[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19133-19135]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09017]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85744; File No. SR-BOX-2019-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee
Schedule on the BOX Options Market LLC (``BOX'') Facility To Modify Its
Strategy QOO Order Fee Cap and Rebate

April 29, 2019.
    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 April 17, 2019, BOX Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The

Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule on
the BOX Options Market LLC (``BOX'') options facility. While changes to
the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon
filing, the changes will become operative on May 1, 2019. The text of
the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the
Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the
Exchange's internet website at http://boxexchange.com.

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 the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX
to amend Section II.D (Strategy QOO Order Fee Cap and Rebate).
Currently, the Exchange caps fees and offers rebates on all dividend,
short stock interest, reversal, conversion, jelly roll, and box spread
strategies on the BOX Trading Floor. The Exchange is now proposing to
cap fees and offer a Floor Broker rebate for merger strategy
transactions.
    A ``merger strategy'' is defined as a transaction done to achieve a
merger arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise of options
of the same class and expiration date, each executed prior to the date
on which shareholders of record are required to elect their respective
form of consideration, i.e., cash or stock. The Exchange proposes to
include this definition in a footnote in the BOX Fee Schedule along
with the other definitions of the strategies in Section II.D.
    The Exchange proposes to offer a strategy cap for merger
strategies. Today, Floor Participant transactions are capped at $1,000
for all short stock interest, reversal, conversion, jelly roll, and box
spread strategies executed on the same trading day.\5\ The Exchange
proposes to include merger strategies in the daily Strategy QOO Order
Fee Cap and Rebate. As such, Floor Participant transactions will also
be capped at $1,000 for all merger strategies executed on the same
trading day. Further, the Exchange proposes to include merger
strategies in the Floor Broker Strategy QOO Rebate. As proposed, on
each trading day, Floor Brokers are eligible to receive a $500 rebate
for presenting certain Strategy QOO Orders on the Trading Floor. The
rebate will be applied once the $1,000 fee cap for all dividend, short
stock interest, reversal, merger, conversion, jelly roll, and box
spread strategies is met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Short stock interest, reversal, conversion, jelly roll and
box spread transactions are not included in the monthly fee cap for
Broker Dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the fee cap discussed herein exists at
another options exchange in the industry.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Cboe Exchange Inc. (``Cboe'') Fee Schedule Footnote 13.
At Cboe, market-maker, Clearing Trading Permit Holder, JBO
participant, broker-dealer and non-Trading Permit Holder market-
maker transaction fees are capped at $1,000 for all merger
strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that including merger strategies in Section
II.D of the BOX Fee Schedule is reasonable, as another exchange offers
fee caps for merger strategies, namely Cboe.\8\ Moreover, the Exchange
believes the proposed fees are reasonable in comparison because BOX's
fee cap for merger strategies is identical to Cboe's fee cap. Further,
the Exchange believes that including merger strategies in the Strategy
QOO Order rebate is appropriate as Floor Brokers are eligible to
receive a $500 rebate for presenting all other strategies to the BOX
Trading Floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee cap for merger
strategies is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it
provides incentives for all Participants to submit these types of
strategy orders to the BOX Trading Floor, which brings increased
liquidity and order flow to the floor for the benefit of all market
participants. Further, the Exchange believes that including merger
strategies in the Strategy QOO Order rebate is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory as the rebate is available to all Floor Brokers
who submit such orders to the BOX Trading Floor.

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 because the proposed change
applies uniformly to all Participants that incur transaction fees for
merger strategies. Further, another options exchange today offer [sic]
caps on merger strategies; therefore, the Exchange believes that the
proposal is consistent with robust competition and does not provide any
unnecessary burden on competition. Further, because Floor Participants
pay Floor Brokers to execute trades on the Exchange floor, the Exchange
believes that offering fee caps on merger strategies to Participants
executing floor transactions and not electronic executions does not
create an unnecessary burden on competition because the fee cap defrays
brokerage costs associated with executing merger strategy transactions,
similar to other strategies today.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can easily and readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or rebates to be inadequate. Accordingly, the fee cap and
Floor Broker rebate for short stock interest [sic] strategies proposed
by the Exchange, as described in the proposal, are influenced by these
robust market forces and therefore must remain competitive with fee
caps at other venues and therefore must continue to be reasonable and
equitably allocated to those Participants that opt to direct orders to
the Exchange rather than competing venues.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\10\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further 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-BOX-2019-14 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-BOX-2019-14. 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 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. 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-BOX-2019-14, and should be submitted on
or before May 24, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-09017 Filed 5-2-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 120)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 35093-35095]
[DOCID:fr20jn08-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0646; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-359-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Boeing Model 727 airplanes. This proposed AD would require
performing an operational test of the engine fuel suction feed of the
fuel system, and other related testing if necessary. This proposed AD
results from a report of in-service occurrences of loss of fuel system
suction feed capability, followed by total loss of pressure of the fuel
feed system. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct failure of
the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, which could result in
multi-engine flameout, inability to restart the engines, and consequent
forced landing of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 4, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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 service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6438; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0646;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-359-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received a report of in-service occurrences of loss of fuel
system suction feed capability, followed by total loss of pressure of
the fuel feed system. This report prompted us to review the service
history of all Boeing airplane models, and we found instances of loose
and leaking fuel line fittings. This condition, if not corrected, could
result in multi-engine flameout, inability to restart the engines, and
consequent forced landing of the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 727-28-80, dated June 21,
1985. The service bulletin describes procedures for performing an
operational test of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system,
and other related testing if necessary. The other related testing
includes doing a vacuum test on the applicable engine for leakage if an
engine's N1, N2, or fuel-flow parameters deteriorate during the test.
If any leakage is found the corrective actions include inspecting and
repairing or replacing any leaking Gamah fittings with new fittings,
and inspecting and repairing any major welded tube assemblies that are
leaking.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we have evaluated all pertinent
information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist
or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this
reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the
actions specified in the service information described previously,
except as discussed under ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and
Service Information.''

Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Information

    The service bulletin recommends accomplishing the initial
operational test ``at the next regularly scheduled C-check following
accumulation of 20,000 total flight hours or seven years age,'' we have
determined that this imprecise compliance time would not address the
identified unsafe condition in a timely manner. In developing an
appropriate compliance time for this AD, we considered not only the
manufacturer's recommendation, but the degree of urgency associated
with addressing the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization
of the affected fleet, and the time necessary to perform the
modifications. In light of all of these factors, we find a compliance
time of 7,000 flight hours for completing the required actions to be
warranted, in that it represents an appropriate interval of time for
affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety.
This difference has been coordinated with Boeing.
    Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin
specifies that operators may accomplish the other specified actions (a
vacuum test of the fuel feed system) using an operator's equivalent
procedure (with substitute test equipment). However, this proposed AD
would require operators to accomplish the actions using the procedures
specified in Figure 4 of the service bulletin. An ``operator's
equivalent procedure'' may be used only if approved as an alternative
method of compliance according to paragraph (h) of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 709 airplanes of
U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take 1 work-hour per
product, per test, to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor
rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of this proposed AD to the U.S. operators to be $56,720, or $80 per
product, per test.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications

under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2008-0646; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
359-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by August 4, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-
100C, 727-200, and 727-200F series airplanes, certificated in any
category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report of in-service occurrences of
loss of fuel system suction feed capability, followed by total loss
of pressure of the fuel feed system. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct failure of the engine fuel suction feed of the
fuel system, which could result in multi-engine flameout, inability
to restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of the
airplane.

Compliance

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

Operational Test/Other Specified Actions

    (f) Within 7,000 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD, perform an operational test of the engine fuel suction feed of
the fuel system, and perform all other related testing, as
applicable, before further flight, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-28-80,
dated June 21, 1985. Repeat the operational test thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 7,000 flight hours.

Operator's Equivalent Procedure

    (g) If any discrepancy is found, and Boeing Service Bulletin
727-28-80, dated June 21, 1985, specifies that certain actions
(i.e., a vacuum test of the fuel feed system) may be accomplished
using an operator's ``equivalent procedure'' (with substitute test
equipment): The actions must be accomplished in accordance with
Figure 4 of the service bulletin.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, ATTN: Sue Lucier,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle ACO,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6438; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 9, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-13920 Filed 6-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48733-48737]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20880]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 240

[Release No. 34-84225; File No. S7-21-18]
RIN 3235-AM47

Amendment to Single Issuer Exemption for Broker-Dealers

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is proposing an amendment to the exemption
provisions in the broker-dealer annual reporting rule under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''). The amendment would
provide that a broker-dealer is not required to engage an independent
public accountant to certify the broker-dealer's annual reports if,
among other things, the securities business of the broker-dealer has
been limited to acting as broker (agent) for a single issuer in
soliciting subscriptions for securities of that issuer.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before October 29, 2018.

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number S7-21-18 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-21-18. 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 website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml). Comments are also available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All comments received will be posted without
change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that the Commission
does not redact or edit personal identifying

