or ``amendment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ MSRB Rule G-3(a)(i) regarding professional qualification
requirements provides:
    (a) Municipal Securities Representative, Municipal Securities
Sales Limited Representative and Limited Representative--Investment
Company and Variable Contracts Products.
    (i) Definitions.
    (A) The term ``municipal securities representative'' means a
natural person associated with a broker, dealer or municipal
securities dealer, other than a person whose functions are solely
clerical or ministerial, whose activities include one or more of the
following:
    (1) Underwriting, trading or sales of municipal securities;
    (2) financial advisory or consultant services for issuers in
connection with the issuance of municipal securities;
    (3) research or investment advice with respect to municipal
securities; or
    (4) any other activities which involve communication, directly
or indirectly, with public investors in municipal securities;
    provided, however, that the activities enumerated in
subparagraphs (3) and (4) above shall be limited to such activities
as they relate to the activities enumerated in subparagraphs (1) and
(2) above.
    (B) The term ``municipal securities sales limited
representative'' means a municipal securities representative whose
activities with respect to municipal securities are limited
exclusively to sales to and purchases from customers of municipal
securities.
    (C) The term ``limited representative--investment company and
variable contracts products'' means a municipal securities
representative whose activities with respect to municipal securities
are limited exclusively to sales to and purchases from customers of
municipal fund securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB has designated the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness and will be effective upon filing pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\5\ The
operative date of the proposed rule change will not be less than 30
days from the date of filing and will be announced in an MSRB Notice to
be published on the MSRB's website within 30 days of the date of this
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's
website at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2019-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal office, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The MSRB 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
Background
    Rule G-29 generally requires dealers to keep a copy of all MSRB
rules in offices that conduct any of the municipal securities
activities defined in Rule G-3(a)(i) and make them available for
examination by their customers upon request. The rule was designed to
facilitate compliance with MSRB rules and protect investors by ensuring
municipal securities professionals \6\ and their customers have access
to MSRB rules, including timely updates.\7\ The rule was originally
adopted by the Board in 1977,\8\ and has been amended and interpreted,
periodically as market practices evolved and other regulatory
developments occurred, to ensure the rule remained current and achieved
its goal of providing ready access to important MSRB rule information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As used therein, ``municipal securities professional'' means
persons participating in the activities described in MSRB Rule G-3.
See also note 3.
    \7\ See Notice of Approval of Fair Practice Rules, [1977-1987
Transfer Binder] Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board Manual (CCH)
] 10,090 at 10,494 (Oct. 24, 1978).
    \8\ See File No. SR-MSRB-77-12 (Sept. 20, 1977). The SEC
approved Rule G-29 in Release No. 34-15247 (Oct. 19, 1978), 43 FR
50525 (Oct. 30, 1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, when the MSRB published its rulebook electronically,
the Board issued interpretive guidance noting that dealers could comply
with Rule G-29 by giving customers access to the rules either in
printed form, or electronically via the MSRB internet website
(www.msrb.org) or using third party software products.\9\ This guidance
also reminded dealers that MSRB Rule G-27, on supervision, requires a
dealer to supervise the conduct of its municipal securities business
and the municipal securities activities of its associated persons to
ensure compliance with Rule G-29, including how the dealer provides its
offices with the most current version of the rules once they are in
effect so that its municipal securities professionals are alerted to
new developments. A short time later, the Board issued a notice
highlighting the SEC's guidance regarding the delivery of electronic
information.\10\ The notice again notes that electronic media may be
used by dealers in satisfying their obligations under MSRB rules,
including Rule G-29.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule G-29 Interpretive Notice--Availability of Board
Rules, May 20, 1998, MSRB Reports, Vol. 18, No. 2 (August 1998) at
37. This notice was also updated, effective January 1, 2014, to
reflect the discontinuation of the MSRB's printed version of the
MSRB Rule Book.
    \10\ On May 9, 1996, the Commission issued a Release expressing
its views on the use of electronic media for delivery of information
by, among others, brokers and dealers. The Commission stated that
brokers, dealers and others may satisfy their delivery obligations
under federal securities laws by using electronic media as an
alternative to paper-based media within the framework established in
the 1995 SEC Release on the use of electronic media for delivery
purposes. Securities Act Release No. 7288, Exchange Act Release No.
37182 (May 9, 1996), 61 FR 24644 (May 15, 1996).
    \11\ See Rule G-32 Interpretation--Notice Regarding Electronic
Delivery and Receipt of Information by Brokers, Dealers and
Municipal Securities Dealers, November 20, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most recently, as part of its retrospective rule review, the Board
considered whether amendments to the rule were needed to address
changing practices in the municipal securities market. In doing so, the
Board recognized that while its interpretive guidance somewhat
modernized how dealers could continue to comply with Rule G-29 (i.e.,
providing for access to MSRB Rules via electronic media), the rule was
no longer necessary for purposes of ensuring municipal securities
professionals and their customers have ready access to current MSRB
rules, which formed the basis for the proposed rule change.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See MSRB Informational Notice 2019-04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    The proposed rule change seeks to eliminate Rule G-29 and would
contribute to the MSRB's continuing efforts to improve market
efficiency by eliminating unnecessary regulatory requirements that no
longer serve their original purpose of helping to prevent a market
harm.

