[Federal Register: August 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 147)]
[Notices]
[Page 45143]
[DOCID:fr02au10-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0606]

Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the Offshore Supply
Vessel BETTY PFANKUCH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternative
Compliance was issued for the offshore supply vessel BETTY PFANKUCH as
required by 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.

DATES: The Certificate of Alternate Compliance was issued on June 18,
2010.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this notice is available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, 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. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2010-0606 in the ''Keyword'' box, and then clicking
''Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call LTJG Christine Dimitroff, District Eight, Prevention Branch, U.S.
Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing
or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    A Certificate of Alternative Compliance, as allowed for under Title
33, Code of Federal Regulation, Parts 81 and 89, has been issued for
the offshore supply vessel BETTY PFANKUCH, O.N. 1225768. The horizontal
distance between the forward and aft masthead lights may be 20'-5''.
Placing the aft masthead light at the horizontal distance from the
forward masthead light as required by Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of the 72
COLREGS, and Annex I, Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act, would
result in an aft masthead light location directly over the cargo deck
where it would interfere with loading and unloading operations.
    The Certificate of Alternative Compliance allows for the horizontal
separation of the forward and aft masthead lights to deviate from the
requirements of Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of 72 COLREGS, and Annex I,
Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c), and 33
CFR 81.18.

    Dated: 15 July 2010.
R.S. Keister,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Chief, Inspections & Investigations Branch,
By Direction of the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-18953 Filed 7-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 43949]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18679]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE:  2:30 p.m. on Thursday, August 30, 2018.

PLACE:  Closed Commission Hearing Room 10800.

STATUS:  This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Jackson, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed;
please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at
(202) 551-5400.

    Dated: August 23, 2018.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-18679 Filed 8-24-18; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 217 (Friday, November 8, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67038-67042]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26760]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0003; FRL-9402-7]

FD&C Green No. 3; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of FD&C Green No. 3 (CAS Reg. No. 2353-45-
9) when used as an inert ingredient (dye) in antimicrobial
formulations, for use on food contact surfaces in public eating places,
dairy processing equipment, and food processing equipment and utensils.
The firm Exponent, on behalf of Ecolab submitted a petition to EPA
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting
establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This
regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of FD&C Green No. 3. FD&C Green No. 3 is also known as
Fast Green FCF.

DATES: This regulation is effective November 8, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 7, 2014,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR Part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0003, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
Part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR Part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0003 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
January 7, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR Part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR Part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0003, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets gov/dockets.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of February 15, 2013 (78 FR 11126) (FRL-
9378-4), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10527) by
Exponent (1150 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite 1100; Washington, DC 20036),
on behalf of Ecolab, Inc., 370 N. Wabasha St., St. Paul, MN 55102. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.940(a) be amended by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of FD&C
Green No. 3 (CAS Reg. No. 2353-45-9) when used as an inert ingredient
(dye) in antimicrobial formulations, for use on food contact surfaces
in public eating places, dairy processing equipment, and food
processing equipment and utensils. That document referenced a summary
of the petition prepared by Exponent, on behalf of Ecolab, the
petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue. . . .''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA
is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for FD&C Green No. 3 including
exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with FD&C Green No. 3
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by FD&C Green No. 3 as well as the no-
observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect-

