[Federal Register: May 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 84)]
[Notices]
[Page 25835-25836]
[DOCID:fr02my06-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions
To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

April 26, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12652-000.
    c. Date filed: February 28, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Gerald M. Lutticken.
    e. Name of Project: Helltown Ravine Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On Helltown Ravine, a tributary to Butte Creek, Butte
County, California.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Gerald M. Lutticken, P.E., 730 Bluegrass
Drive, Petaluma, California,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The proposed Helltown
Ravine Hydroelectric Project would occupy lands within the Bureau of
Land Management and private lands.
    i. FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on

each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if
an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating
to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project would use flows
discharged from Pacific Gas & Electric's (PG&E) Upper Centerville
Canal, licensed as Project No. 803 and consist of: (1) An intake
located at the end of PG&E's Upper Centerville Canal, (2) a proposed
3,800 foot penstock, (3) a proposed powerhouse having a total installed
capacity of 515-kilowatts, (4) a proposed 13.8-kilovolt 1.5 mile
transmission line, and (5) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project
would have an average annual generation of 1,430,000 kilowatt-hours,
which would be sold to a local utility.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also
be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
h. above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR
4.30(b) and 4.36.
    o. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
    p. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    q. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    r. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed
by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the
Commission's regulations to: Magalie Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A
copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    t. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6574 Filed 5-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25036-25037]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11152]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 32660; 812-14717]

Series Portfolios Trust and Highmore Group Advisors, LLC

May 24, 2017.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a) of
the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain
disclosure requirements in rule 20a-1 under the Act, Item 19(a)(3) of
Form N-1A, Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of
Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sections 6-
07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X (``Disclosure Requirements'').
The requested exemption would permit an investment adviser to hire and
replace certain subadvisers without shareholder approval and grant
relief from the Disclosure Requirements as they relate to fees paid to
the subadvisers.
    Applicants: Series Portfolios Trust (the ``Trust''), a Delaware
statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management
investment company, and Highmore Group Advisors, LLC (the ``Initial
Adviser''), a New York limited liability company registered as an
investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
(collectively with the Trust, the ``Applicants'').
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on November 28, 2016 and
amended on April 18, 2017 and May 11, 2017.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the
application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on June 19, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers,
a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Alia M. Vasquez,
Esq., Series Portfolios Trust, 615 East Michigan Street, Milwaukee, WI
53202; Dr. Brian M. Altenburg, Highmore Group Advisors, LLC, 120 Fifth
Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara T. Heussler, Senior Counsel,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Robert H. Shapiro, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-
6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Summary of the Application

    1. The Adviser will serve as the investment adviser to the Funds
pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the Trust (the
``Advisory Agreement'').\1\ The Adviser will provide the Funds with
continuous and comprehensive investment management services, subject to
the supervision of, and policies established by, each Fund's board of
trustees (``Board''). The Advisory Agreement permits the Adviser,
subject to the approval of the Board, to delegate to one or more
subadvisers (each, a ``Subadviser'' and collectively, the
``Subadvisers'') the responsibility to provide the day-to-day portfolio
investment management of each Fund, subject to the supervision and
direction of the Adviser. The primary responsibility for managing the
Funds will remain vested in the Adviser. The Adviser will hire,
evaluate, allocate assets to and oversee the Subadvisers, including
determining whether a Subadviser should be terminated, at all times
subject to the authority of the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request relief with respect to any existing or
future series of the Trust or any other registered open-end
management company that: (a) Is advised by the Initial Adviser, or
any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with
the Initial Adviser or its successor (each, an ``Adviser''); (b)
uses the manager of managers structure described in the application;
and (c) complies with the terms and conditions of the application
(any such series, a ``Fund'' and collectively, the ``Funds''). For
purposes of the requested order, ``successor'' is limited to an
entity that results from a reorganization into another jurisdiction
or a change in the type of business organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicants request an exemption to permit the Adviser, subject
to Board approval, to hire certain Subadvisers pursuant to subadvisory
agreements and materially amend existing subadvisory agreements without
obtaining the shareholder approval required under section 15(a) of the
Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.\2\ Applicants also seek an exemption
from the Disclosure Requirements to permit a Fund to disclose (as both
a dollar amount and a percentage of the Fund's net assets): (a) The
aggregate fees paid to the Adviser and any Affiliated Subadviser; and
(b) the aggregate fees paid to Subadvisers other than Affiliated
Subadvisers. For any Fund that employs an Affiliated Subadviser, the
Fund will provide separate disclosure of any fees paid to the
Affiliated Subadviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The requested relief will not extend to any subadviser that
is an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act,
of the Trust, a Fund, or the Adviser, other than solely by reason of
serving as a Subadviser to one or more of the Funds, or as an
adviser or subadviser to any series of the Trust other than the
Funds (``Affiliated Subadviser'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief
will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application.
Such terms and conditions provide for, among other safeguards,
appropriate disclosure to Fund shareholders and notification about
subadvisory changes and enhanced Board oversight to protect the
interests of the Funds' shareholders.
    4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or
any rule thereunder, if such relief is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Applicants believe that the requested relief meets this standard
because, as further explained in the application, the Advisory
Agreements will remain subject to shareholder approval while the role
of the Subadvisers is substantially similar to that of individual
portfolio managers, so that requiring shareholder approval of
subadvisory agreements would impose unnecessary delays and expenses on
the Funds. Applicants believe that the requested relief from the
Disclosure Requirements meets this standard because it will improve the
Adviser's ability to negotiate fees paid to the Subadvisers that are
more advantageous for the Funds.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-11152 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2722-2728]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00564]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0037]

Overview of FAA Aircraft Noise Policy and Research Efforts:
Request for Input on Research Activities To Inform Aircraft Noise
Policy

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

ACTION: Notice of research programs and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is releasing a summary to the public of the research
programs it sponsors on civil aircraft noise that could potentially
inform future aircraft noise policy. The FAA invites public comment on
the scope and applicability of these research initiatives to address
aircraft noise.
    The FAA will not make any determinations based on the findings of
these research programs for the FAA's noise policies, including any
potential revised use of the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise
metric, until it has carefully considered public and other stakeholder
input along with any additional research needed to improve the
understanding of the effects of aircraft noise exposure on communities.

