Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 1997 / Notices 63211

2Securities Exchange Act Release No. 33806

(March 23, 1994) 59 FR 15248 (Notice of Filing and

Immediate Effectiveness of file No. SR–CHX–94–

03); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 17766

(May 8, 1981) 46 FR 25745 (Order approving SR–

MSE–81–3 and SR–MSE–81–5); and Securities

Exchange Act Release No. 28638 (November 30,

1990) 55 FR 49731 (Order approving SR–MSE–90–

7).

3 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

5 17 CFR 240.19b–4(e). 6 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

floor member on the Exchange floor

with a resultant Exchange print.

Failure to clear the post may result in

a ‘‘trade-through’’ or ‘‘trading ahead’’ of

other floor interest. In addition, failure

to properly clear the post may result in

a violation of the Exchange’s Just and

Equitable Trade Principles Rile (Article

VIII, Rule 7) and a market maker rule

that requires all market maker

transactions to constitute a course of

dealing reasonably calculated to

contribute to the maintenance of a fair

and orderly market (Article XXXIV,

Rule 1). Failure to properly clear the

post may also subject the violator to a

minor rule violation under the

Exchange’s Minor Rule Violation Plan.

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 these statements may be examined at

the places specified in Item IV below.

The self-regulatory organization 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 purpose of the proposed rule

change is to codify the Exchange’s

existing clearing the post policies in the

CHX Guide. The clearing the post policy

will become an interpretation and

policy of CHX Article XX, Rule 10. The

Exchange’s clearing the post policies are

currently contained in several Notices to

Members which had been approved by

the Commission.2 These Notices to

Members, and their corresponding

Approval Orders explain the Exchange’s

clearing the post requirements. No

substantive change is being made to the

clearing the post policy at this time.

2. Statutory Basis

The proposed rule change is

consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the

Act 3 in that it is designed to prevent

fraudulent and manipulative acts and

practices and to perfect the mechanism

of a free and open market.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Exchange does not believe that

the proposed rule change will impose

any inappropriate burden on

competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants or Others

The Exchange has neither solicited

nor received written comments on the

proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

The foregoing rule change constitutes

a stated policy, practice or

interpretation with respect to the

meaning, administration, or

enforcement of an existing rule of the

Exchange pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A) 4 of the Act and

subparagraph (e) of Rule 19b–4 5

thereunder. At any time within 60 days

of the filing of such rule change, the

Commission may summarily abrogate

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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views and

arguments concerning the foregoing.

Persons making written submissions

should file six copies thereof with the

Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,

Washington D.C. 20549. Copies of the

submissions, 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. 522, will be

available for inspection and copying at

the Commission’s Public Reference

Section, 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of such

filing will also be available for

inspection and copying at the principal

office of the CHX. All submissions

should refer to File No. SR–CHX–97–30

and should be submitted by December

17, 1997.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.6

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–31017 Filed 11–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. 28895]

Airport Privatization Pilot Program:

Application Procedures

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of amendment to final

application procedures; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: Section 149 of the Federal

Aviation Authorization Act of 1996

establishes an airport privatization pilot

program, and authorizes the Department

of Transportation to grant exemptions

from certain Federal statutory and

regulatory requirements for up to five

airport privatization projects. On

September 16, 1997, the FAA issued a

notice of final procedures for

application for an exemption under the

program. The notice included a

provision that air carriers that submitted

a proposal for the private operation of

an airport but were unsuccessful would

not be counted as air carriers for the

purpose of the requirement that certain

aspects of the privatization application

be approved by 65 percent of the air

carriers at the airport. In this

amendment to the procedures, the FAA

is clarifying that the provision does not

apply retroactively to requests for

proposals issued prior to the issuance of

the FAA procedures on September 16,

1997. With respect to future requests for

proposals, the provision is suspended

until the FAA undertakes further public

process on this aspect of the procedures.

A separate provision of the procedures,

which states that an air carrier that is a

successful bidder on a privatization

proposal will not be considered an air

carrier under the 65 percent rule, is not

affected.
63212 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 1997 / Notices

DATES: This policy amendment is

effective on publication. Comments on

the issue are due January 12, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed, in quadruplicate, to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of Chief

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket (AGC–

200), Docket No. 28895, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591. All comments

must be marked: ‘‘Docket No. 28895.’’

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

must include a pre-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket No. 28895.’’ The postcard will be

date stamped and mailed to the

commenter. Comments on this Notice

may be examined in room 915G on

weekdays, except on Federal holidays,

between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m..

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Benedict D. Castellano Manager, (202–

267–8728) or Kevin C. Willis (202–267–

8741) Airport Safety and Compliance

Branch, AAS–310, Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence Ave.

SW., Washington, DC 20591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction and Background

This notice of amendment to

application procedures to be used by

applicants for an airport privatization

project and request for comments is

being published pursuant to § 149 of the

Federal Aviation Administration

Authorization Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.

