[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 248 (Friday, December 27, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71501-71504]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27872]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87804; File No. SR-ICC-2019-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Default Auction
Procedures--Initial Default Auctions and the ICC Secondary Auction
Procedures

December 19, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On October 31, 2019, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
revise ICC's Default Auction Procedures--Initial Default Auctions
(``Initial Default Auction Procedures'') and Secondary Auction
Procedures. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on November 18, 2019.\3\ The Commission did not
receive comments regarding the proposed rule change. For the reasons
discussed below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission,
or Advance Notice Relating to the ICC Default Auction Procedures--
Initial Default Auctions and the ICC Secondary Auction Procedures;
Exchange Act Release No. 87502 (Nov. 12, 2019); 84 FR 63693 (Nov.
18, 2019) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    To resolve a default by a Clearing Participant, ICC may auction the
defaulting Clearing Participant's open CDS contracts through one or
more auctions where ICC's other, non-defaulting Clearing Participants
bid on the contracts.\4\ If ICC does not auction

off all of the open CDS contracts in an initial auction, ICC may
conduct one or more secondary auctions to allocate the remaining open
CDS contracts. ICC conducts initial auctions pursuant to its Initial
Default Auction Procedures and secondary auctions pursuant to its
Secondary Auction Procedures (collectively, the ``Auction
Procedures''). The proposed rule change would improve both the initial
and secondary default auction processes by amending the Auction
Procedures to (i) require that ICC use the automated Default Management
System (``DMS'') to communicate with Clearing Participants and that
Clearing Participants use the DMS to communicate with ICC; (ii) allow
for all or nothing bidding in default auctions; and (iii) update
defined terms and make clarifications in light of these changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined have
the meanings assigned to them in the ICC Clearing Rules (the
``Rules'') or the Auction Procedures. The description herein is
substantially excerpted from the Notice, 84 Federal Register at
63693.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would make substantially identical changes
to both the Initial Default Auction Procedures and the Secondary
Auction Procedures. Thus, for the sake of brevity, the description
below refers collectively to changes to the Auction Procedures.

A. Automated DMS

    ICC's DMS is a web-based system that ICC uses to set the
specifications for an auction as well as to communicate certain
information to, and receive certain information from, Clearing
Participants with respect to an auction. Clearing Participants bid on
auctions through the DMS, and the DMS in turns controls bidding by, for
example, prohibiting a Clearing Participant from submitting more than
one valid all-or-nothing bid, as discussed further below. Moreover,
through the DMS, ICC announces winners of auctions. ICC has assigned to
Clearing Participants credentials for logging into and using the DMS,
and Clearing Participants have tested the DMS by using it in various
default drills.
    Currently, under the Auction Procedures, ICC communicates the
details of an auction to Clearing Participants in writing, using a
standardized form that is currently set out in Annex A of the Auction
Procedures. The proposed rule change would delete Annex A in its
entirety and would require that ICC communicate the details of an
auction to Clearing Participants through the DMS rather than in
writing. Similarly, the proposed rule change would require that ICC
notify the winning bidder in an auction through the DMS, rather than by
email, telephone, or in writing (which are the methods that the Auction
Procedures currently require ICC to use to notify a winning bidder).
Finally, the Auction Procedures allow ICC to set a minimum bid
requirement for an auction, under which Clearing Participants are
required to bid for a minimum notional amount of contracts. Currently
ICC must communicate this minimum bid requirement to Clearing
Participants through a notice, the form of which is set out in Annex B
to the Auction Procedures. Under the proposed rule change, ICC would
still be able to set a minimum bid requirement as before, but the
proposed rule change would delete Annex B in its entirety and would
require that ICC communicate the details of a minimum bid requirement
to Clearing Participants through the DMS instead. Thus, the proposed
rule change would give ICC the ability to communicate the details of an
auction to Clearing Participants electronically, through the DMS, which
is designed to help improve the speed and consistency of such
communications.
    The proposed rule change similarly would require that Clearing
Participants communicate with ICC through the DMS rather than through
written communications as required under the current Rules.
Specifically, Clearing Participants currently are required to submit
bids in writing using a Bid Form. Under the proposed rule change
Clearing Participants would be required to submit bids in an auction
electronically through the DMS instead. This is designed to improve the
speed and accuracy of such submissions.
    Finally, the current Auction Procedures specify that ICC may set a
minimum bid size for an auction and currently provide that any bid
below the minimum bid size will be null and void. The proposed rule
change would leverage the DMS to automate these existing requirements
by specifying that the DMS would be designed to automatically prevent
Clearing Participants from submitting bids below the minimum bid size
and to render null and void any bid below the minimum bid size that the
DMS accepted in error. This too is designed to help improve the speed
and accuracy of bid submissions by Clearing Participants, and also to
help ensure that such bid submissions are consistent with existing
requirements.