DATES: Comments on this notice must identify the docket number and be
received on or before March 15, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2021-0037
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket website, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. Donald Scata, Office of
Environment and Energy (AEE-100), Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Contents

Supplementary Information
Overview of FAA Research on Aircraft Noise
(1) Effects of Aircraft Noise on Individuals and Communities
    Speech Interference and Children's Learning
    Neighborhood Environmental Survey
    Health and Human Impacts Research
    Impacts to Cardiovascular Health

    Sleep Disturbance
    Economic Impacts
(2) Noise Modeling, Noise Metrics, and Environmental Data
Visualization
    Aviation Environmental Design Tool
    Noise Screening
    Environmental Data Visualization
    Supplemental Noise Metrics
(3) Reduction, Abatement, and Mitigation of Aviation Noise
Aircraft Source Noise Reduction
    Noise Abatement
    Noise Mitigation Research
    Aircraft Noise Policy Background
Comments Invited

Background Information

    Since the mid-1970s, the number of people living in areas exposed
to significant levels of aircraft noise \1\ in the United States has
declined from roughly 7 million to just over 400,000 today. At the same
time, the number of commercial enplanements has increased from
approximately 200 million in 1975 to approximately 930 million in 2018.
The single most influential factor in that decline was the phased
transition to quieter aircraft, which effectively reduced the size of
the areas around airports experiencing significant noise levels. That
transition was the result of the development of new technology by
aircraft and engine manufacturers; establishment of increasingly
stringent noise standards for civil subsonic aircraft,\2\ investments
by U.S. airlines in newer, quieter aircraft; and requirements by the
FAA and the United States Congress to phase out operations by older,
noisier aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under longstanding FAA policy, the threshold of significant
aircraft noise exposure in residential areas is a Day-Night Average
Sound Level of 65 decibels (dB). See the ``Aviation Noise Abatement
Policy,'' issued by the Secretary of Transportation and the FAA
Administrator in 1976. This document is available on the FAA website
at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/.
    \2\ Consistent with International Civil Aviation Organization
standards, FAA has set increasingly more stringent aircraft
certification noise standards, such as the Stage 5 noise
certification standard. 82 FR 46123 (October 4, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A second factor has been cooperative efforts by airports, airlines
and other aircraft operators, State and local governments, and
communities to reduce the number of people living in areas near
airports exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. Under the
FAA's Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Program,\3\ airports may
voluntarily initiate a collaborative process to consider measures that
reduce existing noncompatible land uses and prevent new noncompatible
land uses in areas exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise.
Since 1983, more than 250 airports have used this process to consider
changes to local land use planning and zoning, sound insulation,
acquisition of homes and other noise-sensitive property, aircraft noise
abatement routes and procedures, and other measures. Over $6 billion in
funding has been provided for airports to undertake noise compatibility
programs and implement noise mitigation measures. The FAA encourages
the process by providing financial and technical assistance to airport
sponsors to develop Noise Exposure Maps and Noise Compatibility
Programs, and implement eligible noise-related mitigation measures
recommended in the program, depending upon the availability of funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This process is outlined under 49 U.S.C. 47501 et seq., as
implemented by 14 CFR part 150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to noise compatibility planning, the FAA also issues
grants to airport operators and units of local government to fund
mitigation projects, most notably to sound-insulate homes, schools, and
other noise-sensitive facilities. While sound insulation reduces indoor
noise levels, it does not address concerns about noise interfering with
the enjoyment of the outdoors. Moreover, there are limits to the
effectiveness of sound insulation. In some areas with elevated noise
levels, sound insulation may not sufficiently reduce interior noise
levels to meet established interior noise standards.\4\ Conversely, in
areas where overall noise levels are lower, interior noise standards
may already be met without additional sound insulation treatments.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ FAA Order 5100.38D, Appendix R.
    \5\ P.J. Wolfe et al., 2016 Costs and benefits of US aviation
noise land-use policies Transportation Research Part D 44 (2016)
147-156, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.02.010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's civilian aircraft are quieter than at any time in the
history of jet-powered flight. The FAA, aircraft manufacturers, and
airlines continue to work toward further reducing aircraft noise at the
source.\6\ As an example, the noise produced by one Boeing 707-200
flight, typical in the 1970s, is equivalent in noise to 30 Boeing 737-
800 flights that are typical today.\7\ As a result, for many years
there was a steady decline in the number of people exposed to
significant noise in communities located near airports. In recent
years, however, as aviation industry growth has led to an increase in
operations in many areas, the number of people and the size of the
areas experiencing significant aircraft noise has started to show a
gradual expansion. The introduction of Performance Based Navigation
(PBN) procedures, as needed to safely and efficiently modernize the
national air transportation system,\8\ has also provided noise benefits
for many by allowing for new and more efficient flight paths, but has
in some places resulted in community concerns, particularly related to
increased concentration of flights. In 2016, the FAA released an update
to the FAA Community Involvement Manual to reaffirm the FAA's
commitment to inform and involve the public, and to give meaningful
consideration to community concerns and views as the FAA makes aviation
decisions that affect community interests. The FAA has since developed
and begun implementing a comprehensive and strategic approach to
transform and enhance FAA community involvement practices, including
working through airport community roundtables, to equitably discuss
opportunities to shift or, when possible, reduce aircraft noise
exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, for example, information on the FAA's ``Continuous
Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise'' (CLEEN) Program at: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/research/aircraft_technology/cleen/.
    \7\ Based on an average of approach and takeoff certificated
noise levels as defined in 14 CFR part 36.
    \8\ See Section 213, ``Acceleration of NextGen Technologies,''
of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95,
213, 126 Stat. 11, 46-50 (2012), 49 U.S.C. 40101 note (PBN
implementation required at key airports by statutory deadline).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview of FAA Research on Aircraft Noise

    Recognizing that aircraft noise remains a primary concern of many
stakeholders, the FAA is actively working to understand, manage, and
reduce the environmental impacts of global aviation through research,
technological innovation, policy, and outreach to benefit the public.
    With the vision of removing environmental constraints on aviation
growth by achieving quieter, cleaner, and more efficient air
transportation, the FAA has worked closely with a number of industry,
academic, and governmental stakeholders to assemble a comprehensive
portfolio of research activities (including leveraging research
undertaken by others) aimed at guiding investments in scientific
studies, analytical tools, and innovative technologies to better
understand and manage aircraft noise. However, due to the complex
nature of aircraft noise and the varied priorities and concerns of
stakeholders, no single set of findings can completely guide decision
making. A broad understanding of aircraft noise and any potential
impacts, from many different perspectives, is therefore needed.
Summaries of the FAA's key

research, tools, and technology programs designed to potentially inform
aircraft noise policy are provided below.

(1) Effects of Aircraft Noise on Individuals and Communities

Speech Interference and Children's Learning

    Much of our current understanding on speech interference due to
noise was established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in
the 1970s.\9\ The findings from these early research assessments are
still relevant for today's considerations on the impacts from aircraft
noise. However, the FAA is also investigating whether there are related
considerations warranting more detailed studies. One area in particular
is the potential effects of aviation noise on reading comprehension and
learning motivation in children. Initial research in this area has
shown there are challenges in designing effective studies, and this
continues to be an area of interest to better inform noise mitigation
and abatement strategies for schools and other noise-sensitive
facilities. While additional research in this area is still being
explored, the FAA has invested more than $440 million in sound
insulation treatments at schools around the country \10\ in order to
mitigate any potential issues related to aircraft noise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA, 1973, Public Health and Welfare Criteria For Noise,
https://nepis.epa.gov/.
    \10\ Provided through Airport Improvement Program funding since
1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Health and Human Impacts Research

    While community annoyance due to aircraft noise exposure provides a
useful summary measure that captures public perceptions of noise, a
full understanding of the impact of noise on communities requires a
careful consideration of the potential physiological impacts as well.
Knowledge of physiological impacts could also help the FAA develop
targeted measures to address aircraft noise. Emerging research
capabilities are providing new opportunities to examine specific
impacts of noise on humans. When these are examined in a holistic
manner with research on community annoyance, they could further inform
aircraft noise policy considerations. The FAA is conducting research on
the potential impacts of aircraft noise on cardiovascular health and
sleep disturbance, as described below.