104–264 (October 9, 1996) (1996

Reauthorization Act), which adds a new

§ 47134 to Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

Section 47134 authorizes the Secretary

of Transportation, and through

delegation, the FAA Administrator, to

exempt a sponsor of a public use airport

that has received Federal assistance,

from certain Federal requirements in

connection with the privatization of the

airport by sale or lease to a private

party. Specifically, the Administrator

may exempt the sponsor from all or part

of the requirements to use airport

revenues for airport-related purposes, to

pay back a portion of Federal grants

upon the sale of an airport, and to return

airport property deeded by the Federal

Government upon transfer of the airport.

The Administrator is also authorized to

exempt the private purchaser or lessee

from the requirement to use all airport

revenues for airport-related purposes, to

the extent necessary to permit the

purchaser or lessee to earn

compensation from the operations of the

airport.

On September 16, 1997, the FAA

issued a notice of procedures to be used

in applications for exemption under the

Airport Privatization Pilot Program (62

FR 48693). The FAA has identified one

issue in that notice that requires

clarification.

Specifically, 49 U.S.C.

§ 47134(b)(1)(i)(ii) limits the exemption

to permit the use of funds by the public

airport sponsor for non-airport

purposes, to amounts approved by 65

percent of the air carriers serving the

airport and 65 percent of the air carriers

by total landed weight of air carriers

from the preceding calendar year. The

same approval is required for increases

in air carrier fees that exceed the

increase in the Consumer Price Index. In

interpreting this requirement, the FAA

stated that the air carriers included in

the calculation of the 65 percent would

not include otherwise qualified air

carriers that submitted proposals or that

participate in consortia that submitted

proposals for the privatization of the

subject airport. This position was based

on the consideration that the vote of

such a carrier, whether or not it is the

successful proponent, could be based on

its interests as a proponent rather than

its interests as a user of the airport and

would not further the congressional

objective of the 65 percent approval

requirement.

On September 17, 1997, counsel for

several Allegheny County Airport Part

135 operators filed comments arguing

that the FAA had exceeded its authority

by disqualifying otherwise qualified air

carriers that submitted proposals or that

participate in consortia that submitted

proposals for the privatization of the

subject airport from exercising their

voting rights expressly granted in 49

U.S.C. Section 47134. The comments

requested that the FAA delete

provisions in question.

The comments argue that Congress

did not intend for air carriers to lose

their voting rights in the privatization

process. The statute provides no basis

for carrier exclusion or limitation other

than the creation of the two classes,

number serving the airport and

percentage of landed weight. The

comments further argue that the

disqualification provision was issued in

final notice without an opportunity for

public comment and review. As a result,

this provision violates the

Administrative Procedure Act.

Additionally, its application,

retroactively is unlawful and a denial of

due process. In the case of Part 135

operators at Allegheny County Airport,

the provision would exclude many of

the air carriers from exercising their

voting rights under the statute because

many of the air carriers responded to the

airport’s RFP without notice that doing

so would jeopardize their voting rights

under the statute.

After consideration of counsel’s

arguments, the FAA has decided to

amend its application procedures and

suspend the effectiveness of one

provision. First, air carrier exclusion

from the 65 percent approval rule based

upon participation as a bidder in the

privatization process will not be applied

retroactively, i.e., to a solicitation issued

before September 16, 1997, the date of

the final notice, on the basis that this

provision was not proposed for public

comment and review. To impose it

retroactively on carriers that

participated in a bidding process prior

to publication of the final procedures

would inappropriately exclude them

from exercising their voting rights

without the benefit of notice of the

adverse consequences of their

participation as a bidder. Second, the

FAA suspends indefinitely the

provision in Part VI Certification of Air

Carrier Approval (62 FR 48707)

excluding otherwise qualified air

carriers who submitted unsuccessful

proposals as a private operator from

participating in the voting process.

This provision was not proposed by

the FAA and was not suggested in the

Federal Register comment process.

Moreover, it is not obvious that an

unsuccessful bidder would give more

weight to its interests as an unsuccessful

bidder than its interests as an air carrier

in deciding how to cast its vote.

In contrast, the proposal to exclude

successful air carrier bidders from

participation in the voting process was

proposed in a comment in the Federal

Register process, and the September 17

comments do not oppose such an

exclusion. Moreover, the potential

conflict of interest for a successful

bidder is clear.

The FAA is suspending the provision,

rather than deleting it, because we

believe that the issue deserves further

public comment before a final decision

is made. We are therefore, providing a

45-day comment period to permit

interested persons to address

specifically the issue of whether

otherwise qualified air carriers should

be disqualified from participating in the

statutory voting process because of their

participation as unsuccessful bidders in

a privatization proposal.

Pending further action, the FAA will

exclude from the air carrier voting

process only otherwise qualified air

carriers that have been selected as the

private operator (either individually or

as a participant in a consortium) by the

public agency.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 1997 / Notices 63213

Issued in Washington, DC, on November

20, 1997.

Susan L. Kurland,

Associate Administrator for Airports.

