64242 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 1997 / Notices

9 In approving this rule proposal, the Commission

notes that it has also considered the proposed rule’s

impact on efficiency, competition, and capital

formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

11 17 CFR 300.30(a)(12).

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 62 FR 46787 (September 4, 1997).

3See letter from Steven Alan Bennett, Senior Vice

President and General Counsel, BankOne, to Mr.

Jonathan Katz, Secretary, SEC, dated September 25,

1997 (‘‘BankOne Letter’’); and letter from James E.

Buck, Senior Vice President and Secretary New

York Stock Exchange to Mr. Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary, SEC, dated September 29, 1997 (‘‘NYSE

Letter’’).

4However, with the approval of Amendment No.

2 to the proposal, exchange-listed securities that are

included in the ITS/Computer Assisted Execution

System (‘‘CAES’’) linkage are not subject to the

NASD’s rule regarding permissible uses of

computer-generated quote systems.

5Quotations and quotation sizes in reported

securities may be entered into the Consolidated

Quotations Service (‘‘CQS’’) through The Nasdaq

Stock Market only by an Association member

registered with it as a CQS market maker. See

NASD Rule 6320.

6See NASD IM–4613. Specifically, these three

forms are: (1) Quotation updates in response to an

execution in the security by that firm (such as

execution of an order that partially fills a market

maker’s quotation size); (2) quotation updates that

In addition to Nasdaq’s expanded

authority to initiate operational trading

halts, the proposed rule change will

expand Nasdaq’s authority to initiate

regulatory trading halts when it learns

of regulatory concerns (either through a

regulatory trading halt by another

market or incomplete or inaccurate

disclosure from the issuer). The

Commission believes that Nasdaq’s

expanded authority will help prevent

fraudulent practices and protect

investors.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the

Commission finds that the proposed

rule change is consistent with the

Exchange Act and the rules and

regulations thereunder applicable to the

NASD and, in particular, Sections

15A(b)(6) and 15A(b)(11).9

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act 10

that the proposed rule change (SR–

NASD–97–60) be, and hereby is,

approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.11

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–31753 Filed 12–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–39367; File No. SR–NASD–

97–53]

Self-Regulatory Organizations;

National Association of Securities

Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving

Proposed Rule Change and Notice of

Filing and Order Granting Accelerated

Approval of Amendment No. 2 to

Proposed Rule Change Relating to

Trading in Exchange-Listed Securities

in the Third Market

November 26, 1997.

I. Introduction

On July 28, 1997, the National

Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.

(‘‘NASD’’ or ‘‘Association’’), through its

wholly-owned subsidiary, The Nasdaq

Stock Market, Inc. (‘‘Nasdaq’’), filed

with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’)

a proposed rule change pursuant to

Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Exchange

Act’’).1 The proposed rule change

relating to automated quotations in

exchange-listed securities in the third

market, including Amendment No. 1,

was published for comment in

Securities Exchange Act Release No.

38985 (August 27, 1997).2 Two

comment letters were received on the

proposal.3 On October 10, 1997, the

NASD filed Amendment No. 2, prepared

by Nasdaq, which deferred the proposal

for permissible uses of automated

quotations with respect to exchangelisted securities included in the

Intermarket Trading System (‘‘ITS’’). For

the reasons discussed below, the

Commission is approving the proposed

rule change and granting accelerated

approval to Amendment No. 2.