level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.
    FD&C Green No. 3 is not acutely toxic via the oral route in rats
and dogs. In a long-term study in mice, there were no treatment-related
effects on mortality. Histological examination of all animals did not
reveal any treatment-related lesions. There was also no difference
between control and treated animals in terms of the incidence of benign
and malignant neoplasms. The NOAEL was 5% in the diet (equivalent of
7,500 milligrams/kilogram bodyweight/day (mg/kg bw/day), the highest
dose tested (HDT).
    Multiple long-term studies in mice, dogs and rats fed diets
containing FD&C Green No. 3 were conducted. Microscopic examination
revealed no treatment-related lesions attributable to feeding of the
color in any of the studies. There were also no treatment-related
effects on growth or mortality.
    A carcinogenicity study with an in utero phase was conducted with
Charles-River albino rats. Rats were fed diets containing 0, 1.25, 2.5
or 5.0% (equivalent to 0, 625, 1,250 and 2,500 mg/kg bw/day) FD&C No. 3
for 2 months prior to mating and throughout gestation and lactation.
The NOAEL for carcinogenicity was 5% in the diet (equivalent to 2,500
mg/kg bw/day; the HDT). No reproductive toxicity was observed at doses
up to 5% in the diet (equivalent to 2,500 mg/kg bw/day). The NOAEL for
systemic toxicity in parental animals was 2.5% in the diet (equivalent
to 1,250 mg/kg bw/day). The NOAEL is based on decreases in food
consumption and increases in thyroid and kidney weights seen at the
LOAEL of 5% in the diet. The NOAEL for offspring toxicity was 2.5% in
the diet (equivalent to 1,250 mg/kg bw/day) based on decreases in pup
body weight and pup mortality seen at the LOAEL of 5% in the diet
(equivalent to 2,500 mg/kg bw/day), the HDT.
    A 3-generation reproduction study was completed on FD&C Green No. 3
in Long-Evans rats at dose levels of 0, 10, 100, 300 or 1,000 mg/kg bw/
day. No treatment-related effects on food consumption, body weight,
adult mortality, mating performance, pregnancy and fertility rates,
gestation length, offspring survival, weights and sex, litter survival,
resorption rates, or necropsy findings were observed in the study.
There were also no macroscopic or microscopic tissue abnormalities
attributable to treatment. The NOAEL was 1,000 mg/kg bw/day.
    FD&C Green No. 3 was determined to be non-mutagenic. The metabolism
potential of FD&C Green No. 3 was tested in rats and dogs. Almost all
of the color was excreted unchanged in the feces of the rats and no
color was found in the urine. A smaller portion of the color, not
exceeding 5% of the given dose, was found in the bile of the dogs.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    The available toxicity study indicates that FD&C Green No. 3 has a
very low overall toxicity. The lowest NOAEL in the database is 1,000
mg/kg bw/day. In the carcinogenicity study with an in utero phase, the
effects on the pups (decreased body weights and pup mortality) and
kidney and thyroid toxicity in adults were observed at 5% in diet
(equivalent to 2,500 mg/kg/day). Since these effects were observed at
2.5 times the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day, there are low concerns for
the hazard. Since no endpoint of concern was identified for the acute
and chronic dietary exposure assessments and short- and intermediate-
term dermal and inhalation exposure assessments, a quantitative risk
assessment for FD&C Green No. 3 is not necessary.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to FD&C Green No. 3, EPA considered exposure under the
proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed
dietary exposures from FD&C Green No. 3 in food as follows: Dietary
exposure to FD&C Green No. 3 can occur from eating food that has come
in contact with surfaces treated with pesticide formulations containing
this inert ingredient. Dietary exposure to FD&C Green No. 3 can also
occur from eating foods which contain FD&C Green No. 3 as an
ingredient. However, since an endpoint of concern for risk assessment
was not identified, a quantitative dietary exposure assessment for FD&C
Green No. 3 was not conducted.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. Dietary exposure from
drinking water to FD&C Green No. 3 can occur by drinking water that has
been contaminated by contact with run-off from pesticide treated areas,
such as countertops. Since an endpoint for risk assessment was not
identified, a quantitative dietary exposure assessment from drinking
water for FD&C Green No. 3 was not conducted.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. From non-dietary exposure. The term
``residential exposure'' is used in this document to refer to non-
occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest
control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control
on pets). The proposed use of FD&C Green No. 3 as a dye under 40 CFR
180.940(a) is expected to result in residential exposure to this
chemical.
    However, since there are no toxicological effects of concern
identified in the available database, it is not necessary to conduct
assessments of residential (non-occupational) exposures and risks.
There are no dermal or inhalation toxicological endpoints of concern to
the Agency; therefore, quantitative assessments have not been
conducted.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found FD&C Green No. 3 to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and FD&C Green No. 3 does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
FD&C Green No. 3 does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
http:[sol][sol]www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(c) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in
the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA) safety factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either
retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety
factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a
different factor.
    In the carcinogenicity study with an in utero phase, the effects on
the pups (decreased body weights and pup mortality) and kidney and
thyroid toxicity in adults were observed at 5% in diet (equivalent to
2,500 mg/kg/day).

Since these effects were observed at 2.5 times the limit dose of 1,000
mg/kg/day, there are low concerns for the hazard. Therefore, it is
concluded that there is no evidence of qualitative or quantitative
susceptibility of infants and children in the available database.
    The available toxicity studies suggest low toxicity of FD&C Green
No. 3. The toxicity database for FD&C Green No. 3 contains an acute
oral toxicity study and chronic toxicity studies, including
carcinogenicity, and reproductive toxicity studies. No reproductive or
developmental toxicity was observed in the 3-generation reproduction
study at the limit dose. The database also contains mutagenicity
studies, and metabolism data. There is no indication, based upon the
available data, that FD&C Green No. 3 is a neurotoxic or immunotoxic
chemical. Due to the lack of toxicity of FD&C Green No. 3, the Agency
determined that a quantitative risk assessment using safety factors was
not necessary for assessing risk. For the same reason, no additional
safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Taking into consideration all available information on FD&C Green
No. 3, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure to
FD&C Green No. 3 under reasonable foreseeable circumstances. Therefore,
the establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
under 40 CFR 180.940(a) for residues of FD&C Green No. 3 when used as
an inert ingredient (dye) in antimicrobial formulations, for use on
food contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy processing
equipment, and food processing equipment and utensils, is safe under
FFDCA section 408.