Impacts to Cardiovascular Health

    In partnership with academic researchers that are being led by the
Boston University School of Public Health, the FAA is working to
understand the relationship between aircraft noise exposure and
cardiovascular health. The researchers are doing this by leveraging
existing national longitudinal health cohorts wherein statistically
large numbers of people provide data about their health on a periodic
basis over the course of many years. These studies are typically used
to understand the relative risk of different factors like diet on
different health outcomes like heart disease. The Boston University
team is expanding the list of factors to include aircraft noise
exposure such that it can be placed in context with other factors that
could increase one's risk of cardiovascular disease. The team is
leveraging existing collaborations with well-recognized and respected
health cohorts including the Nurses' Health Studies and the Health
Professionals Follow-Up Study, as well as a complementary study at
Boston University that is examining the Women' Heath Initiative cohort
through funding from the National Institutes of Health.

Sleep Disturbance

    The FAA is working with a team led by the University of
Pennsylvania School of Medicine to conduct a national sleep study that
will quantify the impact of aircraft noise exposure on sleep. The study
will collect nationally representative information on the probability
of being awoken by aircraft noise exposure. The study will start with
input being requested from approximately 25,000 respondents through a
mail survey. These surveys will be used to determine the eligibility of
respondents for a detailed field study that will involve roughly 400
volunteers. The volunteers in the detailed field study will use
equipment provided by the research team to collect both noise and
electrocardiography data in their homes while they sleep. The
electrocardiography data combined with information on the level of
aircraft noise exposure will advance our understanding of the
physiological effects of aircraft noise on sleep.

Economic Impacts

    In addition to the aforementioned community and physiological
impacts, the FAA is also working with researchers at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) to conduct an empirical assessment of the
economic impacts to businesses located underneath aircraft flight
paths. This assessment will take into account the economic benefits
from aviation activities, as well as potential environmental and health
impacts that might reduce economic productivity. The FAA is also in the
developmental stage of a research project that would build on existing
work done by MIT that has used housing value data to reveal the
willingness of people to pay to avoid aircraft noise exposure. This
research is intended to serve as a follow on to the Neighborhood
Environmental Survey (described in the next section), to determine
whether the findings of that survey on residents' sensitivity to
aviation noise is also reflected in their ``revealed preferences'' when
making housing location decisions.

Neighborhood Environmental Survey

    To review and improve the agency's understanding of community
response to aircraft noise, the FAA initiated the Neighborhood
Environmental Survey (NES) to help inform ongoing research and policy
priorities on aviation noise. Section 187 of the FAA Reauthorization
Act of 2018 \11\ requires the Administrator of the FAA to ``conclude
the Administrator's ongoing review of the relationship between aircraft
noise exposure and its effects on communities around airports . . .
[and] submit to Congress a report containing the results of the
review.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Public Law 115-254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the interest from Congress and other stakeholders in the
findings of this research, an expanded summary is provided in this
notice below. The full text of the NES report, including a detailed
description of the methodology and findings, as well as additional
background material to help inform readers, is available on the FAA's
website at: www.faa.gov/go/aviationnoise.
Overview of the Survey
    Working with statisticians and noise experts,\12\ the FAA worked
with other Federal agencies that have statutory, regulatory, or other
policy interests in aviation noise, to conduct a nationwide survey to
update the scientific evidence on the relationship between aircraft
noise exposure and its annoyance effects on communities around
airports, based on today's aircraft fleet and operations. The NES
included a range of questions on a variety of environmental concerns,
including aviation noise exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The FAA contracted with Westat, a leading statistics firm,
and HMMH, a leading noise consultancy, to conduct the survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The team of expert consultants, under direction from the FAA,
surveyed residents living around representative U.S. airports, drawing
upon well-established research methods in order to