information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make publicly available.
    Studies, memoranda, or other substantive items may be added by the
Commission or staff to the comment file during this rulemaking. A
notification of the inclusion in the comment file of any such materials
will be made available on the Commission's website. To ensure direct
electronic receipt of such notifications, sign up through the ``Stay
Connected'' option at www.sec.gov to receive notifications by email.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael A. Macchiaroli, Associate
Director, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; Thomas K. McGowan, Associate Director, at
(202) 551-5521; Randall W. Roy, Deputy Associate Director, at (202)
551-5522; Timothy C. Fox, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Rose
Russo Wells, Senior Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Financial
Responsibility, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-7010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Most broker-dealers registered with the Commission must file annual
reports with the Commission.\1\ The annual reports must include a
financial report and either a compliance report or an exemption
report.\2\ In addition, the annual reports generally must include
reports prepared by an independent public accountant covering the
financial report and, as applicable, the compliance or exemption
report.\3\ The independent public accountant must be registered with
the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (``PCAOB'') if required
by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.\4\ In addition, the accountant's
reports must be prepared in accordance with standards of the PCAOB.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(a)(1); 15 U.S.C. 78q(e)(1)(A); 17 CFR 240.17a-
5(d). See also 17 CFR 240.17a-5(d)(1)(iii) and (iv) (setting forth
the limited circumstances under which the annual reports need not be
filed).
    \2\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-5(d)(1). The financial report must
include a statement of financial condition, a statement of income, a
statement of cash flows, a statement of changes in stockholders' or
partners' or sole proprietor's equity, a statement of changes in
liabilities subordinated to claims of general creditors, and certain
supporting schedules. 17 CFR 240.17a-5(d)(2). A broker-dealer that
does not claim it was exempt from 17 CFR 240.15c3-3 (``Rule 15c3-
3'') throughout the most recent fiscal year must file the compliance
report, and a broker-dealer that does claim it was exempt from Rule
15c3-3 throughout the most recent fiscal year must file the
exemption report. 17 CFR 240.17a-5(d)(1)(i)(B)(1) and (2). The
compliance report must contain statements about the broker-dealer's
internal controls over, and compliance with, certain financial
responsibility rules. 17 CFR 240.17a-5(d)(3). The exemption report
must contain statements about the broker-dealer's exemption from
Rule 15c3-3. 17 CFR 240.17a-5(d)(4).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.17a-5(d)(1)(i)(C).
    \4\ Public Law 107-204, 116 Stat. 745 (2002). See 17 CFR
240.17a-5(f)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.17a-5(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, a broker-dealer is not required to engage an independent
public accountant to provide the accountant's reports if, since the
date of the registration of the broker-dealer with the Commission or of
the previous annual reports filed with the Commission, the securities
business of the broker-dealer ``has been limited to acting as broker
(agent) for the issuer in soliciting subscriptions for securities of
the issuer, the broker has promptly transmitted to the issuer all funds
and promptly delivered to the subscriber all securities received in
connection with the transaction, and the broker has not otherwise held
funds or securities for or owed money or securities to customers[.]''
\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17a-5(e)(1)(i)(A) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission first adopted the exemption in 1957.\7\ At that
time, the pertinent rule text provided that the exemption was available
to a broker-dealer if ``his or its securities business has been limited
to acting as broker (agent) for the issuer in soliciting subscriptions
for securities of such issuer, said broker has promptly transmitted to
such issuer all funds . . .'' \8\ The Commission stated in the adopting
release that the ``exemption is available to a broker who, from the
date of his previous report, has limited his securities business to
soliciting subscriptions as an agent for issuers, has transmitted funds
and securities promptly and has not otherwise held funds or securities
for or owed money or securities to customers (i.e. one who would have
been exempt during that entire period from the Commission's aggregate-
indebtedness-net-capital Sec.  240.15c3-1 (Rule 15c3-1) by reason of
paragraph (b)(1) thereof).'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Registration of Brokers and Dealers; Preservation of
Records and Reports of Certain Stabilizing Activities, 22 FR 6492
(Aug. 14, 1957).
    \8\ Id. at 6493.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1975, as part of a set of comprehensive amendments to broker-
dealer reporting rules, the Commission amended the text of the
exemption to provide, in pertinent part, that the exemption was
available if ``the securities business of such broker or dealer has
been limited to acting as broker (agent) for the issuer in soliciting
subscriptions for securities of such issuer . . .''.\10\ The Commission
did not explain the purpose of the amendment. In 1977, the Commission
again amended the text of the exemption to modify the phrase ``has been
limited to acting as broker (agent) for the issuer'' to ``has been
limited to acting as broker (agent) for an issuer.'' \11\ Although the
Commission did not explain the purpose of the amendment in the adopting
release, the Commission later clarified that the exemption applies only
to a broker-dealer acting as an agent for a single issuer.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Announcement of the Adoption of the FOCUS Report, a
Program to Streamline the Financial and Operational Reporting of
Brokers and Dealers, Including Amendments to Rule 17a-4, Rule 17a-5
and Related Form X-17a-5, Rule 17a-10 and Related Form X-17a-10,
Rule 17a-11 and Related Form X-17a-11, and Rule 17a-20 and Related
Form X-17a-20 Under the Securities Exchange Act Of 1934, and the
Approval of Plans Submitted Pursuant to Rule 17a-5, Rule 17a-10 and
Rule 17a-20, Exchange Act Release No. 11935, Dec. 17, 1975, 40 FR
59706 (Dec. 30, 1975). See also Proposal to Adopt the FOCUS Report,
a Program to Streamline the Financial and Operational Reporting of
Brokers and Dealers, Including Amendments to Rule 17a-4, Rule 17a-5
and Related Form X-17a-5, Rule 17a-10 and Related Form X-17a-10,
Rule17a-11 and Related Form X-17a-11, and Rule 17a-20 and Related
Form X-17a-20 Under the Securities Exchange Act Of 1934, Exchange
Act Release No. 11748 (Oct. 16, 1975), 40 FR 51060 (Nov. 3, 1975).
    \11\ See FOCUS Reporting System, Exchange Act Release No. 13462
(Apr. 22, 1977), 42 FR 23786, 23788 (May 10, 1977) (emphasis added).
    \12\ See In the Matter of the Application of First Nevada
Securities., Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 30774, at n.6 (June 4,
1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the 1977 amendment was published in the Federal Register, an
error was made when printing the amended rules in the Code of Federal
Regulations. In particular, the Code of Federal Regulations continued
to describe the exemption as limited to a broker that acts as an agent
``for the issuer.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., In the Matter of the Application of Sharemaster,
Exchange Act Release No. 83138 (Apr. 30, 2018) (``Sharemaster'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in 2013, the exemption provision was amended again, but
solely to modernize certain terms in the rule text.\14\ However, in
making these amendments, the release used the rule text as then
published in the Code of Federal Regulations and, therefore,
inadvertently re-introduced the language of the exemption as it existed
prior to 1977 (i.e., amended the exemption provision to provide that
the exemption applied if the broker solicited subscriptions for ``the
issuer'' rather than ``an issuer''). Today, the Commission is proposing
an amendment to correct that error and to

clarify that the exemption applies to a broker-dealer whose securities
business has been limited to acting as broker (agent) for a single
issuer in soliciting subscriptions for securities of that issuer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Broker-Dealer Reports, Exchange Act Release No. 70073
(Jul. 30, 2013), 78 FR 51910, 51943 (Aug. 21, 2013). For example,
the amendment replaced the phrase ``such broker or dealer'' with
``the broker or dealer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Amendment to Rule 17a-5