II. Description of the Proposal

The NASD’s proposal included

changes to several rules governing the

trading in exchange-listed securities in

the over-the-counter market, the socalled ‘‘third market.’’ Specifically, the

NASD proposedl to amend rules of the

NASD to: (1) Codify permissible uses of

computer-generated quote systems with

respect to exchange-listed securities;4

(2) eliminate the excess spread rule for

market makers in exchange-listed

securities; (3) reduce the minimum

quotation size applicable to market

makers in exchange-listed securities to

one unit of trading (i.e., 100 shares),

regardless of whether the CQS market

maker 5 is displaying a customer’s limit

order or quoting for its own proprietary

account; (4) extend exemptive

provisions of the NASD’s limit order

protection rule applicable to Nasdaqlisted securities (the ‘‘Manning Rule’’) to

exchange-listed securities; and (5)

reduce from 1000 to 100 the number of

shares that CAES will execute

automatically.

a. Permissibility of the Use of Certain

Automated Quotation Generation

Systems

The plan governing the ITS Plan

currently provides that exchange

specialists and CQS market makers may

use ‘‘automated quotation tracking

systems,’’ provided that the quotations

generated by such systems are for 100

shares or less (‘‘100-Share Autoquoting

Limitation’’). Despite the ITS plan’s

allowance of 100-share autoquotes, the

NASD currently prohibits CQS market

makers from using autoquote systems to

effect automated quote updates or to

track the inside market. In addition, the

NASD currently requires CQS market

makers to maintain a minimum

quotation size of 500 shares, with the

exception of displaying a customer limit

order, which also effectively prohibits

CQS market makers from autoquoting.

The NASD’s proposal explicitly

accommodates computer-generated

quotations that add value to the market

and do not raise quotation accessibility

concerns or compromise the capacity or

integrity of Nasdaq. Specifically, the

proposed rule change amends NASD

Rule 6330 to permit computer-generated

quotations in exchange-listed securities

that generate proprietary quotes for 100

shares or more if such quote systems

equal or improve either or both sides of

the NBBO. For example, if a CQS market

maker utilized a computer-generated

quotation program to match the best

offer (bid) and the market responsible to

the best offer (bid) subsequently

increased (decreased) its offer (bid)

price, the CQS market maker could not

use the program to track such inferior

price. Thus, if the best offer is 201⁄4, a

CQS market maker could use the

program to improve its offer to 201⁄4. If

the market responsible for the 201⁄4 offer

moved to 203⁄8, however, the CQS

market maker could not use the program

to move its offer to 203⁄8.

In addition, the proposed rule change

amends Rule 6330 to permit computergenerated quotations that add size to the

NBBO, or are used to expose a

customer’s market or marketable limit

order for price improvement

opportunities. These uses would be in

addition to three other forms of

computer-enhanced quotation

maintenance programs referenced in the

NASD’s Autoquote Policy which are

also being incorporated into Rule 6330

with respect to exchange-listed

securities.6 With the exception of these
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 1997 / Notices 64243

require a physical entry (such as manual entry to

the market maker’s internal system which then

automatically forwards the update to Nasdaq); and

(3) quotation updates that reflect the receipt,

execution, or cancellation of a customer limit order.

7See Exchange Act Release No. 37663, September

10, 1996 (61 FR 48725) (order approving File No.

SR–NASD–96–26).

8See 17 CFR 240.11Ac1–1.

9 Institutional limit orders are orders for

institutional accounts. NASD Rule 3110(c) defines

an institutional account as an account for: (1)

Banks, savings and loan associations, insurance

companies, or registered investment companies; (2)

investment advisers registered under Section 203 of

the Investment Advisers Act of 1940; and (3) any

other entity (whether a natural person, corporation,

partnership, trust, or otherwise) with total assets of

at least $50 million.

10See Exchange Act Release No. 37619A

(September 6, 1996), 61 FR 48290 (September 12,

1996) (‘‘Adopting Release’’) adopting the Limit

Order Display Rule and amendments to the Quote

Rule (collectively the ‘‘Order Execution Rules’’).

11Rule 11Ac1–1(a)(25).

12See Rule 11Ac1–1(a)(13).

13See Rule 11Ac1–1(a)(10) which defines

‘‘exchange-traded security’’ to mean any covered

security or class of covered securities listed and

registered, or admitted to unlisted trading

privileges, on an exchange; provided, however, that

securities not listed on any exchange that are traded

pursuant to unlisted trading privileges are

excluded.

