[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64417-64419]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25526]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0393; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-025-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Twin Commander Aircraft LLC Airplanes;
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Availability of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the availability of and request for
comments on the initial regulatory flexibility analysis for the
previously published Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-09-05 that
applies to certain Twin Commander Aircraft LLC Models 690, 690A, and
690B airplanes. AD 2013-09-05 requires inspection for cracking of the
outer fuselage attachments, the lower wing main spar, the vertical
channels, the upper picture window channels, aft cabin pressure web,
external wing to fuselage fillets, and fasteners; repair or replacement
of damaged parts as necessary; and modification of the structure with
reinforced parts.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 13, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), Airframe
Branch, ANM-120S, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone:
(425) 917-6426; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued AD 2013-09-05; Amendment 39-17446, which was published in
the Federal Register on May 14, 2013 (78 FR 28125) (``AD 2013-09-05''),
to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD that would apply to the specified
products. AD 2013-09-05 requires inspection for cracking of the outer
fuselage attachments, the lower wing main spar, the vertical channels,
the upper picture window channels, aft cabin pressure web, external
wing to fuselage fillets, and fasteners; repair or replacement of
damaged parts as necessary; and modification of the structure with
reinforced parts.

Reason for This Action

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation.'' To achieve this principle, agencies are
required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to
explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals
are given serious consideration. The RFA covers a wide-range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. In accordance with Section 608 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, an agency head may waive or delay
completion of some or all of the requirements of Section 603 by
providing a written finding that the final rule is being promulgated in
response to an emergency that makes compliance or timely compliance
with the provisions of Section 603 impracticable. The agency issued AD
2013-09-05 in response to an immediate safety of flight condition that
made compliance with the provisions of Section 603 impracticable. After
issuing AD 2013-09-05, the agency reviewed the AD actions and
determined that the final rule did have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The following presents the
initial regulatory flexibility analysis prepared by the agency as
described in the RFA.

1. Reason for Agency Action

    We issued AD 2013-09-05 for certain Twin Commander Aircraft LLC
Models 690, 690A, and 690B airplanes. The AD requires inspection for
cracking of the outer fuselage attachments, the lower wing main spar,
the vertical channels, the upper picture window channels, aft cabin
pressure web, external wing to fuselage fillets, and fasteners; repair
or replacement of damaged parts as necessary; and modification of the
structure with reinforced parts. The AD was prompted by cracks found in
the upper picture window frame channels, left- and right-hand wing main
spar frame support channels, and aft pressure bulkhead web. This
condition, if not corrected, could result in structural failure of the
airplane. We issued the AD to correct the unsafe condition on these
products.

2. Legal Basis and Objectives of the Final Rule

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs''
describes in more

detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We issued the AD under the authority described in Subtitle VII,
Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General requirements.'' Under
that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of
civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in the AD.

3. Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements of the Final Rule

Compliance
    Compliance with AD 2013-09-05 must occur within the times
specified, unless already done.
Inspection
    Inspect the airplane structural components, at the compliance times
specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(iv) of the AD
following Part I of Twin Commander Aircraft LLC Service Bulletin 241,
September 26, 2012:
     For airplanes with 10,000 or more hours time-in-service
(TIS), inspect within the next 30 days after May 29, 2013 (the
effective date of the AD).
     For airplanes with 7,500 through 9,999 hours TIS, inspect
within the next 60 days after May 29, 2013 (the effective date of the
AD).
     For airplanes with 5,000 through 7,499 hours TIS, inspect
within the next 6 months after May 29, 2013 (the effective date of the
AD).
     For airplanes with less than 5,000 hours TIS, inspect when
the airplane accumulates a total of 5,000 hours TIS or within the next
12 months after May 29, 2013 (the effective date of the AD), whichever
occurs later.
Repair
    If any damage, cracks, and/or cracks that exceed the allowable
limits specified in the service bulletin are found during the
inspection required in paragraph (g)(1) of the AD, before further
flight, repair or replace parts as necessary following Twin Commander
Aircraft LLC Service Bulletin 241, dated, September 26, 2012. If Twin
Commander Aircraft LLC Service Bulletin 241, dated, September 26, 2012,
does not give procedures for repair of the damaged area, before further
flight, you must contact Twin Commander Aircraft LLC to obtain repair
instructions approved by the Seattle ACO specifically for compliance
with this AD and incorporate those instructions. You can find contact
information for Twin Commander Aircraft LLC in paragraph (l)(2) of the
AD.
Modification and Reassembly
     Before further flight after completing the actions in
paragraphs (g) and (h) of the AD, modify and reassemble the airplane
using the modification and reassembly procedures in Part II of Twin
Commander Aircraft LLC Service Bulletin 241, dated, September 26, 2012.
     Although Twin Commander Aircraft LLC Service Bulletin 241,
dated September 26, 2012, states that at least one person on the
modification team must have completed the Twin Commander Aircraft LLC
approved training, the FAA does not require that a mechanic complete
this specialized training to do the modification work required in the
AD. Regulations 14 CFR 65.81(a) and 14 CFR 65.81(b) provide criteria
about qualifications of those performing maintenance; in this case, the
requirements of the AD.

4. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Final Rule

    There are no rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with AD
2013-09-05.

5. Description and Estimation of the Number of Small Entities Affected
by the Final Rule

    Under the RFA, the FAA must determine whether a final rule
significantly affects a substantial number of small entities. This
determination is typically based on small entity size and revenue
thresholds that vary depending on the affected industry. To determine
the number of small entities affected by the airworthiness directive,
we searched the FAA Aircraft Registry database. The database provides
ownership information for 175 of the airplanes affected by AD 2013-09-
05, and average airplane values for these airplanes are available in
the Aircraft Bluebook Price Digest.
    The FAA aircraft registry categorizes owners of affected airplanes
as individuals, co-owners, corporations, and governments. A review of
the corporations shows that an overwhelming majority are privately
held. In most cases, the information about these corporations cannot be
determined because financial and employment data for privately held
entities is sparse. Nevertheless, the FAA believes the number of small
business entities affected by the AD is substantial.
    The serial numbers for the 175 affected airplanes that we have
information on was used to look up average retail values in the
Aircraft Bluebook Price Digest. The ``Digest'' provides average retail
values by model, year, and serial number. It is only a guide since the
actual condition and upgrades to individual airplanes are not known.
The value range for the 175 affected airplanes is between $225,000 and
$555,000 per airplane. The range is primarily due to age (i.e., the
older an airplane the lower its retail value versus a newer model of
the same airplane). The total retail value of the affected airplanes is
equal to the sum of the retail value for each individual airplane. This
summation equals $78.9 million (or an average of about $451,000 per
airplane).
    The economic impact on small entities due to the AD is significant.
This determination is based on the percentage of the cost of compliance
per airplane ($58,090) to the average retail value per airplane
($451,000), which is estimated to be 12.9 percent.
    Based on the discussion above, complying with the AD is determined
to be significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