    Section 17(e)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act, among other things,
requires a registered broker-dealer to file certain audited financial
statements annually with the Commission.\15\ Section 17(e)(1)(C) of the
Exchange Act provides that the Commission may exempt any registered
broker-dealer from any provision of Section 17(e)(1) ``if the
Commission determines that the exemption is consistent with the public
interest and the protection of investors.'' \16\ The Commission adopted
Rule 17a-5 under the Exchange Act (``Rule 17a-5''), in part, under
these provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 15 U.S.C. 78q(e)(1)(A).
    \16\ See 15 U.S.C. 78q(e)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is proposing to amend the exemption provision in
paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17a-5 to clarify in the rule text that
the exemption is limited to a broker-dealer that acts as an agent for a
single issuer. Specifically, the Commission is proposing to replace the
phrase ``has been limited to acting as broker (agent) for the issuer in
soliciting subscriptions for securities of the issuer'' with the phrase
``has been limited to acting as broker (agent) for a single issuer in
soliciting subscriptions for securities of that issuer.''
    Broker-dealers serve an important capital formation role by
performing numerous services. These services include, among others,
underwriting securities issuances, facilitating purchases and sales of
securities on behalf of customers, making markets in securities,
participating in private placements of securities, and providing
investment research and recommendations. The annual reports broker-
dealers file with the Commission are used by the Commission and the
broker-dealer's designated examining authority to monitor the financial
and operational condition of the broker-dealer. The annual reports also
are one of the primary means of monitoring compliance with the
Commission's broker-dealer financial responsibility rules. The
requirement that the annual reports be certified by an independent
public accountant is intended to enhance the reliability of the
information filed by the broker-dealer, including information relevant
to its financial condition and ability to continue as a going concern.
This also benefits investors who are customers or potential customers
of the broker-dealer and who do not have access to the same level of
information about the financial condition and operations of the broker-
dealer as the independent public accountant performing the audit. These
investors rely on the independent public accountant to audit this
information, which--as noted above--is relevant to the broker-dealer's
financial condition and ability to continue as a going concern.
    This very limited exemption to the requirement that a broker-
dealer's annual reports be certified by an independent public
accountant is consistent with the objectives of the rule. In
particular, the exemption applies when the broker-dealer's sole reason
for being registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer is to act
as an agent to solicit subscriptions for the securities of a single
issuer--typically an affiliate of the broker-dealer.\17\ In this case,
the issuer is the broker-dealer's only customer. Due to this special
relationship, the issuer likely has the ability to access sufficient
information about the financial condition and operations of the broker-
dealer to make an informed decision about continuing to use the broker-
dealer to effect transactions in its securities.\18\ Therefore,
requiring that an independent public accountant audit this information
would not provide the single customer of the broker-dealer (i.e., the
issuer) a meaningful benefit. The risk of harm from not requiring that
an independent public accountant audit the information would be
mitigated by the single customer's ability to access any necessary
information regarding the broker-dealer's operational and financial
condition, as noted above. Moreover, any harm would be limited to the
broker-dealer's single customer. Further, based on the annual reports
broker-dealers filed with the Commission, it appears that only three
broker-dealers have relied on the exemption in the past year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See also 17 CFR 240.3a4-1 (which provides a limited safe
harbor from the requirement to register as a broker-dealer for
certain associated persons of an issuer that participate in the sale
of the securities of the issuer under certain enumerated
conditions).
    \18\ See Sharemaster at 10 (``It is the limited nature of the
business of a broker that solicits subscriptions for a single issuer
and the relationship between the broker and that issuer, such as
when the broker is engaged only in underwriting the issues of its
parent that renders an audit requirement on the broker-dealer
unnecessary.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Request for Comment

    The Commission generally requests comment on all aspects of the
proposal. This request for comment is limited to the proposed rule
amendment; the Commission is not requesting comment on any other aspect
of Rule 17a-5.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed rule amendment would clarify the scope of an existing
exemption available to certain broker-dealers from the requirement to
engage an independent public accountant to provide the reports required
under paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C) of Rule 17a-5.\19\ The proposed rule
amendment does not create any new, or revise any existing, collection
of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\20\
Accordingly, no information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-5(d)(1)(i)(C).
    \20\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission requests comment on the assertion that the proposed
rule amendment will not create any new, or revise any existing,
collection of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

V. Economic Analysis

    The Commission is mindful of the costs imposed by, and the benefits
obtained from, its rules. Whenever the Commission engages in rulemaking
and is required to consider or determine whether an action is necessary
or appropriate in the public interest, Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act
requires the Commission to consider whether the action would promote
efficiency, competition, and capital formation, in addition to the
protection of investors. Further, when engaged in rulemaking under the
Exchange Act, Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act requires the
Commission to consider the impact such rules would have on competition.
Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act also prohibits the Commission from
adopting any rule that would impose a burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange
Act. The following analysis considers the potential economic effects
that may result from the proposed rule amendment, including the
benefits and costs to market participants as well as the broader
implications of the proposal for efficiency, competition, and capital
formation.
    As noted above, broker-dealers serve an important role in capital
formation by performing numerous services, including with respect to
the