ensure scientific integrity and historical continuity with prior
studies, while also employing advancements in techniques for noise
modeling and social surveys. The NES consisted of over 10,000 mail
responses from residents in communities around 20 statistically
representative airports across the Nation, making it the single largest
survey of this type undertaken at one time. In addition to the mail
responses, the consultants also conducted a follow-up phone survey,
which included over 2,000 responses to a series of more detailed
questions. The FAA is now considering the full NES results, in
conjunction with additional research findings as they become available,
to determine how they may inform its noise policy considerations.
Overview of Community Response to Noise
    Historically, two of the main types of information considered by
the FAA and other Federal agencies in relating noise exposure to
community response have been: (1) Case studies analyzing individual and
group actions (e.g., complaints or legal action) taken by residents of
communities in response to noise; and (2) social surveys (such as the
NES) that elicit information from community residents regarding their
level of noise-induced annoyance. Annoyance is defined as a ``summary
measure of the general adverse reaction of people to noise that causes
interference with speech, sleep, the desire for a tranquil environment,
and the ability to use the telephone, radio, or television
satisfactorily.'' \13\ The results of social surveys of noise-induced
annoyance are typically plotted as ``dose-response curves'' on a graph
showing the relationship between the level of DNL \14\ cumulative noise
exposure and the percentage of the population that is ``highly
annoyed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis
Issues (FICON), 1992.
    \14\ The Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn) is the 24-
hour average sound level, in decibels, for the period from midnight
to midnight, obtained after the addition of ten decibels to sound
levels for the periods between midnight and 7 a.m., and between 10
p.m., and midnight, local time. See 14 CFR 150.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current FAA noise policy is informed by a dose-response curve
initially created in the 1970s known as the Schultz Curve.\15\ This
dose-response curve is generally accepted as a representation of noise
impacts and has been revalidated by subsequent analyses over the
years.\16\ The dose-response relationship it depicts has provided the
best tool available to predict noise-induced annoyance for several
decades. In 1992, the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON)
reviewed the use of the Schultz Curve, and created an updated version
of the curve using additional social survey data.\17\ The updated dose
response curve was found to agree within one to two percent of the
original curve, leading FICON to conclude that ``the updated Schultz
Curve remains the best available source of empirical dosage-effect to
predict community response to transportation noise.'' \18\ According to
the 1992 FICON Report, the DNL-annoyance relationship depicted on the
Schultz Curve ``is an invaluable aid in assessing community response as
it relates the response to increases in both sound intensity and
frequency of occurrence.'' Although the predicted annoyance, in terms
of absolute levels, may vary among different communities, the Schultz
Curve can reliably indicate changes in the level of annoyance for
defined ranges of sound exposure for any given community.\19\ While the
validity of the dose-response methodology used to create the Schultz
Curve remains well supported, its underlying social survey data,
including the additional data used by FICON to update the curve, is now
on average more than 40 years old and warrants an update. The NES was
conducted to create a new nationally representative dose-response curve
to understand how community response to aircraft noise may have
changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Schultz, T.J. 1978, ``Synthesis of Social Surveys on
Noise Annoyance,'' Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
64(2): 377-405.
    \16\ See Fidell, S., D. Barber, ``Updating a Dosage-Effect
Relationship for the Prevalence of Annoyance Due to General
Transportation Noise,'' Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 89, January 1991, pp. 221-233; also see Finegold, L.S.,
C.S. Harris, and H.E. von Gierke, 1992, Applied Acoustical Report:
Criteria for Assessment of Noise Impacts on People, Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, June 1992; also see Finegold, L.S.,
C.S. Harris, and H.E. von Gierke, 1994, Community Annoyance and
Sleep Disturbance: Updated Criteria for Assessing the Impacts of
General Transportation Noise on People, Noise Control Engineering
Journal, Volume 42, Number 1, January-February 1994, pp. 25-30.
    \17\ The FICON 1992 analysis added to the Schultz Curve's
original database of 161 survey data points and calculated an
updated dose-response curve using the same methodology but with a
total of 400 survey data points.
    \18\ FICON, 1992.
    \19\ Ibid., vol. 1, p. 2-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NES's collection of a nationally representative dataset on
community annoyance in response to aircraft noise provides a
contemporary update to the Schultz Curve, including technical
refinements to improve its reliability. As with the Schultz Curve, the
NES describes community annoyance in terms of the percentage of people
who are ``highly annoyed'' and describes aircraft noise exposure in
terms of the DNL noise metric. Based on the 1992 FICON Report,
discussed previously, both the percentage of population highly annoyed
and the DNL noise metric have continued to be recognized for this
purpose including by FICON's successor, the Federal Interagency
Committee on Aviation Noise in its 2018 report.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise Research
Review of Selected Aviation Noise Issues (FICAN), 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NES Results
    Compared with the Schultz Curve representing transportation noise,
the NES results show a substantially higher percentage of people highly
annoyed over the entire range of aircraft noise levels (i.e., from DNL
50 to 75 dB) at which the NES was conducted. This includes an increase
in annoyance at lower noise levels. The NES results also show
proportionally less change in annoyance from the lower noise levels to
the higher noise levels.
    Comparing the percent of population highly annoyed due to noise
exposure between the updated Schultz Curve for transportation noise in
the 1992 FICON Report and the NES:
     At a noise exposure level of DNL 65 dB, the updated
Schultz Curve from the 1992 FICON Report indicated that 12.3 percent of
people were highly annoyed, compared to between 60.1 percent and 70.9
percent within a 95 percent confidence limit from the NES.
     At a noise exposure level of DNL 60 dB, the updated
Schultz Curve from the 1992 FICON Report indicated that 6.5 percent of
people were highly annoyed, compared to between 43.8 percent and 53.7
percent within a 95 percent confidence limit from the NES.
     At a noise exposure level of DNL 55 dB, the updated
Schultz Curve from the 1992 FICON Report indicated that 3.3 percent of
people were highly annoyed, compared to between 27.8 percent and 36.8
percent within a 95 percent confidence limit from the NES.
     At a noise exposure level of DNL 50 dB, the updated
Schultz Curve from the 1992 FICON Report indicated that 1.7 percent of
people were highly annoyed, compared to between 15.4 percent and 23.4
percent within a 95 percent confidence limit from the NES.
    Graphics comparing the updated Schultz Curve from the 1992 FICON
Report and the curve from the NES are provided on the FAA website at
www.faa.gov/go/aviationnoise.

Advancements in Survey Methodology
    Earlier work to understand community response to noise, including
Schultz's dose-response analysis, was based on the premise that the
annoyance from any source of noise would be the same for a given DNL
noise level. However, more recent work has shown that aircraft noise
often results in higher levels of annoyance compared to the same level
of noise from ground transportation sources.\21\ There have been
relatively few surveys of communities in the United States about
aircraft noise undertaken over the last four decades. However, other
countries around the world have conducted aircraft noise surveys during
this time considering aircraft noise separately from noise from other
modes of transportation. The results of these surveys, as reflected in
a dose-response relationship published by the International
Organization for Standardization,\22\ have consistently shown higher
levels of annoyance than exhibited by the Schultz Curve. Informed by
these results, the national dose-response curve in the NES report
reflects only responses to the question about aircraft noise exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, for example: Janssen, S., &, Vos, H. (2011). Dose-
Response Relationship between DNL and Aircraft Noise Annoyance:
Contribution of TNO. Retrieved from TNO Report TNO-060-UT-2011-
00207.
    \22\ International Organization for Standardization. (2016,
March 1, 2016). International Standard 1996-1, Acoustics--
Description Measurement and Assessment of Environmental Noise--Part
1: Basic Quantities and Assessment Procedures, 3rd edition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Factors
    In addition to enhancements in survey techniques and changes to the
way aircraft operate, there are likely other factors contributing to a
change in the way communities respond to aircraft noise. Future work is
needed to fully understand the specific drivers behind these reasons,
but several possibilities include:
     Changes to where people are choosing to live, including
societal migration to increasingly urban environments.\23\
Additionally, growth and changes to the makeup of suburban communities
and their proximity to urban hubs may also be influencing factors on
community expectations for aircraft noise exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The U.S. Census Bureau indicates that the percentage of the
population living in urban areas has increased from 73.6 percent in
1970 to 80.7 percent in 2010, an increase of 7.1 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     How people work and live, including influencing factors
such as increased in-home business and teleworking in today's
economy.\24\ Changes in expectations for spending time outdoors versus
indoors and the associated aircraft noise exposure may also be a
factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Work to explore changes to how population distribution
throughout the day are related to aircraft noise exposure is planned
under Airport Cooperative Research Project (ACRP) 02-84
[Anticipated] http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4421.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The rise of social media, the internet, and other national
and global information sources, leading to an increased awareness and
perception of local and national noise issues.
     Overall societal response to noise due to a combination of
these or other factors.
    In addition to the NES, which focuses on annoyance, the FAA is also
engaged in a range of research initiatives aimed at providing
information on other impacts of aircraft noise, including effects on
children's learning, sleep disturbance, and potential health effects.
Each of these research initiatives focuses on a distinct type of
potential adverse effect associated with aviation noise exposure. The
potential adverse effects explored by these initiatives may also be
factors influencing the annoyance reported by the NES. However,
research in these areas is still ongoing and therefore was not
specifically addressed by the NES. Additional details on these research
programs is provided below.

(2) Noise Modeling, Noise Metrics, and Environmental Data Visualization

    As a core component of FAA's work to address aircraft noise, as
well as a requirement of its environmental regulatory commitments, the
FAA must maintain the ability to accurately quantify aircraft noise
exposure around airports and throughout the National Airspace System.
High-fidelity modeling is the only practical method to accomplish this
objective, as aircraft noise needs to be quantified over relatively
large scales in an efficient and consistent manner. For more than four
decades, the FAA has worked closely with industry, academic, and
governmental stakeholders to advance research and development in
aircraft noise modeling. This effort advances the analytical tools,
metrics, data, and standards required to provide high quality results
to inform the public and other stakeholders about noise exposure
levels. The FAA has also been actively exploring ways to use emerging
technologies to visualize environmental data including noise exposure.