6. Alternatives Considered

    The FAA considered possible alternative actions and determined the
actions taken were necessary to address the unsafe condition. The FAA
did not extend the compliance time because we needed to act immediately
to address the immediate safety problem. The inspection and
modification both involve a complex disassembly that comprises most of
the labor cost associated with the AD. Performing the modification
while the airplane is already disassembled for inspection saves owners
the labor cost of disassembling twice. If discrepancies are not found
in the inspection, no repair expense, beyond the mandated modification
expense, will occur.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a

legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and
does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this
objective. The statute also requires consideration of international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S.
standards. The FAA assessed the potential effect of the AD and
determined that because it addresses an immediate safety issue the AD
is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of
the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100
million. The AD does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this IRFA. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0393;
Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-025-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the IRFA as related to
the AD action. The most helpful comments will reference a specific
portion of the IRFA or related rulemaking document, explain the reason
for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about the AD.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 22, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-25526 Filed 10-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 43143]
[DOCID:fr31jy06-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. RP06-438-000]

MIGC, Inc.; Notice of Proposed Changes in Ferc Gas Tariff

July 21, 2006.
    Take notice that on July 19, 2006, MIGC, Inc. (MIGC) tendered for
filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the
following tariff sheets, to become effective September 1, 2006:

Sixth Revised Sheet No. 48
First Revised Sheet No. 89A
Eighth Revised Sheet No. 90

    MIGC asserts that the purpose of this filing is to update MIGC's
tariff to be consistent with Order No. 2004.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, D.C.
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-12233 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13698-13699]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04926]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80179; File No. SR-FINRA-2017-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule 6191 To Modify the Date of
Appendix B Web Site Data Publication Pursuant to the Regulation NMS
Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program

March 8, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 23, 2017, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has designated the
proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 6191 to modify the date of
Appendix B Web site data publication pursuant to the Regulation NMS
Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (``Plan'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    Rule 6191(b) (Compliance with Data Collection Requirements) \4\
implements the data collection and Web site publication requirements of
the Plan.\5\ Rule 6191.12 provides, among other things, that the
requirement that FINRA make certain data publicly available on the
FINRA Web site pursuant to Appendix B and C to the Plan shall commence
at the beginning of the Pilot Period,\6\ and that FINRA shall make data
for the Pre-Pilot Period publicly available on the FINRA Web site
pursuant to Appendix B and C to the Plan by February 28, 2017.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See FINRA Rule 6191. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 76484 (November 19, 2015), 80 FR 73858 (November 25,
2015) (Notice of Filing of File No. SR-FINRA-2015-048); and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77164 (February 17, 2016), 81 FR
9043 (February 23, 2016) (Notice of Filing of Partial Amendment No.
1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of File No. SR-FINRA-2015-
048).
    \5\ The Participants filed the Plan to comply with an order
issued by the Commission on June 24, 2014. See Letter from Brendon
J. Weiss, Vice President, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., to
Secretary, Commission, dated August 25, 2014 (``SRO Tick Size Plan
Proposal''). See Securities Exchange Act Release No 72460 (June 24,
2014), 79 FR 36840 (June 30, 2014); see also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 74892 (May 6, 2015), 80 FR 27513 (May 13, 2015).
    \6\ Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms have the
meaning ascribed to them in Rule 6191.
    \7\ On November 30, 2016, the SEC granted exemptive relief to
the Participants to, among other things, delay the publication of
Web site data pursuant to Appendices B and C to the Plan until
February 28, 2017, and to delay the ongoing Web site publication by
ninety days such that data would be published within 120 calendar
days following the end of the month. See Letter from David S.
Shillman, Associate Director, Division of Trading and Markets,
Commission, to Marcia E. Asquith, Senior Vice President and
Corporate Secretary, FINRA, dated November 30, 2016; see also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79424 (November 29, 2016), 81 FR
87603 (December 5, 2016) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of File No. SR-FINRA-2016-042).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing amendments to Rule 6191.12 to delay the date by
which Pre-Pilot and Pilot Appendix B data is to be made publicly
available on FINRA's Web site from February 28, 2017, until April 28,
2017.\8\ Appendix C data for the Pre-Pilot Period through the month of
January 2017 will be published on the FINRA Web site on February 28,
2017, and, thereafter, on the original 30-day schedule. Thus, FINRA is
proposing an amendment to Rule 6191(b)(4)(B) to provide that Appendix C
data will be published on the FINRA Web site within 30 calendar days,
rather than 120 calendar days, following month end at no charge and
that FINRA shall not identify the Market Makers that generated the data
or the individual securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In addition, FINRA is proposing an amendment to Rule
6191(a)(6)(B) to clarify that no member, irrespective of whether
that member operates a trading center, may execute orders in any
Pilot Security in Test Group Three in price increments other than
$0.05, unless an exception applies. This proposed amendment makes
the rule consistent with the Plan and conforms subparagraph
(a)(6)(B) with subparagraph (a)(5)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the SRO Tick Size Plan Proposal, the Participants stated that
the public data will be made available for free ``on a disaggregated
basis by trading center'' on the Web sites of the Participants and the
Designated Examining Authorities.\9\ However, market participants have
expressed confidentiality concerns regarding this approach for over-
the-counter (``OTC'') data.\10\ Thus, FINRA is filing the instant
proposed rule change to provide additional time to assess a means of
addressing the confidentiality concerns raised in connection with the
publication of Appendix B data related to OTC activity in furtherance
of the objectives of the Plan.\11\ Pursuant to this amendment, Appendix
B data publication will be delayed until April 28, 2017. FINRA
anticipates filing an additional proposed rule change in the near
future to address the data confidentiality issues raised regarding
Appendix B data publication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73511 (November 3,
2014), 79 FR 66423 (November 7, 2014) (Notice of Filing of Proposed
National Market System Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program
on a One-Year Pilot Basis, File No. 4-657) (``Tick Size Plan
Proposal'').
    \10\ See letters from Adam C. Cooper, Senior Managing Director
and Chief Legal Officer, Citadel Securities, to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Commission, dated December 21, 2016 (``Citadel letter'');
and William Hebert, Managing Director, Financial Information Forum,
to Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary, Commission, dated December
21, 2016 (``FIF letter'').
    \11\ FINRA also is submitting an exemptive request to the SEC in
connection with the instant filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. The operative date of the proposed rule change will be
the date of filing.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\12\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest, and Section 15A(b)(9) of