 V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nation Food
and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for FD&C Green No. 3.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180. 940(a) for FD&C Green No. 3 (CAS Reg. No.
2353-45-9) when used as an inert ingredient (dye) in antimicrobial
formulations, for use on food contact surfaces in public eating places,
dairy processing equipment, and food processing equipment and utensils.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 30, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.940, in paragraph (a) alphabetically add the following
inert ingredient to the table to read as follows:

Sec.  180.940  Tolerance exemptions for active and inert ingredients
for use in antimicrobial formulations (Food-contact surface sanitizing
solutions).

* * * * *
    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Pesticide chemical             CAS Reg. No.            Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
FD&C Green No. 3..............  CAS Reg. No. 2353-45-  None.
                                 9.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-26760 Filed 11-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 38860-38861]
[DOCID:fr06jy10-115]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62397; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-019]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Codify Prices for Co-Location
Services

June 28, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On January 29, 2010, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change relating to co-location services and related fees.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on February 10, 2010.\3\ The Commission received no comment
letters on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61488 (February 3,
2010), 75 FR 6748 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    As described in the Notice, NASDAQ is proposing to codify fees for
its existing co-location services. Co-location services are a suite of
hardware, power, telecommunication, and other ancillary products and
services that allows market participants and vendors to place their
trading and communications equipment in close physical proximity to the
quoting and execution facilities of the Exchange and other NASDAQ OMX
Group, Inc. markets. The Exchange provides co-location services and
imposes fees through its wholly-owned subsidiary Nasdaq Technology
Services LLC and pursuant to agreements with the owner/operator of its
data center where both the Exchange's quoting and trading facilities
and co-located customer equipment are housed.\4\ Users of co-location
services include private extranet providers, data vendors, as well as
NASDAQ Exchange members and non-members. The use of co-location
services is entirely voluntary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NASDAQ has provided co-location services at various data
centers since approximately 2004. Currently, the Exchange provides
its co-location services through data centers located in the New
York City and Mid-Atlantic areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As detailed in its fee schedule, NASDAQ imposes a uniform set of
fees for various co-location services, including: Fees for cabinet
space usage, or options for future space usage; installation and
related power provision for hosted equipment; connectivity among
multiple cabinets being used by the same customer as well as customer
connectivity to the Exchange and telecommunications providers; \5\ and
related maintenance and consulting services. Fees related to cabinet
and power usage are incremental, with additional charges being imposed
based on higher levels of cabinet and/or power usage, the use of non-
standard cabinet sizes or special cabinet cooling equipment, or the re-
selling of cabinet space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NASDAQ states that these fees are for telecommunications
connectivity only. Market data fees are charged independently by
NASDAQ and other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ is implementing a Cabinet Proximity Option program where,
for a monthly fee, customers can obtain an option for future use on
available currently-unused cabinet floor space in proximity to their
existing equipment. Under the program, customers can reserve up to
maximum of 20 cabinets that the Exchange will endeavor to provide as
close as reasonably possible to the customer's existing cabinet space,
taking into consideration power availability within segments of the
datacenter and the overall efficiency of use of datacenter resources as
determined by the Exchange. Should reserved datacenter space be needed
for use, the reserving customer will have three business days to
formally contract with the Exchange for full payment for the reserved
cabinet space in contention or it will be reassigned. In making
determinations to require exercise or relinquishment of reserved space
as among numerous customers, the Exchange will take into consideration
several factors, including: Proximity between available reserved
cabinet space and the existing space of a customer seeking additional
space for actual cabinet usage; a customer's ratio of cabinets in use
to those reserved; the length of time that a particular reservation(s)
has been in place; and any other factor that the Exchange deems
relevant to ensure overall efficiency in use of the datacenter space.
    In the Notice, the Exchange made certain representations regarding
its co-location services. First, the Exchange represents that co-
location customers are not provided any separate or superior means of
direct access to NASDAQ quoting and trading facilities, nor does the
Exchange offer any separate or superior means of access to the Exchange
quoting and trading facilities as among co-location customers
themselves within the datacenter. Second, NASDAQ represents that it
does not make available to co-located customers any market data or data
feed product or service for data going into, or out of, the Exchange
systems that is not likewise available to all the Exchange members.\6\
Finally, the Exchange represents that all orders sent to the Exchange
market enter the marketplace through the same central system quote and
order gateway regardless of whether the sender is co-located in the
Exchange data center or not. In short, according to the Exchange, it
has created no special market technology or programming that is
available only to co-located customers and has organized its systems to

