Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices 37611

15Exchange Act Release No. 37859 (Oct. 23,

1996), 61 FR 56072 (Oct. 30, 1996).

16Letter from Ron Moore, Applied Financial

Management, Inc., to Larry M. Lawrence, MSRB,

May 22, 1995, and letter from Glenn Burnett, Zia

Corporation, to Larry M. Lawrence, July 2, 1996.

17Letter from George Brakatselos, Public

Securities Association (PSA), to Larry M. Lawrence,

MSRB, May 2, 1996.

18PSA.

19Zia.

20PSA.

21Exchange Act Release No. 39835 (Apr. 7, 1998),

63 FR 18242 (Apr. 14, 1998). The Board also made

the sample reports available via the Internet at its

Web site (www.msrb.org).

22Letter from John Loza, Bloomberg L.P. , to

Harold L. Johnson, MSRB (April 20, 1998).

23Electronic mail from Bruce Hechler,

TradeHistory, LLC, to Thomas A. Hutton, (May 4,

1998).

24TradeHistory.

25The Board will continue to provide, as it has

since January 1995, daily reports of inter-dealer

transactions in municipal securities in a service

whose annual fee will remain unchanged at

$15,000. The Board has chosen to make the price

of the proposed Service the same as the price of the

existing Inter-Dealer Service.

26Bloomberg.

27 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

customer transactions. The Board

received a number of comments in

response. The comments were provided

to the Commission and addressed by the

Board in an August 1996 filing.15 Some

commentators suggested reporting

individual transactions,16 while others

suggested combining data from all

trades falling within a given par value

range.17 One commentator suggested

combining prices and volumes for interdealer and customer trades for public

reporting,18 and another suggested

identifying retail prices as such.19 It was

also suggested that trades be

summarized by par value in four

categories ($5,000 to $45,000, $50,000 to

$95,000, $100,000 to $1,000,000, and

over $1,000,000).20 In considering

various possible formats for the report,

the Board decided that it would serve

the purpose of simplicity, and aid users

in comparing the new and old reports,

to make the Combined Report’s format

the same as that of the Inter-Dealer

Report, which has been in use for over

three years. If experience with the

Combined Daily Report indicates

revisions are needed, the Board will

revise the format to ensure that the

Program will continue to provide

market transparency to market

participants.

The 1998 Request for Comments

In April 1998, the Board released

samples of the Combined Daily Report

for comment.21 In response, comments

were received from Bloomberg L.P.22

and TradeHistory, LLC.23 One

commentator 24 requested that the Board

continue to publish the Inter-Dealer

Daily Report after commencing

publication of the Combined Daily

Report. The proposed Service would

make no change to the publication of

the Inter-Dealer Daily Report.25 The

other commentator 26 requested that the

Board add ‘‘filler’’ (blank) fields in the

new format to make the format of the

electronic Combined Daily Report

compatible with its programs that

process the electronic Inter-Dealer Daily

Report. This change has been made and

would be part of the proposed Service.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

Within 35 days of the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register or within such longer period (i)

as the Commission may designate up to

90 days of such date if it finds such

longer period to be appropriate and

published its reasons for so finding or

(ii) as to which the MSRB consents, the

Commission will:

(A) By order approve such proposed

rule change, or

(B) Institute proceedings to determine

whether the proposed rule change

should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views and

arguments concerning the foregoing,

including whether the proposed rule

change is consistent with the Act.

Persons making written submissions

should file six copies thereof with the

Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street N.W.,

Washington, DC 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, DC 20549. Copies of such

filing will also be available for

inspection and copying at the principal

office of the MSRB. All submissions

should refer to File No. SR–MSRB–98–

9 and should be submitted by August 3,

1998.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.27

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–18590 Filed 7–10–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 9 a.m. (EDT), July 15,

1998.

PLACE: East Tennessee State University,

D.P. Culp University Center Ballroom

Left, Southwest Boundary Road,

Johnson City, Tennessee.

STATUS: Open.

Agenda

Approval of minutes of meeting held

on June 18, 1998.

New Business

B—Purchase Award

B1. Contract with CEC Alsthom to

design, manufacture, and install highpressure turbine capacity upgrades for

Bull Run, Paradise, and Widows Creek

Fossil Plants.

B2. Contract with ABB Power

Generation to design, manufacture, and

install high-pressure turbine capacity

upgrades for Cumberland Fossil Plant.

E—Real Property Transactions

E1. Nineteen-year commercial

recreation lease of the May Springs

Recreation Area to Claudia Ann

Holbrook, d/b/a as Greenlee

Campground, R.V. & Marine, affecting

approximately 104 acres of lands on

Cherokee Lake in Grainger County,

Tennessee (Tract No. XCK–580L).

E2. Nineteen-year commercial

recreation lease to John Cooper and Greg

Yarbrough affecting 10.78 acres of land

on Guntersville Lake, Jackson County,

Alabama (Tract No. XGR–748L), for

development of Wood Yard Marina and

amendment of the Guntersville

Reservoir Land Management Plan (Tract

No. XGR–105PT) to change the allocated

use from barge terminal to commercial

recreation.

E3. Sale of a permanent easement to

D.L. Hutson for a road, affecting 0.5 acre

of land on Norris Lake in Campbell

County, Tennessee (Tract No. XNR–

904H).