the Act,\13\ which requires that FINRA rules not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants,
and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions
on the liquidity and trading of the common stock of small-
capitalization companies. FINRA believes that this proposal is
consistent with the Act because it is in furtherance of the objectives
of Section VII(A) of the Plan in that it is designed to provide FINRA
with additional time to assess a means of addressing the
confidentiality concerns raised in connection with the publication of
Appendix B data, to comply with the Plan's requirements that the data
made publicly available will not identify the trading center that
generated the data.

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA notes that the proposed
rule change implements the provisions of the Plan.

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 from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19(b)-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. FINRA has filed the
proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness and has requested that
the Commission waive the requirement that the proposed rule change not
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing so that it
may become operative on February 28, 2017.
    FINRA notes that the proposed rule change is intended to address
confidentiality concerns raised in connection with the publication of
OTC Appendix B data by permitting FINRA to delay Web site publication
of Appendix B data from February 28, 2017 to April 28, 2017.\16\ FINRA
notes that the delay would provide it with additional time to assess
and file a proposed rule change to address the confidentiality
concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow FINRA to delay publication of Appendix B data
until April 28, 2017. As noted above, commenters continue to raise
concerns about the publication of OTC Appendix B data. The Commission
notes that FINRA has filed a proposed rule change that is intended to
mitigate confidentiality concerns raised by commenters regarding the
publication of Appendix B data.\17\ Delaying publication of Appendix B
data will provide the Commission and the public with time to consider
this proposed rule change. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the
30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be
operative on February 28, 2017.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See SR-FINRA-2017-006.
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2017-005 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2017-005. 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2017-005 and should be
submitted on or before April 4, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-04926 Filed 3-13-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 130 (Friday, July 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31585-31589]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14465]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83560; File No. SR-NYSE-2018-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Provide for the Listing of
Exchange Traded Products With No Component NMS Stock Listed on the
Exchange, Amend Its Rules Regarding Unlisted Trading Privileges, and
Make Corresponding Changes

June 29, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on June 15, 2018, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to to [sic] amend its rules to (1) provide
for the listing of exchange traded products (``ETPs'') that do not have
any component NMS Stock \4\ that is listed on the Exchange or that is
based on, or represents an interest in, an underlying index or
reference asset that includes an NMS Stock listed on the Exchange; (2)
delete certain redundant listing rules that would be superseded by
these initial and continued listing and trading requirements for the
listing of ETPs; and (3) make changes to its unlisted trading
privileges (``UTP'') Rule 5.1(a)(2), as well as certain supplementary
changes throughout Rules 5P and 8P, to conform to the rules of the
Exchange's affiliate, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National''). The
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NMS Stock is defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR
242.600(b)(47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to provide for the listing
of Exchange Traded Products (``ETPs'') that do not have any component
NMS Stock that is listed on the Exchange or that is based on, or
represents an interest in, an underlying index or reference asset that
includes an NMS Stock listed on the Exchange; (2) delete certain
redundant listing rules that would be superseded by these initial and
continued listing and trading requirements for the listing of ETPs; and
(3) make changes to its unlisted trading privileges (``UTP'') Rule
5.1(a)(2), as well as certain supplementary changes throughout Rules 5P
and 8P, to conform to the rules of the Exchange's affiliate, NYSE
National, Inc. (``NYSE National'').
Background
    Currently, the Exchange trades ETPs on an UTP basis only pursuant
to Rules 5P and 8P.\5\ In the NYSE ETP Listing Rules Filing, the
Exchange represented that Rules 5P and 8P would contain initial and
continued listing and trading requirements for ETPs, but that they
would apply only to the trading pursuant to UTP of ETPs on the
Exchange.\6\ Accordingly, the Exchange included preambles to both Rules
5P and 8P that provide that ``the provisions of this Rule [5P/8P] shall
apply to the trading pursuant to UTP of Exchange Traded Products on the
Exchange. This Rule [5P/8P] shall not apply to the listing of Exchange
Traded Products on the Exchange.'' Rule 5.1(a)(1), which was adopted in
the NYSE ETP Listing Rules Filing, further provides that ``the
provisions of Rules 5P and 8P that permit the listing of Exchange
Traded Products would not be effective until the Exchange files a
proposed rule change to amend its rules to comply with Rules 10A-3 and
10C-1 under the Exchange Act and to incorporate qualitative listing
criteria, and such proposed rule change is approved by the
Commission.'' Because Rules 5P and 8P were designed to support the
trading of ETPs on a UTP basis only, the Exchange did not change any of
its rules relating to the listing of ETPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80214 (March 10,
2017), 82 FR 14050 (March 16, 2017) (SR-NYSE-2016-44) (Approval
Order) (``NYSE ETP Listing Rules Filing''). In connection with the
Exchange's implementation of Pillar for Tape B and C securities,
NYSE filed several additional rule changes. See Securities Exchange
Act Release Nos. 76803 (December 30, 2015), 81 FR 536 (January 6,
2016) (SR-NYSE-2015-67) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change); 81225 (July 27, 2017), 82 FR
36033 (August 2, 2017) (SR-NYSE-2017-35) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change); and 82945 (March
26, 2018), 83 FR 13553 (March 29, 2018) (SR-NYSE-2017-36) (Approval
Order) (``NYSE Trading Rules Filing'').
    \6\ See id. NYSE ETP Listing Rules Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Changes To Provide for Listing of Certain ETPs
    The Exchange is proposing to list certain ETPs. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to list ETPs that meet the requirements of Rules 5P
and 8P, provided such ETPs do not have any component NMS Stock that is
listed on the Exchange or that is based on, or represents an interest
in, an underlying index or reference asset that includes an