14The 1% Rule, prior to being expanded in the

Order Execution Rules, applied only to 19c–3

securities. Exchange Act Rule 19c–3 prohibits the

application of off-board trading restrictions to

securities that: (1) Were not traded on an exchange

on or before April 26, 1979; or (2) were traded on

an exchange on April 26, 1979, but ceased to be

traded on an exchange for any period of time

thereafter. Accordingly, exchange-traded securities

not subject to off-board trading restrictions are

referred to as Rule 19c-3 securities, and exchangetraded securities subject to off-board trading

restrictions are referred to as non-Rule 19c-3

securities. The 1% Rule was expanded to include

all exchange-listed securities, both Rule 19c-3 and

non-Rule 19c-3.

15See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.

38110 (January 2, 1997), 62 FR 1279 (January 9,

1997); 38490 (April 9, 1997), 62 FR 18514 (April 16,

1997); and 38870 (July 24, 1997), 62 FR 40732 (July

30, 1997). Therefore, until September 30, 1997, OTC

market makers were only obligated to publicly

disseminate quotations when they were responsible

for 1% or more of the trading volume in a 19c-3

security.

types of computer-generated quotation

and maintenance systems, all other

types of computer-generated quotations

would continue to be prohibited. Thus,

market makers could not use computergenerated quotations to track away from

the inside market (‘‘autoquoting away’’).

b. Elimination of the Excess Spread Rule

The NASD also proposed to enhance

the quotation flexibility of CQS market

makers by eliminating the excess spread

rule for CQS securities. The NASD

determined that the potential adverse

competitive consequences on highly

automated CQS market making firms

who are prohibited from autoquoting

away could be minimized if the excess

spread rule was eliminated.

Specifically, by eliminating the excess

spread rule for CQS securities, the

NASD believes that CQS market makers

will have more flexibility in quoting,

Nasdaq capacity will not be needlessly

consumed by processing voluminous

quote updates autoquoting away from

the market, and the competitiveness of

the third market will not be

compromised.

c. Changes to the Minimum Quote Size

Rule for CQS Market Makers

In an environment where investors

are able to directly impact quoted prices

in the third market by having their limit

orders displayed publicly, the NASD

believes it is appropriate to treat CQS

market makers in a manner equivalent

to exchange specialists and not subject

them to minimum quote size

requirements. The NASD believes the

increased order-driven nature of the

third market brought about by the SEC’s

Limit Order Display Rule obviates the

justification for the 500 Share Quote

Rule. Accordingly, the NASD proposed

to amend the 500 Share Quote Rule to

permit a CQS market maker to post

quotations commensurate with their

own freely-determined trading interest,

provided, however, that the quotations

must be for at least one normal unit of

trading.

d. Modifications to CAES

The implementation of the Order

Execution Rules has required market

makers to display customers limit

orders, thereby compelling CQS market

makers, who are not only obligated to

execute trades up to 1,000 shares at

another market maker’s quote, to

execute trades at superior-priced limit

orders displayed by any other CQS

market maker, even if such limit orders

are only for 100 shares. In addition,

because Nasdaq no longer processes

CQS quotes,7 CAES executes orders at

the best bid or offer price in the third

market instead of the national best bid

or offer (‘‘NBBO’’). As a result, when

there are no CQS market makers at the

NBBO, CAES is providing inferior

executions to customer orders.