F—Unclassified

F1. Contract with Zurich—American

Insurance Group for Workers’

Compensation employer’s liability, and

general liability insurance for the

owner-controlled insurance program.
37612 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices

Information Items

1. Amendments to make certain

changes to resolutions on March 2,

1998, relating to the sale of the

Tennessee Valley Authority Power

Bonds.

2. Delegation of authority to the Vice

President, Fuel Supply and Engineering,

or a designated representative, to

modify three coal contracts (Sextet

Mining Company, Warrier Coal

Corporation, and Peabody COALSALES

Company) resulting from renegotiation

under each contract’s reopener

provision.

3. Grant of permanent easements to

the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, for

the expansion of the Chattanooga/

Hamilton County Convention and Trade

Center and a proposed conferencing

center (Tract No. XCOFC–3E)

(approximately 1.58 acres) and Tract

No. XTCOFC–8E (approximately 0.76

acre).

4. TVA Contribution to the TVA

Retirement System for Fiscal Year 1999.

5. TVA retiree medical contributions

for persons covered by the Civil Service

Retirement System and the Federal

Employees Retirement System.

6. Amendments to the Rules and

Regulations of the TVA Retirement

System and the provision of the TVA

Savings and Deferral Retirement Plan

(401(k) Plan).

7. Grant of a permanent easement to

Rhea County Economic and Tourism

Council, Inc, for the construction,

operation, and maintenance of a

building, affecting approximately 1.90

acres of land on Chickamauga Lake in

Rhea County, Tennessee (Tract No.

XTCR–194B).

8. Contract with Mee Industries

Incorporated to design, furnish, and

install fogging evaporative inlet cooling

systems for the entire fleet of 48

combustion turbines.

For more information: Please call

TVA Public Relations at (423) 632–6000,

Knoxville, Tennessee. Information is

also available at TVA’s Washington

Office (202) 898–2999.

Dated: July 8, 1998.

Edward S. Christenbury,

General Counsel and Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–18673 Filed 7–9–98; 8:48 am]

BILLING CODE 8120–08–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. OST 98–4025]

Request for Public Comment on

Competitive Issues Affecting the

Domestic Airline Industry

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Federal

Aviation Administration, United States

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Transportation is gathering information

on airport practices and whether they

may affect competition among air

carriers. We intend to meet with airport

and airline professional associations

and other interested participants, review

data and information provided by

industry organizations, review of

comments filed in this docket, and use

other means as appropriate.

Specifically, we seek to determine: (1)

Whether airports have used Passenger

Facility Charges in ways that have

enhanced competition; (2) whether the

types of issues raised in complaints to

the Department regarding airport

practices have prevented competition

among air carriers; (3) whether leasing

agreements and financing arrangements

at airports limit access and thus

competition; and (4) whether airport

planning, development, and commercial

practices limit access.

DATES: Comments should be received by

September 1, 1998. Comments that are

received after that date will be

considered to the extent possible.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent

to: Docket Clerk, Docket No. OST–98–

4025, Room PL–401, United States

Department of Transportation, 400 7th

Street, SW, Washington DC, 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Please contact James New (202–366–

4868) or Larry Phillips (202–366–4382)

for additional information on the scope

of the Department’s study or the name

of the individual in DOT who is in the

best position to answer your questions.

A copy of this Notice can be obtained

via the World Wide Web at: http://

www.dot.gov/ost/aviation/. Comments

placed in the docket will be available

for viewing on the Internet.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Deregulation of the domestic airline

industry has resulted in enormous

benefits for the traveling public.

Average air fares (adjusted for inflation)

have declined approximately one-third

since 1978, and airline service has

improved in the vast majority of

markets. Despite the overall success of

deregulation, however, questions

remain as to whether certain conditions

and institutional arrangements are

preventing the industry from being as

competitive as it could be. For example,

several studies, including those

performed by DOT staff, have found fare

premiums at certain airports where

market concentration is high and where

new entrant air carriers have either not

attempted or have been largely

unsuccessful in establishing a

significant market presence. In other

instances, new entrant air carriers have

encountered problems in gaining access

to the range of airport facilities that

would allow them to challenge

incumbent air carriers.

Competition is a dynamic process,

especially in the airline industry.

Competition works best, however, when

carriers are able to enter and exit

markets in response to changing market

conditions. Air carriers are only able to

raise fares above competitive levels

when competitors are unable to enter a

market or to expand service. We

recognize that the ability of an air

carrier to provide new service at an

airport depends on numerous factors,

including the expected growth in

passenger demand, the ability to gain

access to gates and other critical

facilities, the cost and marketing

advantages incumbent air carriers enjoy,

and the size of the irreversible (‘‘sunk’’)

investment an entrant would incur if it

were forced to withdraw from the

market.

Our objective is to gather information

and data about current market

conditions at airports. We are not

investigating compliance or judging

business practices. We welcome

comments from all interested parties,

including state and local officials,

airport operators, air carriers,

academics, financial experts, and the

traveling public. Our goal is to have a

final report completed by February

1999.

We are interested in obtaining

information that would help us answer

the following questions: (1) What is the

exact nature of the airport (landside)

constraints air carriers have

encountered when attempting to enter a

market or expand service? (2) Have

these constraints been so significant as

to preclude entry at certain airports? (3)

What is the exact nature and

competitive significance of the

complaints that have been raised against

current airport practices? (4) Do leasing

practices and financing agreements at

airports limit access and discourage

entry? (5) Are airport financing practices