NMS Stock listed on the Exchange.\7\ ETPs listed on the Exchange would
be a ``Tape A'' listing and would be traded pursuant to the rules
applicable to NYSE-listed securities. To allow the Exchange to list
these ETPs, the Exchange proposes the changes described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange's proposed rules for these products are
substantially identical (other than with certain non-substantive and
technical amendments) as the rules of NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca'') and the Exchange's other affiliates, for the qualification,
listing and trading of such products. See NYSE ETP Listing Rules
Filing, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To allow the listing of certain ETPs, the Exchange proposes to
delete the preambles to Rules 5P and 8P, which currently state that the
rules shall apply to the trading pursuant to UTP of ETPs only, and that
the Rules shall not apply to the listing of ETPs on the Exchange. By
deleting these preambles, the Exchange would be permitted to list ETPs
that meet the initial and continued listing requirements in these
Rules. Further, the Exchange proposes to add new preambles to Rules 5P
and 8P that would state that the Exchange would not list any ETPs under
either Rules 5P or 8P ``that have any component NMS Stock that is
listed on the Exchange or that is based on, or represents an interest
in, an underlying index or reference asset that includes an NMS Stock
listed on the Exchange.''
    In addition, because the Exchange proposes to list certain ETPs, it
proposes to add text to the preamble to Rules 1P-13P that provides that
Rules 5P and 8P, and related definitions in Rule 1P, would be
applicable to listing of ETPs on the Exchange.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 5.1(a)(1), which is the
Exchange's general rule that allows the Exchange to extend UTP to any
security that is an NMS Stock, as follows:
     First, the Exchange proposes to delete the following
clause: ``notwithstanding the requirements for listing set forth in the
Rules.'' This clause is no longer necessary because the Exchange is
proposing to list securities under Rule 5P.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The rules of other exchanges that list ETPs do not contain
such a clause. See, e.g., NYSE Arca Rule 5.1-E(a) and Nasdaq Stock
Market LLC Rule 5740.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Second, because ETPs listed on the Exchange would not be
traded on the Pillar platform at this time, the Exchange is proposing
to delete the reference to ``Pillar trading platform'' and replace it
with a reference to the ``Exchange.'' Accordingly, any security listed
or traded pursuant to UTP under Rule 5P would be subject to all
Exchange trading rules applicable to securities trading on the
Exchange.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange also proposes to delete the reference to Pillar
Platform in the title of these rules. As proposed, the title for
these rules would be ``Rules 1P-13P.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Third, the Exchange proposes to delete the sentence in
Rule 5.1(a)(1) that states that the Exchange may not list any ETPs.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to add the words ``Unlisted Trading
Privileges'' to the title of Rule 5.1, to better describe the
provisions in that rule.
Compliance With Rules 10A-3 and 10C-1 Under the Act
    Rule 5.1(a)(1) currently includes a clause that states that the
provisions of Rules 5P and 8P that permit the listing of Exchange
Traded Products would not be effective until the Exchange files a
proposed rule change to amend its rules to comply with Rules 10A-3 and
10C-1 under the Act and to incorporate qualitative listing criteria,
and such proposed rule change is approved by the Commission. These
Commission rules require exchanges to establish rules that require
their listed companies' audit and compensations committees meet
specified standards.
    The Exchange implemented the requirements of Rules 10A-3 and 10C-1
under the Act by adding Section 303A to the NYSE Listed Company Manual
(``LCM'').\10\ All NYSE-listed companies must comply with Section 303A,
including any ETPs listed on the Exchange. Consistent with the
requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Rules 10A-3 and 10C-
1 of the Act, Section 303A does not apply to some listed companies.\11\
The Commission found that Section 303A of the LCM was consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange.\12\ Accordingly, the Exchange is
proposing to delete the last sentence of Rule 5.1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NYSE Listed Company Manual, http://nysemanual.nyse.com/LCM/Sections/.
    \11\ See Rule 10C-1(b)(5) under the Act allows national
securities exchanges to exempt from the requirements of Rule 10C-1
certain categories of issuers, as the national securities exchange
determines is appropriate, taking into consideration, among other
relevant factors, the potential impact of such requirements on
smaller reporting issuers.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48745 (November 4,
2003), 68 FR 64154 (November 12, 2003) (SR-NYSE-2002-33).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deletion of Obsolete Listing Rules for ETPs
    The Exchange also proposes to delete certain listing rules that
would be superseded by the ETP listing and trading requirements in
Rules 5P and 8P.
    As discussed above, the Exchange is proposing today to list certain
ETPs under Rules 5P and 8P. In connection with this proposed change,
the Exchange is also proposing to delete certain ETP listing rules that
are not currently used. Because the Exchange only intends to list ETPs
under Rules 5P and 8P, it proposes to delete the following rules:
     Rule 414 (Index and Currency Warrants);
     Rule 1100 (Investment Company Units);
     Rules 1200-1202 (Trust Issued Receipts);
     Rules 1300-1301 (Gold Shares);
     Rules 1300A-1301A (Currency Trust Shares); and
     Rules 1300B-1301B (Commodity Trust Shares).
     LCM Section 703.15 (Foreign Currency Warrants and Currency
Index Warrants);
     LCM Section 703.16 (Investment Company Units);
     LCM Section 703.17 (Stock Index Warrants Listing
Standards);
     LCM Section 703.20 (Trust Issued Receipts);
     LCM Section 703.21 (Equity-Linked Debt Securities); and
     LCM Section 703.22 (Equity Index-Linked Securities,
Commodity-Linked Securities and Currency-Linked Securities).
    The Exchange is also proposing to make the following cross-
reference changes to the rules of the Exchange to correspond to the
above deletions:
     First, the Exchange proposes to amend cross-references in
Supplementary Material .30 to Rule 36 because the initial and continued
listing and trading standards and definitions for (1) Investment
Company Units would now be described in Rule 5.2(j)(3), not in Section
703.16 of the LCM and (2) Trust Issued Receipts would now be described
in Rule 8.200, not in Rule 1200. Therefore, in Supplementary Material
.30 to Rule 36, the Exchange is proposing to change the cross-reference
to Section 703.16 of the LCM to Rule 5.2(j)(3), and the cross-reference
to Rule 1200 to Rule 8.200.
     Second, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1400(2)(c) to
reflect the deletion of Section 703.21 of the LCM. Rule 1400(2)(c)
states that Debt Securities \13\ do not include securities