distribution of securities. Broker-dealer annual reports are one of the
primary means of monitoring compliance with the Commission's broker-
dealer financial responsibility rules, and the requirement that the
annual reports be certified by an independent public accountant is
intended to help enhance the reliability of the information filed by
the broker-dealer. The exemption in paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17a-
5 is designed to streamline regulatory compliance for certain broker-
dealers by permitting broker-dealers that underwrite offerings by a
single issuer--typically an affiliate of the broker-dealer--to do so
without needing to meet this requirement.
    With respect to the baseline, broker-dealers rarely rely on the
very limited exemption in paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17a-5. Staff
analysis of annual reports filed by broker-dealers revealed that only
three broker-dealers--out of approximately 4,000 registered with the
Commission--relied on the exemption in the last year. The low level of
use suggests that broker-dealers generally do not avail themselves of
the existing exemption to compete with one another or to improve the
efficiency of their underwriting activities.
    The Commission recognizes the value of requiring that broker-dealer
annual reports be certified by an independent public accountant.
However, when a broker-dealer is acting solely as an agent for a single
issuer's securities, typically an affiliate, the issuer is likely to
have sufficient information about the broker-dealer's financial and
operational condition. In that case, there would be minimal benefit in
a requirement that the broker-dealer-dealer's annual reports be
certified by an independent public accountant. At the same time, a
broker-dealer required to obtain certification for its annual reports
could bear significant costs to do so.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ According to one broker-dealer, the requirement for an
audit prepared by a PCAOB-registered accountant was $2,800 in 2010.
See Sharemaster, at n. 4. Adjusting this amount for inflation yields
approximately $3,200 in 2018 (inflation calculator available at
https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In cases where a broker-dealer is acting solely as an agent for a
single unaffiliated issuer, the benefits of certification are likely to
be higher because the larger degree of information asymmetry between
the broker-dealer and the unaffiliated issuer makes third-party
certification more valuable. The Commission believes the likelihood of
such a narrow arrangement between a broker-dealer and a single
unaffiliated issuer is low because for such a broker-dealer, the costs
of certification are likely lower than the expected benefits from
acting as an agent for additional unaffiliated issuers.
    The Commission expects the amendment to benefit issuers that rely
on broker-dealers to underwrite securities offerings by providing
increased regulatory certainty about a broker-dealer's obligation to
have its annual reports certified by an independent public accountant
when the broker-dealer acts as an agent for multiple issuers. This will
benefit issuers by helping ensure that broker-dealers do not
inappropriately rely on the exemption in paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of Rule
17a-5. When the broker-dealer is not acting solely as an agent for a
single affiliate's securities, the benefits of certification are likely
to be more substantial because the issuers are less likely to have
sufficient information about the broker-dealer's financial condition.
    The Commission acknowledges that, to the extent this proposal
limits use of the exemption, broker-dealers that would no longer be
able to use the exemption in the future could bear costs as a result of
the proposed amendment. For such a broker-dealer, the Commission
believes the cost of a small broker-dealer obtaining certification of
its annual reports by an independent public accountant in accordance
with paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C) of Rule 17a-5 could be approximately $3,200
per year.\22\ Based on the low reliance on the exemption currently, and
the expectation that the number of broker-dealers relying on the
exemption will not materially increase or decrease as a result of the
amendment, the overall economic impact of the proposal is likely to be
small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission expects the proposed amendment to have only a
marginal impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. This
assessment is primarily based on the belief that the amendment does not
revise the scope of the exemption or change current practice and that
the exemption is claimed by only a few broker-dealers. The Commission
nevertheless acknowledges that the proposed amendment may marginally
impair capital formation if it prompts broker-dealers to reduce
underwriting activity or to increase the price of underwriting
activities for potential issuers.
    The Commission considered several alternatives in terms of the
scope of the exemption. First, the Commission considered broadening the
scope of the exemption to include broker-dealers whose securities
business is limited to acting as an agent for multiple issuers. Staff
analysis of information provided by broker-dealers indicates that a
substantial number of registered broker-dealers underwrite corporate
securities or are selling group participants for corporate securities
and may otherwise be eligible to take advantage of the exemption if its
scope were broadened in this way.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Commission staff analysis of Form BD data indicates that
971 registered broker-dealers reported engaging in, or expecting to
engage in, the underwriting of securities at the end of 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17a-5 provides only two exemptions from the requirement that
broker-dealer annual reports be certified by an independent public
accountant.\24\ The Commission has provided for only these very limited
exemptions from the requirement that annual reports of broker-dealers
be audited due to the importance of reliable financial and operational
information concerning registered broker-dealers for investor
protection and the integrity of the capital markets. Broadening the
exemption could benefit broker-dealers by no longer requiring them to
engage independent public accountants when they act as an agent for
multiple issuers in soliciting subscriptions for securities and thereby
reducing their costs. However, an alternative that broadens these
exceptions could impose costs on issuers to the extent that making the
certification by the independent public accountant voluntary for
broker-dealers that serve multiple issuers reduces the reliability of
these broker-dealers' annual reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ One exemption is the ``single issuer'' exemption provided
for in paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17a-5. The other exemption is
contained in paragraph (e)(1)(i)(B) of Rule 17a-5. The second
exemption applies to broker-dealers whose securities business is
``limited to buying and selling evidences of indebtedness secured by
mortgage, deed of trust, or other lien upon real estate or leasehold
interests, and the broker or dealer has not carried any margin
account, credit balance, or security for any securities customer.''
Staff analysis of annual reports filed by broker-dealers revealed
that only one broker-dealer claimed this exemption in the last year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the significance of the verification of a broker-dealer's
financial and operational information by an independent public
accountant, the Commission is not proposing to broaden the scope of the
exemption to include broker-dealers whose securities business is
limited to acting as an agent for multiple issuers. When a broker-
dealer acts as an agent on behalf of an issuer, the financial condition
of the broker-dealer is important to the issuer because if a broker-
dealer is financially constrained, it may be less able to bear the
risks associated with underwriting