Aviation Environmental Design Tool

    The Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) is the FAA's required
noise and environmental modeling application for all U.S. domestic
regulatory analyses requiring FAA review. The AEDT also provides
analysis support for the International Civil Aviation Organization--
Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection, and is used as a
research and assessment tool by other Federal agencies, universities,
and industry stakeholders.
    Through collaborations with government, university, and industry
partners, the FAA actively manages AEDT to ensure that features and
capabilities are developed to meet expanding environmental analysis
needs, and to ensure that as new data and technologies become available
they are incorporated in order to enhance modeling accuracy and
efficiency. The AEDT builds on a legacy of noise modeling development,
and is based on detailed aircraft-specific noise measurements and
internationally accepted aircraft performance models and standards. A
dynamic development process is used to create new versions of AEDT.
This process allows for new features and capabilities to be added as
needed, for example, when required by policy updates or informed by
emerging research findings.

Noise Screening

    Building from the high-fidelity noise modeling capabilities
available through AEDT, the FAA is also working to develop an updated
noise screening tool. This updated noise screening tool will use a
simplified noise modeling process to facilitate an expedited review of
proposed Federal actions where significant noise impacts are not
expected. Such an approach is beneficial where a proposed Federal
Action is limited in scope and could qualify for a categorical
exclusion under the FAA's procedures for implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).\25\ The primary goal of updating the
noise screening tool is to decrease the amount of time that an analyst
will need to conduct an assessment while also ensuring a fully
validated result that is readily understandable by the public. While
the output from a noise screening tool cannot provide the same level of
detail as a comprehensive modeling tool, the simplified process
provides for an expedited initial view of

any potential changes in aircraft noise exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, Chapter 5 (``Categorical Exclusions'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Data Visualization

    The FAA has been developing ways to utilize geospatial data to
improve the agency's ability to communicate environmental data to the
public. For example, the FAA has designed an Environmental
Visualization Tool to take advantage of the availability of high
quality geospatial data to deliver an agency-wide resource using a
consistent, common visual language. Once fully implemented, this common
visualization platform will serve the needs of multiple environmental
programs within the FAA, including those presenting aircraft noise data
to the public.

Supplemental Noise Metrics

    The FAA's primary noise metric, DNL, was developed and validated to
identify significant aviation noise exposure for land use and
mitigation planning as well as for determining significant change in
noise exposure under NEPA review. In some cases, however, it can be
useful to supplement DNL with the use of other noise metrics. While
other noise metrics may not provide as complete an understanding of the
cumulative noise exposure from activity around an airport and its
associated airspace, they often can provide opportunities to
communicate the specific characteristics of noise changes due to the
unique aspects of a proposed action. The FAA's NEPA procedures address
the use of supplemental noise metrics.\26\ To assist the public in
understanding noise impacts, and to better facilitate communication
among communities interested in systematic departure flight track
dispersion, the FAA is working to assess the use of potential
supplemental metrics. For a supplemental metric to be effective in
evaluating potential means of achieving flight track dispersion, and to
ensure that communities understand the impacts of dispersion (i.e.,
that dispersion does not eliminate noise but rather it may move noise
to other neighborhoods), the supplemental metric will need to
effectively communicate the changes in noise exposure that will occur
in all of the communities affected by the change, both those that would
be exposed to less noise and those that would be exposed to more
noise.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, Appendix B, paragraph B-1.6; 1050.1F Desk Reference,
Section 11.4.
    \27\ FAA, 2020, Report to Congress: FAA Reauthorization Act of
2018 (Pub. L. 115-254) Section 188 and Sec 173, https://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/congress/media/Day-Night_Average_Sound_Levels_COMPLETED_report_w_letters.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Reduction, Abatement, and Mitigation of Aviation Noise

    To directly address noise concerns, the FAA sponsors multiple
research programs to explore different concepts for aircraft noise
reduction. As aircraft noise is a complex issue, no single concept is
capable of providing a universal solution. However, by conducting
research across different areas, the FAA is developing solutions to
reduce noise at its source, abate noise through operations, and
mitigate the effects of noise on communities. The intent of this
approach is to have a variety of options to reduce the noise being
experienced by those living near airports around the country and to
have options that could be tailored to specific airports.

Aircraft Source Noise Reduction

    As noted previously, the single most influential factor in the
historical decline in noise exposure was the phased transition to
quieter aircraft. Through the public-private partnership of the
Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) Program, the FAA
and industry are working together to develop technologies that will
enable manufacturers to create aircraft and engines with lower noise
and emissions as well as improved fuel efficiency.\28\ The technologies
being accelerated by the CLEEN Program have relatively large
technological risk. Government resources help mitigate this risk and
incentivize aviation manufacturers to invest and develop these
technologies. By cost-sharing the development with the FAA, industry is
willing to accept the greater risk and can better support the business
case for this technological development. Once entered into service, the
CLEEN technologies will provide societal benefits in terms of reduced
noise, fuel burn, and emissions throughout the fleet for years to come.
In addition to the benefits provided by technologies developed under
the CLEEN, the program leads to advances in the analysis and design
tools that are used on every aircraft or engine product being made by
these companies; this extends the benefits of the CLEEN Program well
beyond the individual technologies being matured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See, for example, information on the FAA's ``Continuous
Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise'' (CLEEN) Program at: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/research/aircraft_technology/cleen/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As new aircraft and engine technologies lead to quieter aircraft
over time, the FAA works to establish aircraft certification standards
based on noise stringency requirements. These standards are a
requirement of the airworthiness process and are described in 14 CFR
part 36. These requirements do not force manufactures to develop new
technology. However, as new noise reduction technologies emerge they do
ensure that new aircraft continue to meet increasingly quieter
standards within the bounds of what is technologically feasible and
economically reasonable.

Noise Abatement

    The FAA is also supporting multiple efforts to identify means to
abate noise through changes in how aircraft are operated in the
airspace over communities. In the immediate vicinity of an airport, use
of voluntary noise abatement departure procedures (NADP) has been a
longstanding technique available to reduce noise. Recent research is
examining the effectiveness of these procedures and identifying means
of improving their use.
    As the FAA works to modernize the National Airspace System, new
aircraft flight procedures have been designed to take advantage of PBN
technologies. To better understand both the environmental benefits and
challenges posed by PBN, the FAA is working to re-examine ways to
routinely consider noise during flight procedure design. This effort
includes an exploration of how PBN can better control flight paths and
move them away from noise-sensitive areas, how changes in aircraft
performance could be safely managed to reduce noise, and how systematic
departure flight track dispersion can be implemented to abate noise
concerns.
    In a recent partnership with the Massachusetts Port Authority
(Massport) and MIT, the FAA jointly contributed to research considering
how Area Navigation (RNAV) PBN procedures could be designed and
implemented to reduce noise. Multiple concepts were explored that
highlighted how collaborations between the FAA, airport operators, and
community members can produce innovative noise abatement strategies.
    A recently completed analysis of operational procedures that
resulted from the Massport-MIT-FAA partnership shows that for modern
aircraft on departure, changes in aircraft climb speed have minimal
impact on the overall aircraft departure noise. The current best
practice for NADP, using International Civil Aviation Organization
distant community or