In order to facilitate the best

execution of customer orders and not

subject CQS market makers to automatic

executions at prices other than their

posted quotes, the NASD believes it is

imperative that CAES be appropriately

modified. Accordingly, the NASD has

proposed to amend the operation of

CAES so that it automatically executes

orders up to 100 shares instead of 1,000

shares. An order can be preferenced for

larger than 100 shares to a CQS market

maker and, although the order will not

be automatically executed, the order

will be processed by the CQS market

maker pursuant to its firm quote

obligations.8

e. Modifications to the Limit Order

Protection Rule Applicable to CQS

Securities

NASD proposed to amend Rule 6440

to permit a member to negotiate special

terms and conditions with a customer

that would enable the firm to trade

ahead of, or at the same price as, the

limit order price. Specifically, under the

Manning Rule, member firms may

attach terms and conditions with

respect to the handling of limit orders

that are either: (1) For institutional

accounts,9 or (2) limit orders that are for

10,000 shares or greater, regardless of

whether they are for institutional

accounts, provided that the order is

$100,000 or more in value. The NASD

proposed to extend the ‘‘terms and

conditions’’ language of the Manning

Rule to the CQS limit order protection

rule.

III. Discussion

In August 1996, the Commission

adopted new Rule 11Ac1–4 (‘‘Limit

Order Display Rule’’) and amendments

to Rule 11Ac1–1 (‘‘Quote Rule’’).10 As

amended, the expanded definition of

‘‘subject security’’ 11 within the Quote

Rule obligates any NASD member that

acts in the capacity of an over-thecounter (‘‘OTC’’) market maker 12 to

provide continuous two-sided

quotations for any exchange-listed

security 13 in which that member,

during the most recent calendar quarter,

comprised more than 1% of the

aggregate trading volume for such

security as reported in the consolidated

system (‘‘1% Rule’’).14 An OTC market

maker must, within 10 business days of

the end of each calendar quarter,

compute its trading volume for each

subject security, and if the volume

exceeds 1%, the market maker must

begin publishing two-sided quotations.

The Commission began implementing

the Order Execution Rules on January

20, 1997. The Commission, however,

deferred implementation of the

expanded 1% Rule until September 30,

1997.15 In light of the implementation of

the 1% Rule to all exchange-listed

securities, the NASD proposed the

aforementioned amendments to its rules

governing trading in exchange-listed

securities in the third market.

The Commission received two

comment letters on the proposed rule

change. The BankOne comment letter

supported the NASD’s proposal. The
64244 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 1997 / Notices

16See Adopting Release at Section III.B.3.c.i.

17 Id.

18 Id.

19 Id.

20 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

21 In addition, the Commission notes that it has

considered the proposed rule’s impact on

efficiency, competition, and capital formation. The

proposed rule will likely contribute to more

accurate and informative quotations because market

makers are able to use automated measures to

produce accessible quotations that add value to the

market. The Commission believes that permitting

the use of automated quotations by CQS market

makers allows them to utilize technology to fulfill

their quotation obligations efficiently. Moreover,

allowing CQS market makers to utilize technology

in this manner reduces any competitive

disadvantage that the previous auto-quote ban may

have created. 15 U.S.C. § 78c(f). 22 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

NYSE comment letter did not address

the specifics of the NASD proposal.

Nevertheless, the NYSE was concerned

with the NASD proposal to amend Rule

6330 to effectively lift its ban on

autoquoting because of the conflict with

the ITS Plan. Although the ITS

Participants are currently discussing

whether to amend the ITS Plan with

regard to permissible uses of computergenerated quotations, the current ITS

Plan limits computer-generated

quotations to 100 shares. The ITS Plan

governs all ITS Participants, including

the NASD. Therefore, the NYSE does

not believe the NASD Rule permitting

the use of computer-generated

quotations should be extended to those

exchange-listed securities that are

included in the ITS.

In response to the NYSE comment

letter, and in recognition of the lack of

unanimous consensus from ITS

Participants, the NASD filed

Amendment No. 2 to the proposal

requesting the Commission to proceed

with the proposed rule change with

respect to non-Rule 19c-3 securities.

The NASD also noted that they are

concerned that market makers may

experience difficulty in using enhanced

automation support if they are only

permitted to do so for a portion (i.e.,

non-Rule 19c-3 securities) of the

exchange-listed securities they maintain

quotations in. Therefore, the practical

result of removing the burdens of

complying with the 1% Rule would be

lost.