activities, such as holding securities in inventory. If a broker-dealer
acts as an agent on behalf of multiple issuers, its financial condition
is important to capital formation for multiple issuers, and so the
benefits of certification are likely higher for the broker-dealer.
Moreover, the Commission notes that the benefits to broker-dealers from
such an alternative may be limited by competitive effects, because an
issuer that is concerned about the reliability of a broker-dealer's
financial statements may choose to hire a broker-dealer with certified
annual reports to act as its agent.
    Second, the Commission considered eliminating the exemption. While
the Commission is mindful of the significance of broker-dealer audits,
as explained above, the Commission believes that the cost of this
alternative to broker-dealers who are now eligible to take advantage of
the exemption does not justify the benefits that would accrue to the
broker-dealer's single customer, typically an affiliate of the broker-
dealer, as a result of an audit. Therefore, the Commission
preliminarily believes the exemption should continue to be available
only where a broker-dealer is acting as an agent for a single issuer in
soliciting subscriptions for securities of that issuer.
    Finally, the Commission considered further specifying that the
limited exemption in paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17a-5 would apply
only if the broker-dealer were engaged in underwriting the securities
of an affiliate. While this alternative would narrow the limited
exemption, based on its observation of broker-dealers' use of this
exemption to date, the Commission does not believe the benefits yielded
by narrowing the exemption would be substantial.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    Section 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the
Commission to undertake an initial regulatory flexibility analysis of
the impact of the proposed rule on small entities unless the Commission
certifies that the amendments, if adopted, would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As discussed
above, the proposed rule would not change the status quo in terms of
the broker-dealers that would or would not qualify for the exemption
from paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C) of Rule 17a-5.\25\ For additional
discussion of the impact of the proposal (including on small entities),
please see section V above. The Commission hereby certifies, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the proposed amendment to Rule 17a-5, if
adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-5(d)(1)(i)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission encourages written comments regarding this
certification. The Commission solicits comment as to whether the
proposed amendments could have an effect that the Commission has not
considered and requests that commenters describe the nature of any
impact on small entities and provide empirical data to support the
extent of the impact.

VII. Consideration of Impact on the Economy

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996,\26\ a rule is ``major'' if it has resulted, or is likely
to result, in:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
     a major increase in costs or prices for consumers or
individual industries; or
     significant adverse effects on competition, investment, or
innovation.
    The Commission requests comment on the potential impact of the
proposed rule on the economy on an annual basis. The Commission
requests that commenters provide empirical data and other factual
support for their views.

VIII. Statutory Authority

    The Commission is proposing an amendment to Rule 17a-5 under the
Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.17a-5) pursuant to the authority conferred by
Exchange Act Sections 17(e)(1)(A), 17(e)(1)(C), and 36.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(e)(1)(A); 15 U.S.C. 78q(e)(1)(C); 15 U.S.C.
78mm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 240

    Brokers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

Text of Proposed Rules

    In accordance with the foregoing, the Commission proposes that
Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulation be amended as
follows.

PART 240--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934

0
1. The authority citation for Part 240 continues to read in part as
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3,
77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78c-3, 78c-5, 78d, 78e, 78f,
78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78n-1, 78o, 78o-4,
78o-10, 78p, 78q, 78q-1, 78s, 78u-5, 78w, 78x, 78ll, 78mm, 80a-20,
80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-11, 7201 et seq.; and
8302; 7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(E); 12 U.S.C. 5221(e)(3); 18 U.S.C. 1350; and
Pub. L. 111-203, 939A, 124 Stat. 1887 (2010); and secs. 503 and 602,
Pub. L. 112-106, 126 Stat. 326 (2012), unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
2. Amend Sec.  240.17a-5 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows.

Sec.  240.17a-5  Reports to be made by certain brokers and dealers.

* * * * *
    (e) Nature and form of reports.
    (1)(i) The broker or dealer is not required to engage an
independent public accountant to provide the reports required under
paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C) of this section if, since the date of the
registration of the broker or dealer under section 15 of the Act (15
U.S.C. 78o) or of the previous annual reports filed under paragraph (d)
of this section:
    (A) The securities business of the broker or dealer has been
limited to acting as broker (agent) for a single issuer in soliciting
subscriptions for securities of that issuer, the broker has promptly
transmitted to the issuer all funds and promptly delivered to the
subscriber all securities received in connection with the transaction,
and the broker has not otherwise held funds or securities for or owed
money or securities to customers; or
* * * * *

    By the Commission.

    Dated: September 20, 2018.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-20880 Filed 9-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 16709]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05548]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property
at the Dona Ana County International Jetport, Santa Teresa, New Mexico

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the
release of land at the Dona Ana County International Jetport under the
provisions of Section 23 of the Airport and Airway development Act of
1970.