    Because access to the internet is more widespread and often
necessary to conduct municipal securities activities in today's
markets, MSRB rules and relevant updates, including on the MSRB's
internet website, are more accessible and readily available to both
municipal securities professionals and their customers than provided
for under Rule G-29. That is, investors are currently more likely to
access MSRB rules electronically on their own, as opposed to requesting
to review them under the provisions of the rule. In addition, while
Rule G-29 generally requires that dealers make MSRB rules available to
customers, upon request, the rule is somewhat limiting in that a
customer's access to the information likely depends on whether a
customer knows they can access the information pursuant to the
provisions under the rule. In other words, there currently is no
requirement under Rule G-29 that dealers inform customers of their
ability to request to review MSRB rules to which they are required to
provide access. Additionally, there are other MSRB rules that promote
ready access to MSRB rule information. For example, MSRB Rule G-10
generally requires, among other things, that once a year, dealers and
municipal advisors, provide in writing (which may be electronic) to
each customer, information on how to access the MSRB internet website,
which provides access to all MSRB rules and updates. More specifically,
under Rule G-10 customers and municipal advisory clients must be
provided a statement that their dealers or municipal advisors are
registered with the SEC and the MSRB, the MSRB's internet website
address, and a statement about the availability of a brochure, posted
on the MSRB's website, that describes the protections that may be
provided by the MSRB's rules and how to file a complaint with an
appropriate regulatory authority. The requirements set forth in Rule G-
10 effectively remind customers and municipal advisory clients about
the MSRB's website, which provides access to more than just the MSRB
rule information specified under Rule G-29. For these reasons, the MSRB
believes that the proposed rule change would have little effect on
municipal securities professionals' or their customers' ability to
access MSRB rules.
    Finally, as previously discussed, MSRB guidance makes clear that
MSRB Rule G-27, on supervision, requires each dealer to supervise the
conduct of its municipal securities activities to ensure compliance
with Rule G-29. It is the MSRB's understanding that dealers typically
comply with Rule G-29 by virtue of providing access to the internet in
offices conducting municipal securities activities but may lack the
required supervisory procedures detailing the process by which they
ensure compliance with the rule.\13\ Thus, the MSRB believes that the
proposed rule change will not only eliminate unnecessary rule
provisions but will also reduce supervisory burdens for dealers,
without hampering access to MSRB rule information for customers or
municipal securities professionals' ability to comply with regulatory
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The MSRB intends to include in the notice announcing the
operative date of the elimination of Rule G-29 a statement that, to
the extent any MSRB guidance references Rule G-29, that guidance, as
it concerns Rule G-29 and any related supervisory requirements, will
no longer be applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,\14\ which provides
that the MSRB's rules shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).

be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect
to, and facilitating transactions in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, and, in general, to protect investors,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
municipal entities, obligated persons, and the public interest.

    Specifically, the proposed rule change would remove regulatory
burdens on dealers by recognizing that there is no longer a market harm
that the rule seeks to prevent. By eliminating a rule that no longer
resolves a market harm, the proposed rule change removes impediments to
and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by more
appropriately responding to actual market practices, reducing
regulatory burdens and thus focusing on compliance with a more
appropriate and beneficial process by which MSRB rule information is
made available and accessed consistent with current practices.
Eliminating Rule G-29 also has no effect on investor protection because
MSRB rule information remains readily available to municipal securities
professionals and their customers.

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

    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires that MSRB rules not be
designed to impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\15\ The MSRB
notes that its policy on economic analysis limits its applications
regarding rules for which the Board seeks immediate effectiveness.\16\
As previously discussed, the MSRB does not believe the proposed rule
change would result in delayed access to MSRB rule information for
customers or hamper municipal securities professionals' ability to
comply with regulatory requirements but instead reduces a burden for
dealers that is no longer deemed necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
    \16\ The scope of the Board's policy on the use of economic
analysis in rulemaking provides that:
     [t]his Policy addresses rulemaking activities of the MSRB that
culminate, or are expected to culminate, in a filing of a proposed
rule change with the SEC under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act,
other than a proposed rule change that the MSRB reasonably believes
would qualify for immediate effectiveness under Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Exchange Act if filed as such (e.g., fee filing or facility
filing) or as otherwise provided under the exception process of this
Policy.
    Policy on the Use of Economic Analysis in MSRB Rulemaking,
available at http://msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/Economic-Analysis-Policy.aspx. For those rule changes which the MSRB seeks
immediate effectiveness, the MSRB usually focuses exclusively its
examination on the burden of competition on regulated entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB also considered the alternative of modernizing Rule G-29
but, given the ease with which the MSRB rulebook can be accessed
electronically, the fact investors receive annual disclosures,
including the location of the MSRB's internet website, under Rule G-10,
and the widespread availability and use of the internet by both
investors and those conducting municipal securities activities, the
MSRB currently believes the existence of Rule G-29 would continue to
result in unnecessary supervisory burdens, while providing limited
benefits to municipal securities professionals or customers.
    The MSRB also believes that the costs associated with compliance
with the regulatory requirements and elimination of Rule G-29 are
negligible, given the MSRB rulebook is accessible on its website at no
cost, and internet services are universally available in municipal
securities offices. However, the proposed rule change would
nevertheless reduce costs for dealers as they would no longer be
required to continue to maintain supervisory procedures and conduct
supervisory reviews to ensure compliance with existing Rule G-29.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act \17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \18\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2019-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2019-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2019-09 and should be submitted on
or before May 28, 2019.