In expanding the 1% Rule, the

Commission recognized that it raised an

issue with respect to the ability of

NASD members to autoquote. The

Commission stated that ‘‘a total

prohibition on the use of computer

generated quotes is not appropriate’’

and that ‘‘[s]uch an approach

excessively limits the use of

sophisticated trading strategies that rely

on automation in the quotation process

for their success, and it also may act as

a competitive disadvantage to market

makers and specialists that would

otherwise rely on technology to meet

their quotation obligations more

efficiently.’’ 16 While the Commission

noted that it ‘‘recognizes traditional

concerns related to the accessibility of

computer generated quotes and the

impact of such quotes on system

capacity, it believes that more can and

should be done in this area.’’ 17 The

Commission stressed that more should

be done particularly ‘‘given the

enhanced quotation obligations that will

be imposed on some market participants

under the revised Quote Rule.’’ 18 The

Commission, therefore, urged the

‘‘NASD, ITS Participants, and other

interested market participants to

develop revised standards that would

permit the use of computer generated

quotes that contribute value to the

market.’’ 19

The Commission believes the NASD

proposal provides its members with the

ability to use computer-generated

quotations that add value to the market

and do not raise quotation accessibility

concerns. The NASD proposal does not

permit autoquoting away which would

subject Nasdaq to capacity constraints

as well compromise the value of

quotations. The Commission believes

the proposal facilitates the

implementation of the Order Execution

Rules, specifically, the 1% Rule by

providing OTC market makers with the

ability to use computer-generated

quotations. The Commission notes,

however, that permitting computergenerated quotations for only non-Rule

19c–3 securities may inhibit some

market makers because they may not be

able to distinguish those quotations

from their quotations in other exchangelisted securities. The Commission

expects that the ITS Participants will

continue in their discussions to amend

the ITS Plan to permit computergenerated quotations. In approving this

rule, the Commission notes that it has

also considered the proposed rule’s

impact on efficiency, competition, and

capital formation.20

For the foregoing reasons, the

Commission finds that the proposed

rule change is consistent with the

Exchange Act and the rules and

regulations thereunder applicable to the

NASD and, in particular, Sections

11A(a)(1)(D), 11A(a)(2) and 15A(b)(6) of

the Exchange Act.21 Section

11A(a)(1)(D) of the Exchange Act states

that the linking of all markets for

qualified securities through

communications and data processing

facilities will foster efficiency, enhance

competition, increase the information

available to brokers, dealers and

investors, facilitate the offsetting of

investor’s orders and contribute to best

execution of such orders, and

subsection (a)(2) thereunder directs the

Commission to facilitate the

establishment of a national market

system for qualified securities. Section

15A(b)(6) requires that the rules of a

national securities association be

designed to prevent fraudulent and

manipulative acts and practices, to

promote just an equitable principles of

trade, to foster cooperation and

coordination with persons engaged in

regulating, clearing, settling, processing

information with respect to, and

facilitating transactions in securities, to

remove impediments to and perfect the

mechanism of a free and open market

and a national market system and in

general to protect investors and the

public interest.

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

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 inspection and copying in

the Commission’s Public Reference

Room, 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 NASD. All submissions

should refer to the file number in the

caption above should be submitted by

December 29, 1997.

V. Conclusion

For the reasons discussed in this

order, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of

the Exchange Act,22 the Commission

finds good cause for approving the

proposed rule change, as amended,

prior to the thirtieth day after the date

of publication of notice filing thereof in

the Federal Register.

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 1997 / Notices 64245

23 17 CFR 200.30–3(A)(12).

that the proposed rule change (NASD–

97–53) be, and hereby is, approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulations, pursuant to delegated

authority.23

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–31754 Filed 12–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 2658]

Advisory Committee on Historical

Diplomatic Documentation; Notice of

Meeting

The Advisory Committee on

Historical Diplomatic Documentation

will meet in the Department of State,

December 17–18, 1997, in Conference

Rooms 1205 and 7516.