[FR Doc. 97–31106 Filed 11–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

RTCA, Inc., Special Committee 186;

Automatic Dependent Surveillance—

Broadcast (ADS–B)

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L.

92–463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is

hereby given for Special Committee 186

meeting to be held December 15–19,

1997, starting at 9:00 a.m. on Monday,

December 15. The meeting will be held

at RTCA, Inc., 1140 Connecticut

Avenue, N.W., Suite 1020, Washington,

D.C. 20036.

The agenda will include: (1)

Chairman’s Introductory Remarks/

Review of Meeting Agenda; (2) Review

and Approval of Minutes of the

Previous Meeting; (3) Response to

SICASP Paper Concerning the Use of

ADS–B Information for Collision

Avoidance; (4) Editorial Committee

Report; (5) Review of work

accomplished during the meeting on

September 29–October 2, 1997, and

continuation of the ballot review and

approval of the ADS–B MASPS (Only

written comments will be considered);

(6) Other Business; (7) Date and Place of

Next Meeting. (At the conclusion of the

plenary meeting, the 1090 MHz MOPS

drafting group will meet for the

remainder of the week.)

Attendance is open to the interested

public but limited to space availability.

With the approval of the chairman,

members of the public may present oral

statements at the meeting. Persons

wishing to present statements or obtain

information should contact the RTCA

Secretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue,

N.W., Suite 1020, Washington, DC,

20036; (202) 833–9339 (phone); (202)

833–9434 (fax); or http://www.rtca.org

(web site). Members of the public may

present a written statement to the

committee at any time.

Issued in Washington, DC, on November

18, 1997.

Janice L. Peters,

Designated Official.

[FR Doc. 97–31076 Filed 11–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent to Rule on Application

(#98–04–C–00–MFR) to Impose and

Use the Revenue From a Passenger

Facility Charge (PFC) at Rogue Valley

International-Medford Airport,

Submitted by Jackson County,

Medford, Oregon

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on

application.

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and

invites public comment on the

application to impose and use PFC

revenue at Rogue Valley InternationalMedford Airport under the provisions of

49 U.S.C. 40117 and part 158 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

158).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before December 26, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: J. Wade Bryant, Manager;

Seattle Airports District Office, SEA–

ADO; Federal Aviation Administration;

1601 Lind Avenue SW, Suite 250;

Renton, WA 98055–4056.

In addition, one copy of any

comments submitted to the FAA must

be mailed or delivered to Mr. Bern E.

Case, A.A.E., Airport Director, at the

following address: 3650 Biddle Road,

Medford, OR 97504.

Air Carriers and foreign air carriers

may submit copies of written comments

previously provided to Rogue Valley

International-Medford Airport, under

section 158.23 of part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Mary E. Vargas, (425) 227–2660;

Seattle Airports District Office, SEA–

ADO; Federal Aviation Administration;

1601 Lind Avenue SW, Suite 250;

Renton, WA 98055–4056. The

application may be reviewed in person

at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

proposes to rule and invites public

comment on the application (#98–04–C–

00–MFR) to impose and use PFC

revenue at Rogue Valley InternationalMedford Airport, under the provisions

of 49 U.S.C. 40117 and part 158 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 158).

On November 19, 1997, the FAA

determined that the application to

impose and use the revenue from a PFC

submitted by Jackson County, Rogue

Valley International-Medford Airport,

Medford, Oregon, was substantially

complete within the requirements of

§ 158.25 of Part 158. The FAA will

approve or disapprove the application,

in whole or in part, no later than

February 17, 1998.

The following is a brief overview of

the application.

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00.

Proposed charge effective date: March

1, 1998.

Proposed charge expiration date:

March 1, 2001.

Total requested for use approval:

$1,540,000.00.

Brief description of proposed project:

Security fencing; Master plan update/

terminal area study; Jet blast fence; GA

parking apron immediately NW of main

terminal.

Class or classes of air carriers which

the public agency has requested not be

required to collect PFC’s: Air Taxi/

Commercial Operators when enplaning

revenue passengers in limited, irregular,

special service air taxi/commercial

operations such as air ambulance

services, student instruction, non-stop

sightseeing flights that begin and end at

the airport and are conducted within 25

mile radius of the airport.

Any person may inspect the

application in person at the FAA office

listed above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA

Regional Airports Office located at:

Federal Aviation Administration,

Northwest Mountain Region, Airports

Division, ANM–600, 1601 Lind Avenue

S.W., Suite 540, Renton, WA 98055–

4056.

In addition, any person may, upon

request, inspect the application, notice

and other documents germane to the

application in person at the Rogue

Valley International-Medford Airport.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

November 19, 1997.

George K. Saito,

Acting Manager, Planning, Programming and

Capacity Branch, Northwest Mountain

Region.

[FR Doc. 97–31077 Filed 11–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Application

(#98–01–C–00–SGU) To Impose a

Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) and

Use the Revenue From a PFC at St.

George Municipal Airport, Submitted

by the City of St. George, St. George,

Utah

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.