that, if listed on the Exchange, would have been listed under Section
703.21 of the LCM (Equity-Linked Debt Securities). Since the Exchange
is proposing to delete this section from the LCM, it is also proposing
to delete all cross-references to it in Rule 1400(2)(c). Further, to
account for the deletion of references to Section 703.21 of the LCM,
which pertains to equity-linked debt securities, the Exchange proposes
to clarify in Rule 1400(2)(c) that Debt Securities do not include
equity-linked debt securities listed under Rule 5P.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As used in Rule 1400, the term ``Debt Security'' or ``Debt
Securities'' means any unlisted note, bond, debenture or evidence of
indebtedness that is:
    (1) Statutorily exempt from the registration requirements of
Section 12(b) of the Act, or
    (2) eligible to be traded absent registration under Section
12(b) of the Act pursuant to the order granted by the Securities and
Exchange Commission in Exchange Act Release Number 34-54766
(November 16, 2006) (the ``2006 Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Third, for the avoidance of doubt, the Exchange is also
proposing to include the following introductory preamble language at
the beginning of Section 7 of the LCM, which pertains to Listing
Applications and currently includes the relevant ETP listing rules of
the manual that the Exchange is proposing to delete:
    ``See Exchange Rules 5P and 8P for the initial and continued
listing and trading requirements for Exchange Traded Products (as
defined in Rule 1.1(bbb)).'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Rule 1.1(bbb) defines the term ``Exchange Traded Product''
to mean a security that meets the definition of ``derivative
securities product'' in Rule 19b-4(e) under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and a ``UTP Exchange Traded Product to mean an Exchange
Traded Product that trades on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted
trading privileges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certain Changes To Conform Rules 5P and 8P to the Rules of NYSE
National
    To conform the Exchange's rules to that of its affiliate, NYSE
National,\15\ the Exchange is proposing to delete all of the references
in Rules 5P and 8P that would imply that the initial and continued
listing standards contained in Rules 5P and 8P may apply to the trading
pursuant to UTP of such ETPs. In the National Rule Filing, NYSE
National stated that it does not believe that it is necessary for an
exchange that trades securities on a UTP basis to have listing rules
for ETPs.\16\ Accordingly, the Exchange proposes that clauses in Rules
5P and 8P that would make the initial and continued listing standards
contained in such rules apply not only to the listing of such ETPs, but
also to the trading of such ETPs pursuant to UTP (such as the clause
``whether by listing or pursuant to unlisted trading privileges'' when
referencing that such rule would apply to the listing of the relevant
ETP or the trading pursuant to UTP of such ETP), be deleted. In
conjunction therewith, the Exchange proposes to include the words
``listing and'' before the word ``trading'' in each of the rules from
which such clauses are deleted, so as to clarify that the rules would
apply to the listing and trading of such relevant ETP on the Exchange
once that ETP is listed on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83289 (May 17,
2018), 83 FR 23968 (May 23, 2018) (SR-NYSENat-2018-02) (the ``NYSE
National Rule Filing'').
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, consistent with rules approved for NYSE National in
the NYSE National Rule Filing, the Exchange is proposing to delete Rule
5.1(a)(2)(A), which currently requires the Exchange to file with the
Commission a Form 19b-4(e) with respect to each UTP Exchange Traded
Product within five business days after commencement of trading.\17\ To
account for this deleted sub-paragraph, the Exchange is also proposing
to re-number each of the sub-paragraphs in Rule 5.1(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is unnecessary for an exchange to
apply initial and continued listing rules to ETPs it trades pursuant to
UTP. To the extent ETP listing rules include initial and continued
listing standards, the Exchange would not be in a position to evaluate
issuer compliance with such rules. Because the Exchange would not be in
a position to enforce any ETP listing rules, the Exchange does not
believe it is necessary to have such rules. Similarly, the Exchange
does not believe it is necessary for a non-listing venue to file a Form
19b-4(e) if it begins trading an ETP on a UTP basis. Rule 19b-4(e)(1)
under the Act refers to the ``listing and trading'' of a ``new
derivative securities product.'' \18\ The Exchange therefore believes
that the requirements of that rule refer to when an exchange lists and
trades an ETP, and not when an exchange seeks to trade such product on
a UTP basis pursuant to Rule 12f-2 under the Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.12f-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.1(a)(2)(D) to
conform to the comparable NYSE National rule. Both NYSE National's and
the Exchange's rules pertaining to trading halts are in Rule 7.18. Like
NYSE National, the Exchange proposes to halt trading in a UTP Exchange
Traded Product as provided for in Rule 7.18. Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes to delete the rule text in paragraph (D) of Rule 5.1(a)(2)
that is duplicative of trading halt authority in Rule 7.18. The
Exchange also proposes to add a cross reference stating that the
Exchange would halt trading in a UTP ETP as provided for in Rule
7.18.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Paragraph (D) of Rule 5.1(a)(2) would become paragraph (C)
when paragraph (A) to Rule 5.1(a)(2) is deleted, and all the sub-
paragraphs of Rule 5.1(a)(2) are re-numbered accordingly, as
described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Listing ETPs on the Exchange & Surveillance
    The Exchange represents that listed ETPs would be subject to the
existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange for ETPs
trading UTP, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') on behalf of the
Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and
applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange represents that these
procedures are adequate to properly monitor the Exchange's listing and
trading of ETPs in all trading sessions and to deter and detect
violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to
trading on the Exchange.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ FINRA conducts cross-market surveillances on behalf of the
Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement. The Exchange
is responsible for FINRA's performance under this regulatory
services agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting
securities trading outside their normal patterns which could be
indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such
situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and
investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of
relevant parties for relevant trading violations.
    The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will
communicate as needed regarding trading in ETPs, as well as certain
other securities and financial instruments underlying such ETPs, with
other markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket
Surveillance Group (``ISG''). The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the
Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in
ETPs and financial instruments from such markets and other entities. In
addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in
ETPs, as well as certain other securities and financial instruments
underlying such ETPs from markets and other entities that are members
of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive
surveillance sharing agreement (``CSSA'').
    Further, the Exchange's affiliate, NYSE Arca, currently lists ETPs
pursuant to rules that are substantially