``NADP-2'' departure procedure, has been shown to minimize modeled
noise impacts. This analysis also shows that for modern aircraft on
arrival, changes in approach airspeed could have a noticeable impact
(reductions of 4-8 dBA) on the overall aircraft noise at relatively
large distances from touching down (between 10 and 25 nautical miles
from the runway). While NADP procedures have the potential to reduce
community noise, they may also have implementation challenges that will
need to be overcome. Research is ongoing at MIT to address these
challenges.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ https://ascent.aero/project/analytical-approach-for-quantifying-noise-from-advanced-operational-procedures/, https://ascent.aero/project/aircraft-noise-abatement-procedure-modeling-and-validation/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to airplane operations, the FAA is also examining the
potential for helicopter noise abatement through changes in operational
procedures. The FAA has partnered with the Volpe Center, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Pennsylvania State
University, and operator organizations to explore new ways to safely
fly rotorcraft while also reducing noise through the Fly Neighborly
Program.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ https://www.rotor.org/initiatives/fly-neighborly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noise Mitigation Research

    Noise mitigation is the effort to take actions to reduce the impact
of aircraft noise exposure that occurs. The primary mitigation
strategies involve encouraging responsible land use planning in airport
communities and, where appropriate, the application of sound insulation
treatments to eligible homes or other noise-sensitive public buildings
(e.g., schools or hospitals). In extreme cases where sound insulation
technologies cannot provide adequate mitigation, the acquisition of
residential homes and conversion to non-residential land use is also an
option.
    As sound insulation treatment costs have continued to rise and new
research on the human impacts from noise becomes available, the FAA is
exploring the cost-benefit calculus of existing noise mitigation
strategies and technologies in order to better direct where and how
limited mitigation resources should be applied. Recent academic
research \31\ and internal assessments have raised questions about the
benefits of sound insulation relative to the costs. While the relative
benefits of sound insulation for noise exposures above DNL 65dB will
depend on the individual home treatment costs, minimal benefit can be
expected for sound insulation treatments applied for noise exposures
below DNL 65dB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Wolfe, Malina, Barrett & Waitz 2016, Cost and benefits of
US Aviation noise land-use policies, Transportation Research Part D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aircraft Noise Policy Background

    Community response to noise has historically been a primary factor
underlying the FAA's noise-related policies, including the
establishment of DNL 65 dB as the threshold of ``significant'' aircraft
noise exposure. The FAA has been using a DNL of 65 dB as the basis for:
(1) Setting the agency's policy goal of reducing the number of people
exposed to significant aircraft noise; \32\ (2) the level of aircraft
noise exposure below which residential land use is ``normally
compatible,'' as defined in regulations implementing the Aviation
Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979,\33\ and (3) the level of
aircraft noise exposure below which noise impacts of FAA actions in
residential areas are not considered ``significant'' under section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See ``Aviation Environmental and Energy Policy Statement,''
77 FR 43137, 43138 (July 23, 2012), available on the FAA website at
[URL]. The ``noise goal'' identified in this document includes
``[r]educ[ing] the number of people exposed to significant noise
around U.S. airports.''
    \33\ 49 U.S.C. 47502. The regulations implementing this section
are codified at 14 CFR part 150.
    \34\ 49 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). See FAA Order 1050.1F,
``Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures'' (2015), Exhibit
4-1. The significance threshold for noise used for NEPA purposes in
FAA Order 1050.1F is also used by the FAA for determining
significant adverse noise effects under 49 U.S.C. 47106(c)(1)(B) for
airport development projects involving the location of an airport or
runway or a major runway extension. See 80 FR 44209, 44223 (July 24,
2015) (preamble to FAA Order 1050.1F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research results, as reflected in the programs and studies
described in this notice, will provide new information on how aircraft
noise in communities near airports may be effectively managed and will
inform future decision making on the FAA's aircraft noise policies.
    However, as previously stated, the FAA will not make any
determinations on implications from these emerging research results for
FAA noise policies until it has carefully considered public and other
stakeholder input, and assesses the factors behind any increases in
community impacts from aircraft noise exposure. Unless and until any
changes become effective, all existing FAA regulations, orders, and
policies remain in effect. The FAA is committed to informing and
involving the public, and to giving meaningful consideration to
community concerns and views as the FAA makes aviation decisions that
affect them.

Comments Invited

    The FAA recognizes that a range of factors may be driving concerns
due to aircraft noise. However, as outlined in this notice, a broad
understanding of aircraft noise and its potential impacts is needed in
order to better manage and reduce concerns from aviation noise.
    The FAA is inviting comments on these concerns to assist the agency
in assessing how resources should be directed to better understand and
manage the factors underlying the concern from aircraft noise exposure.
    Comments that focus on the questions listed below will be most
helpful. The more specific the comments, the more useful they will be
in the FAA's considerations.
    (1) What, if any, additional investigation, analysis, or research
should be undertaken in each of the following three categories as
described in this notice:
     Effects of Aircraft Noise on Individuals and Communities;
     Noise Modeling, Noise Metrics, and Environmental Data
Visualization; and
     Reduction, Abatement, and Mitigation of Aviation Noise?
    (2) As outlined in this notice, the FAA recognizes that a range of
factors may be driving the increase in annoyance shown in the
Neighborhood Environmental Survey results compared to earlier
transportation noise annoyance surveys--including survey methodology,
changes in how commercial aircraft operate, population distribution,
how people live and work, and societal response to noise. The FAA
requests input on the factors that may be contributing to the increase
in annoyance shown in the survey results.
    (3) What, if any, additional categories of investigation, analysis,
or research should be undertaken to inform FAA noise policy?

    Authority: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 42 U.S.C.
4321 et. seq., Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (ASNA) 49
U.S.C. 47501 et. seq., Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. 44715.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Kevin Welsh,
Director, Office of Environment and Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-00564 Filed 1-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8943-8944]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03413]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2014-0116]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for public comment on extension of a currently approved
collection of information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections. This
document describes an existing collection of information for 49 CFR
part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, for which NHTSA
intends to seek renewed OMB approval. The Federal Register notice with
a 60-day comment period was published on November 25, 2014 (79 FR
70271).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments within 30 days to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Abigail Morgan, NHTSA, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Room W43-467, NVS-122, Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following
topics:
    (1) Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency? Does the information
collection have practical utility?
    (2) Is the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information accurate? Is the methodology valid (including
the assumptions used)?
    (3) How can the agency enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information that we plan to collect?
    (4) How can the agency minimize the burden of collecting this
information on those who are to respond? Are there appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques (or other forms of information technology) that would be
suitable for this collection (e.g. permitting electronic submission of
responses)?
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA published a notice in
the Federal Register providing a 60-day comment period, and we received
no public comments on the renewal of this information collection (79 FR
70271). Today's notice provides a 30-day comment period in which public
comments on the renewal of this information collection may be submitted
to OMB.
    Title: Tire Identification and Recordkeeping.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0050.
    Form Number: This collection of information uses no standard form.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection of
information.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: 49 U.S.C. 30117(b)
requires each tire manufacturer to collect and maintain records of the
first purchasers of new tires. To carry out this mandate, 49 CFR part
574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, requires tire dealers and
distributors to record the names and addresses of retail purchasers of
new tires and the identification numbers(s) of the tires sold. A
specific form is provided to tire dealers and distributors by tire
manufacturers for recording this information. The completed forms are
returned to the tire manufacturers where they are retained for not less
than five years. Part 574 requires independent tire dealers and
distributors to provide a registration form to consumers with the tire
identification number(s) already recorded and information identifying
the dealer/distributor. The consumer can then record his/her name and
address and return the form to the tire manufacturer via U.S. mail, or
alternatively, the consumer can provide this information electronically
on the tire manufacturer's Web site if the tire manufacturer provides
this capability. Additionally, motor vehicle