The Committee will meet in open

session from 9 a.m. through 12 p.m. on

the morning of Wednesday, December

17, 1997. The remainder of the

Committee’s sessions from 1:45 p.m. on

Wednesday December 17, until 5 p.m.

on Thursday, December 18, 1997, will

be closed in accordance with Section

10(d) of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463). It has

been determined that discussions

during these portions of the meeting

will involve consideration of matters

not subject to public disclosure under 5

U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that the public

interest requires that such activities will

be withheld from disclosure.

Questions concerning the meeting

should be directed to William Z. Slany,

Executive Secretary, Advisory

Committee on Historical Diplomatic

Documentation, Department of State,

Office of the Historian, Washington, DC

20520, telephone (202) 663–1123, (email pahistoff@panet.us-state.gov).

Dated: November 17. 1997.

William Z. Slany,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–31773 Filed 12–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE–97–60]

Petitions for Exemption; Summary of

Petitions Received; Dispositions of

Petitions Issued

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petitions for

exemption received and of dispositions

of prior petitions.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA’s rulemaking

provisions governing the application,

processing, and disposition of petitions

for exemption (14 CFR Part 11), this

notice contains a summary of certain

petitions seeking relief from specified

requirements of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR Chapter I),

dispositions of certain petitions

previously received, and corrections.

The purpose of this notice is to improve

the public’s awareness of, and

participation in, this aspect of FAA’s

regulatory activities. Neither publication

of this notice nor the inclusion or

omission of information in the summary

is intended to affect the legal status of

any petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on petitions received

must identify the petition docket

number involved and must be received

on or before December 15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on any

petition in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Attn: Rule Docket (AGC–

200), Petition Docket No. ll, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591.

Comments may also be sent

electronically to the following internet

address: 9–NPRM–CMNTS@faa.dot.gov.

The petition, any comments received,

and a copy of any final disposition are

filed in the assigned regulatory docket

and are available for examination in the

Rules Docket (AGC–200), Room 915G,

FAA Headquarters Building (FOB 10A),

800 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202)

267–3132.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Angela Anderson (202) 267–9681 or

Tawana Matthews (202) 267–9783,

Office of Rulemaking (ARM–1), Federal

Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591.

This notice is published pursuant to

paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) of § 11.27 of

Part 11 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR Part 11).

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 1,

1997.

Donald P. Byrne,

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.

Petitions For Exemption

Docket No.: 28846.

Petitioner: Gulfstream International

Airlines, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.2(d)(1)(I)(D), 121.337(b)(8),

121.359(g).

Description of Relief Sought: To

permit Gulfstream to operate 25

Beechcraft 1900C airplanes in

passenger-carrying operations without

approved smoked and fume protective

breathing equipment for flight

crewmembers until March 20, 1998.

[FR Doc. 97–31790 Filed 12–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Application

To Impose and Use a Passenger

Facility Charge (PFC) at Melbourne

International Airport, Melbourne, FL

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 a PFC at

Melbourne International Airport under

the provisions of the Aviation Safety

and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990

(Title IX of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law

101–508) and Part 158 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before January 5, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: Orlando Airports District

Office, 5990 Hazeltine National Dr.,

Suite 400, Orlando Florida 32822.

In addition, one copy of any

comments submitted to the FAA must

be mailed or delivered to Mr. James C.

Johnson, Director of Aviation of the

Melbourne Airport Authority at the

following address: Melbourne Airport

Authority, Melbourne International

Airport, One Air Terminal Parkway,

Suite 220, Melbourne, Florida 32901–

1888.

Air carriers and foreign air carriers

may submit copies of written comments

previously provided to the Melbourne

Airport Authority under section 158.23

of Part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Vernon P. Rupinta, Project Manager,

Orlando Airports District Office, 5950

Hazeltine National Dr., Suite 400,

Orlando Florida 32822, 407–812–6331.

The application may be reviewed in

person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

proposes to rule and invites public