identical to Rules 5P and 8P.\22\ NYSE Arca conducts initial and
continued listing reviews for ETPs listed on its exchange. The Exchange
represents that the initial and continued listing reviews of ETPs
listed on the Exchange will be conducted in the same manner as they are
on NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See NYSE ETP Listing Rules Filing, supra note 5. Rules 5P
and 8P are based on the rules of NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\23\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\24\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest by
providing for the listing of Exchange Traded Products, subject to
consistent and reasonable standards. Accordingly, the proposed rule
change would contribute to the protection of investors and the public
interest because it may provide a better listing and trading
environment for investors and, generally, encourage greater competition
between markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the above principles. By providing for the listing of ETPs, the
Exchange believes its proposal would lead to the addition of liquidity
to the broader market and to increased competition among the existing
group of liquidity providers. The Exchange also believes that, by so
doing, the proposed rule change would encourage the additional
utilization of, and interaction with, the exchange market, and provide
market participants with improved price discovery, increased liquidity,
more competitive quotes and greater price improvement for listed ETPs.
    The Exchange further believes that listing ETPs would help raise
investors' confidence in the fairness of the market, generally, and
their transactions in particular. As such, the listing of ETPs would
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating securities transactions, enhance the mechanism of a free
and open market, and promote fair and orderly markets in securities on
the Exchange.
    The proposal is also designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade by way of initial and continued listing standards
which, if not maintained, would result in the discontinuation of
trading in the affected products. These requirements, together with the
applicable Exchange trading rules (which apply to the proposed
products), ensure that no investor would have an unfair advantage over
another respecting the trading of the subject products. On the
contrary, all investors would have the same access to, and use of,
information concerning the specific products and trading in the
specific products, all to the benefit of public customers and the
marketplace as a whole.
    Furthermore, the proposal is designed to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system by adopting rules that would lead ultimately to the listing and
trading of new products on the Exchange. The proposed changes do
nothing more than match Exchange rules with what is currently available
on other exchanges for the listing of ETPs. The Exchange believes that
by allowing for listing opportunities on the Exchange that are already
allowed by rule on another market, the proposal would offer another
venue for listing ETPs and thereby promote broader competition among
exchanges. The Exchange believes that individuals and entities
permitted to list ETPs on the Exchange should enhance competition
within the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and customers and other investors in the national market system
should benefit from more depth and liquidity in the market for the
ETPs.
    The proposed change is not designed to address any competitive
issue, but rather to allow the Exchange to list ETPs. These rules are
identical to the rules of NYSE Arca (other than with respects to
certain non-substantive and technical amendments described above),
which currently lists ETPs on its exchange pursuant to these rules.
These proposed rules support competition by allowing for ETP listings
on the Exchange.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Since Rules 5P and 8P are
already adopted on the Exchange pursuant to approval from the
Commission, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to
allow for these rules to also apply to the listing of ETPs on the
Exchange, would have no impact on competition. To the contrary,
limiting Rules 5P and 8P to only apply to the trading pursuant to UTP
of ETPs, limits competition in that there are certain products that the
Exchange cannot list, while other exchanges, with identical listing
rules, can list such products. Thus, approval of the proposed rule
change would promote competition because it would allow the Exchange to
compete with other national securities exchanges for the listing and
trading of ETPs.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2018-30 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-NYSE-2018-30. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use

only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2018-30 and should be submitted on
or before July 27, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14465 Filed 7-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30306-30308]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12687]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75003; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-045]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Rule 6.53C and Complex Orders on the Hybrid System

May 20, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 12, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 6.53C, Complex Orders on the
Hybrid System, to give the Exchange the flexibility to distinguish
between Professional and non-Professional orders for the purposes of
determining eligibility for COA. The text of the proposed rule change
is provided below.
    (additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated

Rules

* * * * *

Rule 6.53C. Complex Orders on the Hybrid System

    (a)-(b) No change.
    (c) Complex Order Book
    (i) Routing of Complex orders: The Exchange will determine which
classes and which complex order origin [types] codes (i.e., non-broker-
dealer public customers that are not Voluntary Professional Customers
or Professional Customers, non-broker-dealer public customers that are
Voluntary Professional Customers or Professional Customers, broker-
dealers that are not Market-Makers or specialists on an options
exchange, and/or Market-Makers or specialists on an options exchange)
are eligible for entry into the COB and whether such complex orders can
route directly to the COB and/or from PAR to the COB. Complex orders
not eligible to route to COB (either directly or from PAR to COB) will
route to PAR or at the order entry firm's discretion to the order entry
firm's booth.
    (ii)-(iv) No change.
    (d) Process for Complex Order RFR Auction: Prior to routing to the
COB or once on PAR, eligible complex orders may be subject to an
automated request for responses (``RFR'') auction process.
    (i) For purposes of paragraph (d):
    (1) No Change.
    (2) A ``COA-eligible order'' means a complex order that, as
determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis, is eligible for a
COA considering the order's marketability (defined as a number of ticks
away from the current market), size, complex order type (as defined in
paragraphs (a) and (b) above) and complex order origin [types] codes
(as defined in subparagraph (c)(i) above). Complex orders processed
through a COA may be executed without consideration to prices of the
same complex orders that might be available on other exchanges.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange seeks to modify Rule 6.53C to allow the Exchange to
further distinguish between the complex order origin types \3\ that are
eligible for the Complex Order Book (``COB'') and the Complex Order
Auction (``COA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange notes that many CBOE rules use origin ``code''
in the same manner as origin ``type'' is used in Rule 6.53C(c). For
example, Rules 6.2B(a)(i), 6.13(b)(i), 6.13A(a), 6.14A(a), 6.74A.07,
6.74B.01, 24B.5A, and 24B.5B use origin ``code'' to distinguish
between public customer orders, non-Market Maker broker-dealer
orders, and Market Maker broker-dealer orders). This proposal seeks
to, among other things, amend Rule 6.53C(c) to use origin ``code''
instead of ``type'' in order to make the rules more consistent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Under CBOE rules, a ``public customer'' or ``customer'' is a person
or entity that is neither a member nor a broker/dealer. The terms are
used in specific CBOE rules that provide certain marketplace advantages
to public customer orders over non-customer orders (e.g., orders for
the account of members or broker/dealers). In particular, under CBOE
rules, subject to certain exceptions, (i) public customer orders are
given priority over non-customer orders and Market-Maker quotes at the
same price,\4\ and (ii) Trading Permit Holders are generally not
charged a transaction fee for the execution of public customer orders.
The purpose of providing these marketplace advantages to public
customer orders is to attract retail investor order flow to the
Exchange by leveling the playing field for retail investors over market
professionals \5\ and providing competitive pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., CBOE Rules 6.45, Priority of Bids and Offers--
Allocation of Trades, 6.45A, Priority and Allocation of Equity
Options Trades on the CBOE Hybrid System, and 6.45B, Priority and
Allocation of Trades in Index Options and Options on ETFs on the
CBOE Hybrid System.
    \5\ Market professionals have access to sophisticated trading
systems that contain functionality not available to retail
customers, including things such as continuously updated pricing
models based upon real-time streaming data, access to multiple
markets simultaneously, and order and risk management tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure that the above mentioned marketplace advantages for
public customers are protected, the Exchange adopted the terms
``Voluntary Professional'' and ``Professional'' (hereinafter
``Professional(s)'') in Rule 1.1(fff) and (ggg) respectively, which
provide that Professionals are not brokers or dealers but will be
treated in the same manner as brokers or dealers for purposes of many
CBOE rules (including, e.g., Rules 6.53C(c)(ii) and 6.53C(d)(v)).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-61198 (December
17, 2009), 74 FR 68880 (December 29, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-078) (order
approving proposed rule change as relating to professional orders).
A Professional is a person or entity that (i) is not a broker or
dealer in securities, and (ii) places more than 390 orders in listed
options per day on average during a calendar month for its own
beneficial account(s). A Voluntary Professional is any person or
entity that is not a broker or dealer that elects to be treated as a
Professional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    COA is a feature within CBOE's Hybrid System that exposes eligible
complex orders for price improvement. In classes where COA is
activated, eligible orders are electronically exposed for an exposure
period. During the applicable exposure period, the orders that are
subject to exposure are eligible to receive a better price. At the
conclusion of the COA process, as applicable, the order is then
allocated or, to the extent not executed, booked or routed as described
in the relevant rules.
    A ``COA-eligible order'' means a complex order that, as determined
by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis, is eligible for COA
considering the order's marketability (defined as a number of ticks
away from the current market), size, complex order type (as defined in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of Rule 6.53C and complex order origin types (as
defined in subparagraph (c)(i) of Rule 6.53C).\7\ Subparagraph (c)(i)
of Rule 6.53C indicates that complex order origin type means orders for
non-broker-dealer public customers, broker-dealers that are not Market-
Makers or specialists on an options exchange, and/or Market-Makers or
specialists on an options exchange.\8\ Non-broker-dealer public
customers include Professionals and non-professional customers. Under
the current COA eligibility parameters, there is no distinction between
Professionals and non-professional public customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rule 6.53C(d)(i)(2) (indicating that complex order
origin type is defined in Rule 6.53C(c)(i).
    \8\ See Rule 6.53C(c)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    Currently, Professionals are not given priority, but are allowed to
cancel and replace their orders as often as they wish without incurring
any cancellation fees. The issue with this current structure is that
each of the orders as well as the cancellations and replacements
generate a new COA. Yet, only a few of these orders actually execute in
the auction process. Rather, the result is an excess of auction
messages that are generated unnecessarily. The Exchange notes that a
disproportionate number of the COA messages in comparison to COA
executions result from Professionals. Therefore, in order to eliminate
the clutter of unnecessary Professional COA messages, as well as to
increase the likelihood of executions for public customers, the
Exchange is seeking the flexibility to disable COA functionality for
Professionals.
    In order to gain the flexibility to disable COA functionality for
Professionals, the Exchange seeks to amend Rule 6.53C(c)(i), which
defines the complex order origin types (hereinafter origin ``code'' as
the Exchange is also proposing to change origin ``type'' to origin
``code'' in order to adopt the manner in which origin ``code'' is used
in several other Exchange rules) \9\ that are eligible for COA. As
amended, the definition of a complex order origin code will be defined
as either: Non-broker-dealer public customers that are not Voluntary
Professional Customers or Professional Customers; non-broker-dealer
public customers that are Voluntary Professional Customers or
Professional Customers; broker-dealers that are not Market-Makers or
specialists on an options exchange; and/or Market-Makers or specialists
on an options exchange. The proposal would not, however, permit the
Exchange to discriminate among individual market participants of the
same origin code (e.g., permit certain Professional orders to the
exclusion of orders from a different Professional).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra, note 1 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing these changes because the Exchange
believes allowing Professionals to participate in COA can be
detrimental to non-professional public customer order flow and cause a
large amount of auctions to be processed without executions arising
from those auctions. This is because Professionals frequently cancel
and