minimize, to the greatest extent possible, any advantage for one
customer versus another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange made a 10Gb fiber connection available to co-
located customers early in the first quarter of 2010. On June 21,
2010, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change that would, among
other things, establish pricing for 10Gb fiber connections for
customers who are not co-located in NASDAQ's datacenter. See SR-
NASDAQ-2010-077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also has represented that co-location services are
generally available to all qualified market participants who desire
them. With the exception of customers participating in the Cabinet
Proximity Option program, the Exchange allocates cabinets and power on
a first-come/first-serve basis. Should available cabinet inventory
shrink to 40 cabinets or less, the Exchange will limit new cabinet
orders to a maximum of 4 cabinets each, and all new cabinets will be
limited to a maximum power level of 5kW. Should available cabinet
inventory shrink to zero, the Exchange will place firms seeking
services on a waiting list based on that date the Exchange receives
signed orders for the services from the firm. In order to be placed on
the waiting list, a firm must have utilized all existing cabinets they
already have in the datacenter. Once on the list, the firms, on a
rolling basis, will be allocated a single 5kW cabinet each time one
becomes available. After receiving a cabinet, the firm will move to the
bottom of the waiting list.

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\7\
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members
and issuers and other persons using its facilities, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ which requires, among other things, that the
rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed co-location fees are
reasonable and equitably allocated insofar as they are applied on the
same terms to similarly-situated market participants. The Commission
notes that charges may vary depending on the use of cabinet space and/
or power usage. In addition, the Commission believes that the co-
location services described in the proposed rule change are not
unfairly discriminatory because: (1) Co-location services are offered
to all interested market participants who request them and pay the
appropriate fees; (2) as represented by NASDAQ, the Exchange has
architected its systems so as to, as much as possible, reduce or
eliminate differences among users of its systems, whether co-located or
not; and (3) the Exchange has stated that it has sufficient space to
accommodate new co-locaters and has set forth in the proposed rule
change objective procedures to allocate space should it become limited
in the future.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2010-019) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-16291 Filed 7-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 35 (Thursday, February 21, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5393-5395]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02906]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 230, 232, 239, 240, 270, and 274

[Release Nos. 33-10605; 34-85146; IC-33375; File No. S7-23-18]
RIN 3235-AK60

Reopening of Comment Period for Updated Disclosure Requirements
and Summary Prospectus for Variable Annuity and Variable Life Insurance
Contracts

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission is reopening the
comment period for a proposal to amend rules and forms to help
investors make informed investment decisions regarding variable annuity
and variable life insurance contracts. The proposal would permit
persons to satisfy their prospectus delivery obligations under the
Securities Act of 1933 for a variable annuity or variable life
insurance contract and any associated portfolio companies by sending or
giving a summary contract prospectus to investors and making the
statutory and portfolio company prospectuses available online. In
addition, the proposal would amend the registration

forms for variable annuity and variable life insurance contracts to
update and enhance the disclosures to investors in these contracts, and
would require the Inline eXtensible Business Reporting Language
(``Inline XBRL'') format for certain required disclosures in the
variable contract statutory prospectus. The proposal would also make
certain technical and conforming amendments to our rules and forms, as
well as rescission of certain related rules and forms, and seek
comments regarding parallel amendments to rules governing mutual fund
summary prospectuses and registration forms applicable to other types
of registered investment companies. The original comment period ended
on February 15, 2019. The Commission is reopening the time period in
which to provide the Commission with comments until March 15, 2019.
This action will allow interested persons additional time to analyze
the issues and prepare their comments.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published Nov. 30, 2018
(83 FR 61730), is reopened. Comments should be received on or before
March 15, 2019.

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment forms (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml);
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number S7-23-18 on the subject line; or
     Use the Federal Rulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