manufacturers are required to record the names and addresses of the
first purchasers (for purposes other than resale), together with the
identification numbers of the tires on the new vehicle, and retain this
information for not less than five years.
    Description of the Need for the Information and the Use of the
Information: The information is used by a tire manufacturer after it or
the agency determines that some of its tires either fail to comply with
an applicable safety standard or contain a safety related defect. With
the information, the tire manufacturer can notify the first purchaser
of the tire and provide them with any necessary information or
instructions to remedy the non-compliance situation or safety defect.
    Without this information, efforts to identify the first purchaser
of tires that have been determined to be defective or nonconforming
pursuant to sections 30118 and 30119 of title 49 U.S.C. would be
impeded. Further, the ability of the purchasers to take appropriate
action in the interest of motor vehicle safety may be compromised.
    Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information):
We estimate that the collection of information affects 10 million
respondents annually. This group consists of approximately 20 tire
manufacturers, 59,000 new tire dealers and distributors, and 10 million
consumers who choose to register their tire purchases with tire
manufacturers. A response is required by motor vehicle manufacturers
upon each sale of a new vehicle and by non-independent tire dealers
with the each sale of a new tire. A consumer may elect to respond when
purchasing a new tire from an independent tire dealer.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information: The estimated burden is
as follows:
    New tire dealers and distributors: 59,000.
    Consumers: 10,000,000.
    Total tire registrations (manual): 54,000,000.
    Total tire registration hours (manual): 225,000.
    Recordkeeping hours (manual): 25,000.
    Total annual tire registration and recordkeeping hours: 250,000.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice.

Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-03413 Filed 2-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 103 (Thursday, May 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30908-30911]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12424]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72228; File No. SR-MIAX-2014-18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 503

May 22, 2014.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 May 13, 2014, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend MIAX Rule 503 with
respect to the Opening Process in an option series.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX'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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 503 to change the definition of
a valid width NBBO and valid width quote to correspond to the standard
bid-ask differential specified under Rule 603(b)(4)(i). The Exchange's
current methodology to start the Opening Process is not conducive to a
quick and efficient opening on the Exchange. The proposed rule change
will amend the current process to provide that the bid-ask differential
to allow for the Exchange System to start the Opening Process based on
the bid-ask differentials specified in Rule 603(b)(4)(i), which are
wider than the bid-ask differential of Rule 603(b)(4)(ii).\3\ In
addition, the Exchange proposes some technical changes related to the
removal of the narrow-width quote standard from Rule 603(b)(4)(ii), as
it would no longer be necessary once the definition of a valid width
NBBO and valid width quote is updated to correspond to Rule
603(b)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For purposes of this filing, the quote width in Rule
603(b)(4)(i) will be referred to as the ``standard-width quote'' and
that of Rule 603(b)(40(ii) [sic] will be referred to as the
``narrow-width quote.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Opening Process
    Currently, Rule 503 describes the process pursuant to which the
Exchange System opens an option series. Pursuant to the procedures
described in Rule 503(e), after an initial pause following the
dissemination of a quote or trade in the market for the underlying
security, the Opening Process starts with one of the following events:
(i) The Primary Lead Market Maker's valid width quote has been
submitted; (ii) the valid width quotes of at least two Market Makers,
where at least one is a Lead Market Maker have been submitted; or (iii)
for multiply listed option classes, at least one Eligible Exchange (as
defined in Rule 1400(f)) has disseminated a quote in the individual
option in accordance with Rule 1402(a), there is a valid width NBBO
available and the valid width quote of at least one Lead Market Maker