replace their orders and prices as a means of attempting to quote with
their orders. The Exchange believes that Professionals should not be a
priority over non-professional public customer order flow, which is
why, the Exchange notes, there are separate CBOE rules for
Professionals in the first place.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rules 1.1 (fff) and (ggg).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change modifies the definition of a ``COA-eligible
order'' to give the Exchange the flexibility to distinguish between
complex orders from Professionals and complex orders from non-
professional public customer order flow. Any changes to the COA-
eligible order parameters would be announced via Regulatory Circular.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\11\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \12\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed change is in
accordance with the Act as it is merely intended to provide the
Exchange the flexibility to distinguish between Professionals and non-
professional public customer orders for the purposes of COA, which is
intended to benefit non-professional public customers by providing a
more efficient COA for eligible complex orders.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Although the Exchange
recognizes that the proposal will allow the Exchange to exclude
Professionals from COA, the current rules already allow the Exchange to
differentiate between order origin types (i.e., non-broker-dealer
public customer, broker-dealers that are not Market-Makers or
specialists on an options exchange, and/or Market-Makers or specialist
on an options exchange). The Exchange believes any perceived burden on
Professionals would be outweighed by the potential benefits to public
customers. In addition, the proposal would not permit the Exchange to
discriminate among individual market participants of the same origin
code (e.g., the proposal would not allow the Exchange to permit certain
Professional orders to the exclusion of orders from a different
Professional).\14\ The Exchange does not believe the proposed changes
will have any burden on intermarket competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra, note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-CBOE-2015-045 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-CBOE-2015-045. 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 offices 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-CBOE-2015-045,
and should be submitted on or before June 17, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12687 Filed 5-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 66)]
[Notices]
[Page 18602-18603]
[DOCID:fr04ap08-129]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No: FAA-2008-23639]

Deadline for Notification of Intent To Use the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) Sponsor, Cargo, and Nonprimary Entitlement
Funds for Fiscal Year 2008

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces June 1,
2008, as the deadline for each airport sponsor to notify the FAA
whether or not it will use its fiscal year 2008 entitlement funds
available under Public Law 110-190 to accomplish AIP-eligible projects
that the sponsor previously identified through the Airports Capital
Improvement Plan (ACIP) process during the preceding year. If a sponsor
does not declare their intention regarding the use of 2008 entitlement
funds by June 1, 2008, FAA will be unable to take the necessary actions
to designate these as ``protected'' carryover funds and these funds
would not be carried over if FAA spending authority from the Airport
and Airway Trust Fund is not extended beyond June 30, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Wayne Heibeck, Deputy Director,
Office of Airport Planning and Programming, APP-2, on<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 47105(f) of title 49, United States
Code, provides that the sponsor of each airport to which funds are
apportioned shall notify the Secretary by such time and in a form as
prescribed by the Secretary, of the sponsor's intent to apply for the
funds apportioned to it (entitlements). This notice applies only to
those airports that have had entitlement funds apportioned to them,
except those nonprimary airports located in designated Block Grant
States. Sponsors intending to apply for any of their available
entitlement funds, including those unused from prior years, shall
submit by June 1, 2008, a written indication to the designated Airports
District Office (or Regional Office in regions without Airports
District Offices) that they will advertise, bid, and submit an
application prior to June 10, 2008, or by the date established by the
designated Airport District or Regional Office.
    This notice is promulgated to expedite and prioritize the grant-
making process. In the past, the FAA has established a deadline of May
1 for an airport sponsor to declare that it will defer use of its
entitlement funding. Considering the AIP program has been extended for
only 9-months into the middle of a fiscal year, and uncertainty about
additional statutory action before the end of the fiscal year, the FAA
is establishing June 1 as the deadline for each airport sponsor to
notify the FAA whether or not it will use its fiscal year 2008
entitlement funds.
    Public Law 110-190, enacted on February 28, 2008, amended section
48103 of title 49, United States Code, to extend the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) for the 9-month period beginning October 1,
2007 and ending on June 30, 2008. This law enables the FAA to use a
portion of the AIP obligation authority made available under Public Law
110-161 (``Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008''). Although the AIP
grant authority available for FY2008 does not expire on June 30, 2008,
the FAA's expenditure authority from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund
will expire on June 30 in the absence of an additional statutory
extension. Therefore, to avoid the risk of not being able to carryover
funds should an additional extension not be enacted, AIP funds should
be obligated in FAA's accounting records on or before June 20.
Obligations must be made on or before June 20, rather than June 30
because the FAA's accounting systems will be taken off-line to perform
the end of the month closeout shortly after this date.
    Sponsors have three options available to them regarding AIP grants
during this 9-month period. First, sponsors may

elect to make an application for a grant based on entitlements
currently available to them. Sponsors that elect to take such a grant
must submit grant applications to the FAA no later than June 10, 2008,
in order to meet the June 20, 2008, obligation deadline. Second,
sponsors may elect to wait until after the June 1, 2008 notification
date for protection of carryover entitlements. However, if a sponsor
does not declare their intention regarding the use of 2008 entitlement
funds by the June 1 deadline, FAA will be unable to take the necessary
actions to designate these as ``protected'' carryover funds and these
funds would not be carried over if FAA's Trust Fund expenditure
authority is not extended beyond June 30, 2008. Third, sponsors may
elect to declare their intention to carryover the entitlements prior to
the June 1, 2008 deadline through sending an acceptable written
notification of such intention by June 1, 2008. FAA will then issue
discretionary grants in an aggregate amount not to exceed the aggregate
amount of deferred entitlement funds pursuant to the authority and
limitations in section 471 17(f). Airport sponsors may request their
unused carryover entitlements that have been deferred after September
30, 2008 as provided in current law.
    If a statutory extension beyond June 30th of FAA's authority to
make expenditures from the Trust Fund is enacted, and if additional AIP
contract authority for fiscal year 2008 is made available, and FAA is
therefore able to use the remaining obligation authority under Public
Law 110-161 through September 30, 2008, the deadline for each airport
sponsor to notify the FAA that it will use the remainder of its
entitlement funds will be July 9, 2008. Sponsors intending to apply for
any of their available entitlement funds, including those unused from
prior years, those previously apportioned pursuant to Public Law 110-
160, or those apportioned through a statutory extension for fiscal year
2008 entitlement funds shall submit by July 9, 2008, a written
indication to the designated Airports District Office (or Regional
Office in regions without Airports District Offices) that they will
advertise, bid, and submit an application prior to August 1, 2008, or
by the date established by the designated Airport District or Regional
Office.

    Issued in Washington, DC on March 28, 2008.
Wayne Heibeck
Deputy Director, FAA Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
 [FR Doc. E8-6943 Filed 4-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M