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 S7-23-18. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's
website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml). Comments also are
available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Room 1580, 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 we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    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: Daniel K. Chang, James Maclean, Amy
Miller, Senior Counsels; Amanda Hollander Wagner, Branch Chief; Michael
C. Pawluk, Senior Special Counsel, Investment Company Regulation
Office, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; Keith Carpenter or Michael Kosoff, Senior
Special Counsels, Disclosure and Review Office, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Division of Investment Management, Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-8549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission has requested comment on a
release proposing new rule 498A [proposed rule 17 CFR 230.498A] under
the Securities Act. The release also proposes amendments to the
following  rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 80a et seq.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Commission reference                CFR citation  (17 CFR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation S[dash]T [17 CFR
 232.10 through 232.903]:
    Rule 11......................  Sec.   232.11.
    Rule 405.....................  Sec.   232.405.
Securities Act of 1933
 (``Securities Act''): \1\
    Rule 159A....................  Sec.   230.159A.
    Rule 421.....................  Sec.   230.421.
    Rule 431.....................  Sec.   230.431.
    Rule 482.....................  Sec.   230.482.
    Rule 485.....................  Sec.   230.485.
    Rule 497.....................  Sec.   230.497.
    Rule 498.....................  Sec.   230.498.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 (``Exchange Act''): \2\
    Rule 14a-16..................  Sec.   240.14a-16.
Investment Company Act of 1940
 (``Investment Company Act''):
 \3\
    Rule 0-1.....................  Sec.   270.0-1.
    Rule 6c-7....................  Sec.   270.6c-7.
    Rule 6c-8....................  Sec.   270.6c-8.
    Rule 6e-2....................  Sec.   270.6e-2.
    Rule 6e-3(T).................  Sec.   270.6e-3(T).
    Rule 11a-2...................  Sec.   270.11a-2.
    Rule 14a-2...................  Sec.   270.14a-2.
    Rule 26a-1...................  Sec.   270.26a-1.
    Rule 27c-1...................  Sec.   270.27c-1.
Securities Act and Investment
 Company Act:
    Form N-3.....................  Sec.   239.17a and 274.11b.
    Form N-4.....................  Sec.   239.17b and 274.11c.
    Form N-6.....................  Sec.   239.17c and 274.11d.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the release proposes to rescind:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Commission reference                CFR citation  (17 CFR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment Company Act:
    Rule 26a-2...................  Sec.   270.26a-2.
    Rule 27a-1...................  Sec.   270.27a-1.
    Rule 27a-2...................  Sec.   270.27a-2.
    Rule 27a-3...................  Sec.   270.27a-3.
    Rule 27d-2...................  Sec.   270.27d-2.
    Rule 27e-1...................  Sec.   270.27e-1.
    Rule 27f-1...................  Sec.   270.27f-1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission originally requested that comments on the release be
received by February 15, 2019. The Commission has received several
requests for an extension of time for public comment on the proposal
to, among other things, allow for adequate time to fully consider the
proposals and to improve the quality of responses.\4\ The Commission
believes that providing the public additional time to thoroughly
consider the matters addressed by the release and to submit
comprehensive responses to the release would benefit the Commission in
its consideration of final rules.\5\ Therefore, the Commission is
reopening the comment period for Release Nos. 33-10569; 34-84508; IC-
33286 ``Updated Disclosure Requirements and Summary Prospectus for
Variable Annuity and Variable Life Insurance Contracts'' until March
15, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Letters from Carl B. Wilkerson, Vice President & Chief
Counsel, Securities, American Council of Life Insurers (Dec. 20,
2018), Stephen E. Roth, on behalf of the Committee of Annuity
Insurers (Jan. 22, 2019), Benjamin G. Baldwin, Jr. (Feb. 13, 2019).
Comments are available on the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-23-18/s72318.htm.
    \5\ In this regard, the Commission notes that the comment period
overlapped in part with the recent lapse in appropriations.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By the Commission.

    Dated: February 14, 2019.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02906 Filed 2-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 195)]
[Notices]
[Page 58691-58694]
[DOCID:fr07oc08-121]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-28431; 812-13540]

Eaton Vance Floating-Rate Income Trust, et al.; Notice of
Application

October 2, 2008.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from sections
18(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.

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

Applicants: Eaton Vance Floating-Rate Income Trust, Eaton Vance Senior
Floating-Rate Trust, Eaton Vance Senior Income Trust, Eaton Vance
Credit Opportunities Fund, and Eaton Vance Limited Duration Income Fund
(each, a ``Fund'' and collectively, ``Funds'').

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order (``Order'')
granting an exemption from sections 18(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act for
a two-year period immediately following the date of the Order. The
Order would permit each Fund to issue debt securities subject to asset
coverage of 200% that would be used to refinance all of the Fund's
issued and outstanding auction preferred shares (``APS Shares''). The
Order also would permit each Fund to declare dividends or any other
distributions on, or purchase, capital stock during the term of the
Order, provided that any class of senior securities representing
indebtedness has asset coverage of at least 200% after deducting the
amount of such transaction.

Filing Dates: The application was filed on June 10, 2008, and amended
on July 2, 2008, July 29, 2008, and September 2, 2008.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on October 22, 2008, and should be accompanied by proof of service
on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: c/o Frederick S. Marius,
Chief Legal Officer, Eaton Vance Management, 255 State Street, Boston,
MA 02109.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Courtney S. Thornton, Senior Counsel,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Janet M. Grossnickle, Assistant Director, at
(202) 942-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment
Company Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the
SEC's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-
1520 (tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. Each of the Funds is organized as a Massachusetts business trust
and is a closed-end management investment company registered under the
Act. Each Fund is advised by Eaton Vance Management (``Eaton Vance'')
and has issued and outstanding a class of common shares and a class of
one or more series of APS Shares.