DATES: Comments must be received April 19, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Mr. Justin Barker, Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division,
Louisiana/New Mexico Airports Development Office, ASW-640, Fort Worth,
Texas, 76177.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. William Provance, Airport Director, at the
following address: 8014 Airport Road, Santa Teresa, New Mexico 88008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Heidi Higginbotham, Program
Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Louisiana/New Mexico Airports
Development Office, ASW-640, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas
76177, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email: [email protected],
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Dona Ana County International Jetport
under the provisions of Section 23 of the Airport and Airway
development Act of 1970.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The County of Dona Ana requests the release of 5.68 acres of land
requested which consists of two parcels of vacant land with a combined
land area. Parcel #1 contains 4.645-acres and is triangular with
frontage along Airport Road. Parcel #2 contains 1.035-acres and is
triangular, north of Airport Road in Santa Teresa, New Mexico. The land
was acquired by Deed conveyed to the city from the United States of
America Bureau of Land Management Section 23 of the Airport and Airway
development Act of 1970. The land proposed for release will be swapped
for 12.027 acres by Paseo Del Norte, LLC. The property to be released
will ultimately be sold to Franklin Mountain for the development of a
logistics park. The benefit to civil aviation has long-term impacts
from the logistics park with plans to construct an air cargo handling
facility.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application,
notice and other documents relevant to the application in person at the
Dona Ana County Legal/Risk Department, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 6, 2023.
Ignacio Flores,
Director, Office of Airports Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 2023-05548 Filed 3-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16484-16485]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07441]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9992-03-OW]

Notice of Availability of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group Draft Supplemental Restoration
Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Lake Charles Science Center
and Educational Complex Project Modification

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability; request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: On July 20, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a Notice of Availability of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group (Louisiana TIG) Final
Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment #2: Provide and Enhance
Recreational Opportunities (Final RP/EA #2). The Louisiana TIG is
considering modifications to the original Lake Charles Science Center
and Educational Complex (Lake Charles SCEC) project described in the
Final RP/EA #2. The modifications being considered include collocating
the Lake Charles SCEC with the Lake Charles Children's Museum (LCCM) as
part of the shared Port Wonder facility on the north shore of Lake
Charles. In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) and the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the federal and state natural
resource trustee agencies for the Louisiana TIG prepared a Draft
Supplemental Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Lake
Charles SCEC Project Modification (Draft Supplemental RP/EA). The Draft
Supplemental RP/EA evaluates modifications to the Lake Charles SCEC
project and alternatives considered by the Louisiana TIG under criteria
set forth in the OPA Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA)
regulations and evaluates their environmental effects in accordance
with the NEPA. The modifications under consideration to the Lake
Charles SCEC project are consistent with the restoration alternatives
selected in the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Final Programmatic Damage
Assessment and Restoration Plan/Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (PDARP/PEIS). The purpose of this notice is to inform the
public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental RP/EA and to seek
public comment on the document.

DATES: The Louisiana TIG will consider public comments received on or
before May 20, 2019.
    Public Meeting: The Louisiana TIG will also take verbal comments at
a public meeting that will be held at the Lake Charles Civic Center,
Contraband Room, on May 8, 2019; Open House 5:30 p.m., Meeting 6:00
p.m.; 900 Lakeshore Drive, Lake Charles, LA 70601.

ADDRESSES: Obtaining Documents: You may download the Draft Supplemental
RP/EA at any of the following sites:

 http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov
 http://www.la-dwh.com

    Alternatively, you may request a CD of the Draft Supplemental RP/EA
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may also view the document
at any of the public facilities listed at http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov.
    Submitting Comments: You may submit comments on the Draft
Supplemental RP/EA by one of the following methods:

 Via the Web: http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/restoration-areas/louisiana
 Via U.S. Mail: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 29649,
Atlanta, GA 30345
 In Person: Verbal comments may be provided at the public
meeting on May 8, 2019

    Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
Louisiana TIG may publish any comment received on the document. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The Louisiana TIG will generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the
web, cloud, or other file sharing system). Please be aware that your
entire comment, including your personally identifiable information,
will become part of the public record. Please note that mailed comments
must be postmarked on or before the comment deadline of 30 days
following publication of this notice to be considered.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Louisiana--Joann Hicks,<PHONE_NUMBER>
 EPA--Tim Landers,<PHONE_NUMBER>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    On April 20, 2010, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater
Horizon, which was being used to drill a well for BP Exploration and
Production, Inc. (BP), in the Macondo prospect (Mississippi Canyon 252-
MC252), experienced a significant explosion, fire, and subsequent
sinking in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in an unprecedented volume of
oil and other discharges from the rig and from the wellhead on the
seabed. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is the largest off shore oil
spill in U.S. history, discharging millions of barrels of oil over a
period of 87 days.
    The Trustees conducted the natural resource damage assessment for
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33
United States Code 2701 et seq.). Under the OPA, federal and state
agencies act as trustees on behalf of the public to assess natural
resource injuries and losses and to determine the actions required to
compensate the public for those injuries and losses. The OPA further
instructs the designated trustees to develop and implement a plan for
the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the
equivalent of the injured natural resources under their trusteeship,
including the loss of use and services from those resources from the
time of injury until the time of restoration to baseline (the resource
quality and conditions that would exist if the spill had not occurred)
is complete.
    The Deepwater Horizon oil spill Trustees are:
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
     U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), as represented by
the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau
of Land Management;
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), on
behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce;
     U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA);

     State of Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration
Authority (CPRA), Oil Spill Coordinator's Office (LOSCO), Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQ), Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
(LDWF), and Department of Natural Resources (LDNR);
     State of Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality;
     State of Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources and Geological Survey of Alabama;
     State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection
and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; and
     State of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, General Land
Office, and Commission on Environmental Quality.
    On April 4, 2016, the Trustees reached and finalized a settlement
of their natural resource damage claims with BP in a Consent Decree
approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana. Pursuant to that Consent Decree, restoration projects in
the Louisiana Restoration Area are now chosen and managed by the
Louisiana TIG. The Louisiana TIG is composed of the following Trustees:
CPRA, LOSCO, LDEQ, LDWF, LDNR, EPA, DOI, NOAA, USDA.