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-09146 Filed 5-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 176)]
[Notices]
[Page 52709]
[DOCID:fr10se08-72]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday,
September 11, 2008 at 1 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
September 11, 2008 will be:

Formal orders of investigation;
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature;
Amicus consideration; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 4, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-20957 Filed 9-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 20, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77765-77766]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27416]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 399

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2022-0109]
RIN 2105-AF10

Enhancing Transparency of Airline Ancillary Service Fees

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

ACTION: Extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Transportation (Department or DOT) is
extending through January 23, 2023, the period for interested persons
to submit comments to its proposed rule on Enhancing Transparency of
Airline Ancillary Service Fees.

DATES: Comments should be filed by January 23, 2023. Late-filed
comments will be considered to the extent practicable. Petitions for a
hearing pursuant to 14 CFR 399.75(b)(1) must also be filed by January
23, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may file comments identified by the docket number DOT-
OST-2022-0109 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow

the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Commenters
using this method of delivery should contact Docket Services at 202-
366-9826 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before delivery to ensure staff is available
to receive the delivery.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket number
DOT-OST-2022-0109 or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN 2105-
AF10) for the rulemaking at the beginning of your comment. All comments
received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received in any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on
DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents and
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov or to the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Patanaphan or Blane Workie,
Office of Aviation Consumer Protection, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-
9342 (phone), [email protected] or [email protected] (email).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 26, 2022, the Department of
Transportation (Department) publicly announced and posted to its
website a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed several
disclosure requirements to enhance the transparency of ancillary
service fees that consumers pay for when they purchase airline tickets.
(See 87 FR 63718; October 20, 2022). In the NPRM, the Department
proposed to require U.S. air carriers, foreign air carriers, and ticket
agents to clearly disclose passenger-specific or itinerary-specific
baggage fees, change fees, and cancellation fees to consumers whenever
fare and schedule information is provided to consumers for flights to,
within, and from the United States. The Department also proposed
requiring similar disclosures for fees for a child 13 or under to be
seated adjacent to an accompanying adult, as well as the
transactability of such seating fees. The proposed rule would require
carriers to provide useable, current, and accurate information
regarding fees to ticket agents that sell or display the carrier's fare
and schedule information. The NPRM provided for a comment period of 60
days after publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register, i.e.,
December 19, 2022.
    Since the publication of the NPRM, several commenters have
requested that the Department extend the comment period given the
complexity of the proposals. Airlines for America (A4A) and
International Air Transportation Association (IATA) filed a joint
request for the Department to extend the comment period by 60 days
given the expansive scope and complexity of the NPRM. The Travel
Technology Association, the American Society of Travel Advisors, and
Global Business Travel Association also filed a joint request asking
for a 60-day extension primarily because of the complexity of the
issues and noted that developing fully responsive comments that the
Department will find most useful will take more time. The National Air
Carrier Association and Sabre Corporation also separately requested an
additional 60 days. Further, on December 8, 2022, during a public
meeting of the Aviation Consumer Protection Advisory Committee (ACPAC)
to discuss this rulemaking, the consumer representative of the ACPAC
stated that he does not oppose the requests for an extension. A4A and
IATA have also asked for clarification on various issues in the NPRM.
The Department's responses to the questions raised by airlines will be
posted in the rulemaking docket at https://www.regulations.gov, docket
DOT-OST-2022-0109.
    The Department has reviewed the requests for extension of the
comment period and has determined to extend the comment period for the
proposed rule from December 19, 2022, to January 23, 2023. The
Department believes that granting a 35-day extension of the original
comment period is sufficient to allow stakeholders to conduct a
thorough and careful consideration of all potential impacts, including
the Department's responses to the airlines' clarification requests, and
prepare comments.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on or about this 13th day of December
2022, under authority delegated at 49 U.S.C. 1.27(n).
John E. Putnam,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2022-27416 Filed 12-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P