    2. Applicants state that the Funds issued their outstanding APS
Shares for purposes of investment leverage to augment the amount of
investment capital available for use in the pursuit of their investment
objectives. Applicants state that, through the use of leverage, the
Funds seek to enhance the investment return available to the holders of
their common shares by earning a rate of portfolio return (which
includes the return obtained from securities purchased from the
proceeds of APS Share offerings) that exceeds the dividend rate that
the Funds pay to holders of the APS Shares. Applicants represent that
APS shareholders are entitled to receive a stated liquidation
preference amount of $25,000 per share (plus any accumulated but unpaid
dividends) in any liquidation, dissolution, or winding up of the
relevant Fund before any distribution or payment to holders of the
Fund's common shares. They state that dividends declared and payable on
APS Shares have a similar priority over dividends declared and payable
on the Funds' common shares. In addition, applicants state that APS
Shares are ``perpetual'' securities and are not subject to mandatory
redemption by a Fund (provided certain asset coverage tests are met).
Further, applicants state that APS Shares are redeemable at each Fund's
option.
    3. Applicants state that prior to February 2008, dividend rates on
the APS Shares for each dividend period were set at the market clearing
rate determined through an auction process that brought together
bidders, who sought to buy APS Shares, and holders of APS Shares, who
sought to sell their APS Shares. Applicants explain that their by-laws
provide that if an auction fails to clear (because of an imbalance of
sell orders over bids), the dividend payment rate over the next
dividend period is set at a specified maximum applicable rate (the
``Maximum Rate'') determined by reference to a short-term market
interest rate (such as LIBOR or a commercial paper rate). Applicants
state that an unsuccessful auction is not a default; the relevant
Applicant continues to pay dividends to all holders of APS Shares, but
at the specified Maximum Rate rather than a market clearing rate.
    4. Applicants state that if investors did not purchase all of the
APS Shares tendered for sale at an auction, dealers historically would
enter into the auction and purchase any excess shares to prevent the
auction from failing. Applicants represent that this auction mechanism
generally provided readily available liquidity to holders of APS Shares
for almost twenty years. Applicants believe that many investors
invested short-term cash balances in APS Shares believing they were
safe short-term investments and, in many cases, the equivalent of cash.
    5. Applicants state that in February 2008, the financial
institutions that historically provided ``back stop'' liquidity to APS
Share auctions stopped participating in them and the auctions began to
fail. Applicants state that beginning on February 13, 2008, all closed-
end funds advised by Eaton Vance that had outstanding APS Shares
(including the Funds) experienced auction failures due to an imbalance
between buy and sell orders. Applicants also state that there is no
established secondary market that would provide holders of APS Shares
with the liquidation preference of $25,000 per share. Applicants state
that four of the five Funds to date have redeemed approximately two-
thirds of their APS Shares with borrowings from a commercial paper
conduit facility, but have been prohibited from redeeming their
remaining APS Shares because, among other reasons, they would not have
the 300% asset coverage required by section 18(a)(1) of the Act after a
full redemption of the APS Shares. As a result, applicants state that
there is currently no reliable mechanism for holders of APS Shares to
obtain liquidity, and believe that, industry-wide, the current lack of
liquidity is causing distress for a substantial number of APS
shareholders and creating severe hardship for many investors.
    6. Applicants seek relief for a period of two years to facilitate
temporary borrowings by the Funds that would enhance their ability to
provide a liquidity solution to the holders of their APS Shares in the
near term \1\ while they seek a more permanent form of replacement
leverage.\2\ Because of the limited availability of debt financing in
the current, severely constrained capital markets, the applicants
believe that the negotiation, execution and closing of a borrowing
transaction to replace the leverage currently represented by the APS
Shares, if it can be effected, might take several months following the
issuance of the Order. Once the debt incurred in replacement of the APS
Shares is in place, it is uncertain whether and when the applicants
will be able to issue LPP Shares to replace the debt, or how quickly
the securities and capital markets will return to conditions that would
enable the applicants to achieve compliance with the asset coverage
requirements that would apply in the absence of the Order through some
other means. In light of these factors, and given the continuing
unsettled state of the securities and capital markets, which makes it
impossible to establish a precise schedule for consummating capital
markets transactions, the applicants believe that a two-year exemption
period is reasonable and appropriate. Each Fund's refinancing of APS
Shares would be subject to the Fund obtaining any necessary approval of
changes to the Fund's fundamental investment policies and approval of
the refinancing arrangements by the Fund's board of trustees
(``Board'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants note that the cost of the replacement leverage is
expected, over time, to be lower than the total cost of APS Shares
based on the Maximum Rates applicable to the APS Shares of those
Funds.
    \2\ Eaton Vance and its affiliates, including the Funds, have
recently obtained no-action relief from the Commission staff in
connection with Liquidity Protected Preferred Shares (``LPP
Shares''), a new type of preferred stock that the Funds potentially
would issue to supplement or replace the existing APS Shares. See
Eaton Vance Management, SEC No-Action Letter (June 13, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 18(a)(1)(A) of the Act provides that it is unlawful for
any registered closed-end investment company to issue any class of
senior security representing indebtedness, or to sell such security of
which it is the issuer, unless the class of senior security will have
an asset coverage of at least 300% immediately after issuance or sale.
Section 18(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that it is unlawful for any
registered closed-end investment company to issue any class of senior
security that is a stock, or to sell any such security of which it is
the issuer, unless the class of senior security will have an asset
coverage of at least 200% immediately after such issuance or sale.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 18(h) of the Act defines asset coverage of a senior
security representing indebtedness of an issuer as the ratio which
the value of the total assets of the issuer, less all liabilities
and indebtedness not represented by senior securities, bears to the
aggregate amount of senior securities representing indebtedness of
the issuer. The section defines asset coverage of the preferred
stock of an issuer as the ratio which the value of the total assets
of the issuer, less all liabilities and indebtedness not represented
by senior securities, bears to the aggregate amount of senior
securities representing indebtedness of the issuer plus the amount
the class of senior security would be entitled to on involuntary
liquidation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Section 18(a)(1)(B) prohibits a closed-end fund from declaring a
dividend or other distribution on, or purchasing, its own capital stock
unless its outstanding indebtedness will have an asset coverage of at
least 300% immediately after deducting the amount of such dividend,
distribution or