has been submitted.\4\ For the purposes of Rule 503(e) both a valid
width NBBO and valid width quote is one where the bid and offer differ
by no more than the differences outlined in Rule 603(b)(4)(ii), the
narrow-width quote.\5\ Additionally, if after two minutes following the
dissemination of a quote or trade in the market for the underlying
security none of the provisions described above have occurred, then the
opening process can begin when one Market Maker has submitted its valid
width quote.\6\ The Primary Lead Market Maker assigned in a particular
equity option class must enter valid width quotes not later than one
minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market
for the underlying security.\7\ A Registered Market Maker that submits
a quote pursuant to this Rule 503 in any series when a Lead Market
Maker's or Primary Lead Market Maker's quote has not been submitted
shall be required to submit continuous, two-sided quotes in such series
until such time as a Lead Market Maker submits his/her quote, after
which the Registered Market Maker that submitted such quote shall be
obligated to submit quotations pursuant to Rule 604(e)(3).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 503(e).
    \5\ See Rule 603(b)(4)(ii). The bid-ask guidelines specified in
Rule 603(b)(4)(ii) that are required to start the Opening Process
are narrower than the $5 wide bid-ask differential for options
traded after the opening rotation. See also Rule 603(b)(4)(i). Rule
603(b)(4)(i) provides that options traded after the opening rotation
may be quoted with a difference not to exceed $5 between the bid and
offer regardless of the price of the bid.
    \6\ See Rule 503(e)(4).
    \7\ See Rule 503(e)(5).
    \8\ See Rule 503(e)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once the Opening Process has been started, the Exchange System will
either open with a quote or a trade. Rule 503(f)(1) provides the
mechanism by which the Exchange System will open on a quote.\9\
Pursuant to Rule 503(f)(1), the Exchange System, if there are no quotes
or orders that lock or cross each other, will open by disseminating the
Exchange's best bid and offer among quotes and orders that exist in the
System at that time. The remainder of Rule 503(f) provides how the
Exchange System operates when opening with a trade--scenarios where
there are quotes or orders that lock or cross an order. Rule 503(f)(2)-
(11) provides the mechanics of how the Exchange System calculates the
price of an opening trade and handles any imbalance that may occur.\10\
For purposes of opening with a trade, Rule 503(f) utilizes the narrow-
width quote used to first start the Opening Process pursuant to Rule
503(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 503(f)(1).
    \10\ See Rule 503(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Change to Opening Process
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 503(e)(2) and (3) to change the
definition of a valid width NBBO \11\ and valid width quote \12\ to
correspond to the standard bid-ask differential specified under Rule
603(b)(4)(i). As noted above, the Exchange currently uses the narrow-
width quote to define a valid width NBBO and valid width quote. The
Exchange proposes to replace references to Rule 603(b)(4)(ii) in Rule
503(e)(2) and (3) with the standard-width quote of Rule 603(b)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 503(e)(2).
    \12\ See Rule 503(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 603(b)(4)(i) provides that options, following the opening
rotation, may be quoted with a difference not to exceed $5 between the
bid and offer regardless of the price of the bid. The proposed change
will align the requirements to open the unopened series on a quote with
the existing Market Marker quoting requirements following the opening
rotation.
    The Exchange believes that the application of the narrow-width
quoting requirement of Rule 603(b)(4)(ii) to start the Opening Process
prevents series from opening promptly and thus unnecessarily delays the
execution of orders on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that setting
a wider quote differential requirement to start the Opening Process
would expedite the opening of all options series on the Exchange
promptly after the opening of the underlying security. The Exchange
believes that market participants will benefit by having the ability to
execute orders on the Exchange without unnecessary delay. In addition,
applying the standard-width quote bid-ask differential to start the
Opening Process is consistent with the quoting requirements that are
applicable following the start of regular trading.
    The Exchange further believes that applying the standard-width
quote to start the Opening Process is appropriate because it would more
closely align the Exchange's Rules with the rules of other option
exchanges with respect to opening a series--specifically in the area of
opening a series on a quote. Other options exchanges have the ability
to open a series for trading when there are no executable orders and/or
quotes to conduct an auction. BOX Options Exchange (``BOX'') and NASDAQ
Options Market (``NOM''), allow for the opening of series without
conducting an opening auction. Similar to the Exchange's proposal, NYSE
Arca opens option series for trading after receiving notification of an
initial NBBO disseminated by OPRA for the series or on a Market Maker
quote, provided that the bid-ask differential does not exceed its
standard-width quote of $5 when not opening with a trade.\13\ On BOX,
the BOX system attempts to conduct an opening match (similar to the
Exchange's Opening Process) to determine a single price at which a
particular option series will be opened.\14\ However, if the BOX system
is not able to determine an opening price, the option series will
nevertheless move from the ``Pre-Opening Phase'' to the continuous
trading phase and the option series will be open for trading. When the
option series move from Pre-Opening Phase to the continuous trading
phase, there is no requirement for a bid-ask differential to be met.
Market makers on BOX would only be required to meet the $5 bid-ask
differential in the option series if and when they ever decided to
quote.\15\ Similarly, NOM has no bid-ask differential requirements to
open a series if an ``Opening Cross'' (similar to Trading Auction)
cannot be initiated because there are no opening quotes or orders that
lock or cross each other.\16\ Specifically, if an Opening Cross cannot
be initiated because there are no opening quotes or orders that lock or
cross each other, the option series will open for trading on NOM.\17\
Market makers on NOM would only be required to meet the $5 bid-ask
differentials in the option series if and when they ever decided to
quote.\18\ Both, BOX and NOM could open options series and disseminate
a protected quotation without the benefit of Market Maker quotation to
facilitate price discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.64(b)(E). See also Securities Exchange
Release No. 68290 (November 26, 2012), 77 FR 71469 (November 30,
2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-126).
    \14\ See BOX Rule 7070(e).
    \15\ See BOX Rule 7070(f). See also BOX Rule 8040, which sets
forth BOX market maker quoting obligations.
    \16\ See NOM Chapter VI, Section 8(c)(1).
    \17\ See id.
    \18\ See NOM Chapter VII, Section 6(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By contrast, currently, if the options series does not meet the
narrow-width quotes, the series will not start the Opening Process and
not open at all on the Exchange, which differs from NYSE Arca, BOX and
NOM. As noted above, NYSE Arca requires a Market Maker quote that meets
the standard-width requirement to open with a quote and neither BOX nor
NOM require any bid-ask differential to be met prior to opening series
for trading with a quote. The current inability of the Exchange to

open a series without quotes subject to a narrow-width quote
requirement puts the Exchange at a competitive disadvantage to other
options exchanges that do not have that similar restriction. By not
opening the option series, the Exchange cannot display orders in the
Exchange System and thus has no protected quotation in the options
series. Until the options series officially opens for trading, the
Exchange cannot route out orders in the Exchange System pursuant to
Linkage, nor can it have a protected quote that draws trading interest
from other options markets. The Exchange believes that the delay in
execution of orders on the Exchange in this situation is unnecessary
and harmful to market participants. The Exchange's proposal would
provide for the ability to open an option series on a quote in a
similar fashion as NYSE Arca, BOX, and NOM. The Exchange believes that
having a bid-ask differential requirement to open a series is
beneficial for opening series and helps ensure there is a sufficient
quoted market in the options series, whether it is via NBBO from OPRA
or Market Maker generated quote, prior to opening of the series on the
Exchange to facilitate transactions in securities on the Exchange.
Technical Changes
    To clarify that the Exchange System uses the standard-width quote
standard to start the Opening Process, the Exchange proposes to delete
Rule 603(b)(4)(ii). Related to the proposed deletion of Rule
603(b)(4)(ii), the Exchange further proposes replacing the reference to
Rule 603(b)(4)(ii) within Rule 521 (Obvious and Catastrophic Errors)
with the specific bid-ask differential contained in Rule 603(b)(4)(ii)
so that Rule 521 will be substantially unchanged and remain operatively
the same.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \19\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \20\ of the Act in particular, in that it
is 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 facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market
system because it would permit the Exchange to utilize the standard-
width quote bid-ask differential to start the Opening Process which
will expedite the opening of all options series on the Exchange
promptly after the opening of the underlying security, and thus remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in a
way that benefits market participants and enables them to execute their
orders on the Exchange.
    The proposed rule change contributes to the protection of investors
and the public interest by ensuring that if the Exchange should open a
series on a quote the opening quote will be within the standard bid-ask
differential of Rule 603(b)(4)(i). The Exchange believes this offers
better protection than the alternative of requiring no bid-ask
differential when opening an option series on a quote.
    The proposal would provide fair and orderly means to open a series
when the Exchange does not have sufficient executable quotes and/or
orders to conduct an Opening Process and would reasonably ensure that
the Exchange does not open the series at a price that is beyond the
price at which Market Makers are permitted to quote for the series
during the trading session, which also contributes to the protection of
investors and the public interest, generally. The proposed rule change
is also designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade
because it would permit the Exchange to open a series in a manner that
is more consistent with the opening of individual series on other
option exchanges.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra notes 13, 14, and 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes are
designed to facilitate the opening of series on the Exchange in a
manner that is fair, orderly and more consistent with the practice of
other option exchanges. Thus, the Exchange believes that the filing is
pro-competitive and should increase intermarket and intramarket
competition for options transactions during and immediately after the
opening.

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.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \22\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \23\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2014-18 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-MIAX-2014-18. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. 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 such 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-MIAX-2014-18, and should be
submitted on or before June 19, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-12424 Filed 5-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P