Background

    The original scope and design of the Lake Charles SCEC project were
evaluated in the Final RP/EA #2, which was published on July 20, 2018.
As proposed in the Final RP/EA #2, the Lake Charles SCEC project would
enhance recreational opportunities by providing indoor and outdoor
public visitation and outreach components, including fisheries
extension, access, outreach, and education to the public. Following
release of the Final RP/EA #2, the City of Lake Charles requested that
the Louisiana TIG consider collocating the Lake Charles SCEC with the
City's planned LCCM. The Louisiana TIG prepared the Draft Supplemental
RP/EA to evaluate modifications to the Lake Charles SCEC project and
consider alternatives, consistent with the purpose and need of the
original project. Alternatives considered in the Draft Supplemental RP/
EA include the collocation of the Lake Charles SCEC and LCCM with
variations of indoor and outdoor components to support recreational and
educational opportunities. The Louisiana TIG prepared the Draft
Supplemental RP/EA to inform the public about potential modifications
to the Lake Charles SCEC project and to seek public comment.

Next Steps

    The public is encouraged to review and comment on the Draft
Supplemental RP/EA. A public meeting is scheduled to also help
facilitate the public review and comment process. A summary of comments
received on the Draft Supplemental RP/EA and the Louisiana TIG's
responses, where applicable, will be included in the Final Supplemental
RP/EA. Public comments on the Draft Supplemental RP/EA will inform the
Louisiana TIG's decision on whether to select the Lake Charles SCEC
project, as modified, in the Final Supplemental RP/EA.

Administrative Record

    The documents comprising the Administrative Record for the Draft
Supplemental RP/EA can be viewed electronically at https://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/adminrecord.

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33
U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), its implementing NRDA regulations found at 15 CFR
part 990, and the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

    Dated: April 2, 2019.
Benita Best-Wong,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2019-07441 Filed 4-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 9, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 73224-73225]
[DOCID:fr09de05-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

December 1, 2005.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER02-2550-002.
    Applicants: Tenaska-Oxy Power Services, L.P.
    Description: Tenaska-Oxy Power Services, LP submits revised
replacement page 2 to the 11/08/05 Triennial Updated Market Analysis.
    Filed Date: 11/22/2005
    Accession Number: 20051125-0173.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. eastern time on Tuesday, December 13, 2005

    Docket Numbers: ER05-128-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy South Bay, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy South Bay, LLC submits in compliance of
FERC's 5/06/05 Order a Refund Report.
    Filed Date: 11/21/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051121-5135.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. eastern time on Monday, December 12, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1165-002.
    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: Compliance Refund Report of South Carolina Electric
and Gas Co in compliance to Commission 10/21/05 Order.
    Filed Date: 11/22/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051125-0172.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. eastern time on Tuesday, December 13, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1165-003.
    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: South Carolina Electric and Gas Co submits the Relay
Equipment Agreement l with the City of Orangeburg, SC Department of
Public Utilities to comply with FERC's Order 614.
    Filed Date: 11/22/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051125-0181.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. eastern time on Tuesday, December 13, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1276-001.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Southern Company Services, Inc on behalf of Alabama
Power Co's responds to FERC's request for additional information on the
Revision No. 10 to Rate Schedule MUN-1 of FERC Electric Tariff,
Original Volume No.1.
    Filed Date: 11/22/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051129-0041.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. eastern time on Tuesday, December 13, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-148-000.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company.
    Description: Virginia Electric and Power Co's notice of withdrawal
of its 11/2/05 Reactive Power Revenue Requirement Filing and request to
terminate proceeding.
    Filed Date: 11/15/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051117-0132.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. eastern time on Tuesday, December 08, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-184-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
and American Transmission Company LLC, submit an amended filing to the
11/9/05 filing of the notice of cancellation for the Stratford Water
and Electric Utility Service Agreement Nos. 49 & 50.
    Filed Date: 11/22/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051129-0135.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. eastern time on Tuesday, December 13, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-234-000.
    Applicants: Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch.
    Description: Deutsche Bank AG, acting through its London Branch
submits an application for market-based rate authority, for order
accepting initial rate schedule for filing, waiving regulations, &
granting blanket approvals.
    Filed Date: 11/22/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051125-0111.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. eastern time on Tuesday, December 13, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-236-000; ER06-237-000; ER06-238-000; ER06-239-
000; ER06-240-000; ER06-241-000; ER06-242-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation; Idaho Power Company; NorthWestern
Corporation; PacifiCorp; Portland General Electric Company; Puget Sound
Energy, Inc.; Sierra Pacific Power Company.
    Description: Northwest Power Pool with seven jurisdictional members
submit FERC Rate Schedule No. 55 for Reserve Energy Service.
    Filed Date: 11/22/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051125-0169.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. eastern time on Tuesday, December 13, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-243-000.
    Applicants: Direct Electric, Inc.
    Description: Direct Electric, Inc submits notice of cancellation of
Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 effective 11/14/05.
    Filed Date: 11/22/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051129-0040.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. eastern time on Tuesday, December 13, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER98-511-005; ER97-4345-017; EL05-107-000.
    Applicants: Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company and OGE Energy
Resources, Inc.
    Description: Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co & OGE Energy Resources, Inc
inform that they will adopt FERC's default rate mechanism for sales of
one week or less & will load the sink in OG&E control area pursuant to
FERC's 6/7/05 Order.
    Filed Date: 08/08/2005.
    Accession Number: 20050811-0004.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. eastern time on Thursday, December 22,
2005.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other and the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(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. E5-7088 Filed 12-8-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P