purchase price.\4\ Section 18(a)(2)(B) prohibits a closed-end fund from
declaring a dividend or other distribution on, or purchasing, its own
common stock unless its outstanding preferred stock will have an asset
coverage of at least 200% immediately after deducting the amount of
such dividend, distribution or purchase price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An exception is made for the declaration of a dividend on a
class of preferred stock if the senior security representing
indebtedness has an asset coverage of at least 200% at the time of
declaration after deduction of the amount of such dividend. See
section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Section 6(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that the
Commission, by order upon application, may conditionally or
unconditionally exempt any person, security, or transaction from any
provision of the Act if and to the extent necessary or appropriate in
the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and
the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
    4. Applicants request that the Commission issue an Order under
section 6(c) of the Act to exempt each Fund from the 300% asset
coverage requirements set forth in sections 18(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the
Act. Specifically, the Funds seek relief from the section 18 asset
coverage requirements for senior securities representing indebtedness
for a period not to exceed two years from the date on which the
requested Order is issued (the ``Exemption Period'') to permit the
Funds to refinance any outstanding APS Shares issued prior to February
1, 2008 with debt so long as they have 200% asset coverage, rather than
the 300% asset coverage that would ordinarily apply under section 18 to
senior securities representing indebtedness, (a) when they incur that
debt, and (b) when they declare dividends or any other distributions
on, or purchase, their capital stock, after deduction of the amount of
such dividend, distribution or purchase price. Applicants state that,
except as permitted under the requested Order, if issued, the Funds
would meet all of the asset coverage requirements of section 18(a) of
the Act. In addition, applicants state that each Fund that borrows in
reliance on the Order will either pay down or refinance the debt within
the Exemption Period so that the Fund would, at the expiration of the
Exemption Period and thereafter, comply with the applicable asset
coverage requirements (200% for equity or 300% for debt) under section
18 of the Act.
    5. Applicants state that section 18 reflects congressional concerns
regarding preferential treatment for certain classes of shareholders,
complex capital structures, and the use of excessive leverage.
Applicants submit that another concern was that senior securities gave
the misleading impression of safety from risk. Applicants believe that
the request for temporary relief is necessary, appropriate and in the
public interest and that such relief is consistent with the protection
of investors and the purposes intended by the policy and provisions of
section 18.
    6. Applicants note that the illiquidity of APS Shares is a unique,
exigent situation that is posing urgent, and in some cases devastating,
hardships on APS shareholders. Applicants represent that the proposed
replacement of the APS Shares with debt would provide liquidity for the
Funds' APS shareholders while the Funds continue their efforts to
obtain a more permanent form of financing (such as through the issuance
of LPP Shares) that fully complies with the asset coverage requirements
of section 18.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See supra note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Applicants state that the requested Order would permit the Funds
to continue to provide their common shareholders with the enhanced
returns that leverage may provide. Applicants also represent that the
Order would help avoid the potential harm to common shareholders that
could result if the Funds were to deleverage their portfolios in the
current difficult market environment \6\ or that could result if a
reduction in investment return reduced the market price of common
shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Applicants state that the bulk of each Fund's portfolio is
in floating rate senior secured loans. Applicants believe that it is
difficult to sell such loans at par value in the current market
because of market makers' own impaired capital positions. Applicants
expect, however, that the loans generally will be repaid in full as
they come due. Applicants thus believe it would be disadvantageous
to sell the loans at less than par into the current market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Applicants believe that the interests of both classes of the
Funds' current investors would be well served by the requested order--
the APS shareholders because they would achieve the liquidity that the
market currently cannot provide (as well as full recovery of the
liquidation value of their shares) and the common shareholders because
the cost of the new form of leverage would, over time, be lower than
that of the total cost of the APS Shares based on their Maximum Rates
and the adverse consequences of deleveraging would be avoided.
    9. Applicants represent that the proposed borrowing would be
obtained from banks, insurance companies or qualified institutional
buyers (as defined in Rule 144(a)(1) under the Securities Act of 1933)
who would be capable of assessing the risk associated with the
transaction. Applicants also state that, to the extent the Act's asset
coverage requirements were aimed at limiting leverage because of its
potential to magnify losses as well as gains, they believe that the
proposal would not unduly increase the speculative nature of the Funds'
common shares because the relief is temporary and the Funds would be no
more highly leveraged if they replace the existing APS Shares with
borrowing.\7\ Applicants also state that the proposed liquidity
solution would not make the Funds' capital structure more complex,
opaque, or hard to understand or result in pyramiding or inequitable
distribution of control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Applicants acknowledge that managing any portfolio that
relies on borrowing for leverage entails the risk that, when the
borrowing matures and must be repaid or refinanced, an economically
attractive form of replacement leverage may not be available in the
capital markets. For that reason, any portfolio that relies on
borrowing for leverage is subject to the risk that it may have to
deleverage, which could be disadvantageous to the portfolio's common
shareholders. Applicants therefore state that they regard leveraging
through borrowing as potentially a temporary, interim step, with the
issuance of new preferred stock as a possible longer-term
replacement source of portfolio leverage, such as LPP Shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Applicants state that the current state of the credit markets,
which has affected the APS Shares, is an historic event of unusual
severity, which requires a creative and flexible response on the part
of both the public and private sectors. Applicants believe that these
issues have created an urgent need for limited, quick, thoughtful and
responsive solutions. Applicants believe that the request meets the
standards for exemption under section 6(c) of the Act.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief shall
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Each Fund that borrows subject to 200% asset coverage under the
order will do so only if such Fund's Board, including a majority of the
trustees who are not ``interested persons'' (as defined in section
2(a)(19) of the Act) (``Independent Trustees''), shall have determined
that such borrowing is in the best interests of such Fund, its common
shareholders, and its APS shareholders. Each Fund shall make and
preserve for a period of not less than six years from the date of such
determination, the first two years in an

easily accessible place, minutes specifically describing the
deliberations by the Board and the information and documents supporting
those deliberations, the factors considered by the Board in connection
with such determination, and the basis of such determination.
    2. Upon expiration of the Exemption Period, each Fund will have
asset coverage of at least 300% for each class of senior security
representing indebtedness.
    3. The Board of any Fund that has borrowed in reliance on the order
shall receive and review, no less frequently than quarterly during the
Exemption Period, detailed progress reports prepared by management (or
other parties selected by the Independent Trustees) regarding and
assessing the efforts that the applicant has undertaken, and the
progress that the applicant has made, towards achieving compliance with
the appropriate asset coverage requirements under section 18 by the
expiration of the Exemption Period. The Board, including a majority of
the Independent Trustees, will make such adjustments as it deems
necessary or appropriate to ensure that the applicant comes into
compliance with section 18 of the Act within a reasonable period of
time, not to exceed the expiration of the Exemption Period. Each Fund
will make and preserve minutes describing these reports and the Board's
review, including copies of such reports and all other information
provided to or relied upon by the Board, for a period of not less than
six years from the date of such determination, the first two years in
an easily accessible place.

    By the Commission.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23672 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 16854]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06640]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending March 8, 2014

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2005-22228 and DOT-OST-2011-0076.
    Date Filed: March 6, 2014.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: March 27, 2014.
    Description: Application of JetBlue Airways Corporation requesting
renewal of its certificate of public convenience and necessity to
operate scheduled combination service between the United States, from
Boston, MA (BOS), Fort Lauderdale, FL (FLL), New York, NY (JFK) and
Orlando, FL (MCO), on the one hand, and Cancun, Mexico (CUN), on the
other hand.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register
Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2014-06640 Filed 3-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: June 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 116)]
[Notices]
[Page 34905]
[DOCID:fr16jn06-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10395-032]

Electric Plant Board of the City of Augusta, KY; Notice of
Withdrawal of Reconsideration and Limited Stay of Order Terminating
License

June 9, 2006.
    On March 31, 2006, the City of Hamilton, Ohio, filed a request for
reconsideration and limited stay of the Commission's March 1, 2006
order terminating license for the Meldahl Project No. 10395.
    On May 12, 2006, the City of Hamilton, Ohio, filed a notice of
withdrawal of its request for reconsideration and limited stay. No one
filed a motion in opposition to the withdrawal, and the Commission took
no action to disallow it. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 216 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.216 (2006),
the withdrawal of the pleadings became effective on May 27, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-9391 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 69459]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27547]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL14-95-001]

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on November 13, 2014, pursuant to section 206 of
the Federal Power Act, 16 USC 824(e) and Part 35 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Regulations, 18 CFR part 35, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C. filed clarifications to the language originally
proposed on August 26, 2014, in compliance with the October 31, 2014
Order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 149 FERC ] 61,091 (2014)
(October 31, 2014 Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 4, 2014.

     Dated: November 14, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27547 Filed 11-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P