B. All or Nothing Bidding

    Currently, the Auction Procedures do not permit a Clearing
Participant to submit an all or nothing bid. An all or nothing bid is a
bid in which the Clearing Participant stipulates that, should its bid
be the winning bid, the Clearing Participant will receive 100% of the
contracts being auctioned or no contracts at all. The proposed rule
change would revise the Auction Procedures to allow Clearing
Participants to submit all or nothing bids. Specifically, a Clearing
Participant could submit one all or nothing bid per auction. A Clearing
Participant would do so by marking the bid as an all or nothing bid in
the bid submission (which, as noted above, would be submitted
electronically through the DMS). The proposed rule change would also
specify that a Clearing Participant could submit in the same auction
both one all or nothing bid and non-all or nothing bids (referred to in
the proposed rule change as ``Standard Bids'') on its own behalf or on
behalf of its customers.
    Under the Auction Procedures, ICC determines the auction price by
ordering bids sequentially, starting with the highest bid price and
ending with the lowest bid price. The price of the bid at which, along
with any equal or higher bids, the sum of the notional amount of
contracts being purchased equals or is greater than the notional amount
of contracts that ICC is auctioning is the clearing price of the
auction (the ``Auction Clearing Price''). In other words, ICC proceeds
down the list of bids by price, starting with the highest priced bid,
and sets the Auction Clearing Price at the bid that, along with the
other higher priced bids before it, allows ICC to allocate 100% of the
open CDS contracts.
    The Auction Procedures currently require that, in the event there
are multiple bids at the Auction Clearing Price and there is a
shortfall of open CDS contracts, ICC must allocate the contracts pro
rata according to the notional amount of contracts that each winning
bidder requested in its bid. As revised under the proposed rule change,
the Auction Procedures would require that, where there is an all or
nothing bid in the sequence of bids before the Auction Clearing Price,
the price of the all or nothing bid would set the Auction Clearing
Price (because that would be the highest priced bid that would allow
ICC to allocate 100% of the open contracts). In that case, ICC would
allocate to the all or nothing bidder 100% of the contracts even if
there are Standard Bids at a higher or equal price. If there were more
than one all or nothing bid at the Auction Clearing Price, then the
Auction Procedures, as revised under the proposed rule change, would
require that ICC allocate the portfolio equally among all the bidders
submitting all or nothing bids.
    The proposed rule change would update other provisions of the
Auction Procedures to clarify how those

provisions would apply in light of all or nothing bidding. First, the
Auction Procedures currently provide that ICC may, after an initial
auction, in its discretion and after consultation with the CDS Risk
Committee, determine the Auction Clearing Price for such an auction to
be less than 100% of the notional amount of the contracts and declare a
second auction to auction off the remaining contracts. ICC may do so
if, in its reasonable determination, awarding 100% of the notional
amount of the contracts would have a material impact on the amounts
payable or receivable by ICC. The proposed rule change would not alter
this provision but would specify that, in such a situation, ICC could
disregard any all or nothing bids received in the initial auction.
    Second, the proposed rule change would revise the Auction
Procedures to clarify how an all or nothing bid affects the calculation
of a Clearing Participant's bid price for purposes of determining the
competitiveness of a Clearing Participant's bid and satisfaction of a
Clearing Participant's minimum bid requirement. The competitiveness of
a Clearing Participant's bid and satisfaction of a Clearing
Participant's minimum bid requirement are important because under ICC
Rule 802(b) and the default auction priority set out in the Auction
Procedures, in the event that ICC needs to use non-defaulting Clearing
Participants' contributions to the Guaranty Fund to resolve the default
of a Clearing Participant, ICC uses first the contributions to the
Guaranty Fund attributable to Clearing Participants that did not
satisfy their minimum bid requirement (referred to as Non-Bidding
Participants), followed by those that submitted less competitive bids.
Currently, ICC uses the weighted average of a Clearing Participant's
Standard Bids to determine bid price and thus to determine the
competitiveness of a Clearing Participant's bids in an auction for
these purposes. Under the updated Auction Procedures, as revised by the
proposed rule change, where a Clearing Participant has submitted both
an all or nothing bid and one or more Standard Bids, the Clearing
Participant's bid price would be the more competitive of (1) the
weighted average bid price of all valid Standard Bids made by the
Clearing Participant in the auction (weighted by the portfolio size of
each such bid, and converted into USD at the relevant FX spot rate, if
applicable) and (2) the price of any valid All or Nothing Bid made by
the Clearing Participant in the Auction. For this purpose, the more
competitive of the two would be the one that results in the best
outcome for ICC; in other words, the bid under which ICC will receive
the most, or pay out the least, cash in return for the auctioned
contracts.
    Finally, under the updated Auction Procedures, as revised by the
proposed rule change, if a Clearing Participant's Standard Bids do not
satisfy its minimum bid requirement, the Clearing Participant's bid
price would be the price of its all or nothing bid. Where a Clearing
Participant has submitted only one or more Standard Bids (and has not
submitted an all or nothing bid), and that Clearing Participant's
Standard Bids do not satisfy its minimum bid requirement, the Auction
Procedures would treat the Clearing Participant as a Non-Bidding
Participant, which, as noted above, has consequences under ICC Rule
802(b). Specifically, if ICC needs to use non-defaulting Clearing
Participants' contributions to the Guaranty Fund to resolve the default
of a Clearing Participant, ICC uses first the contributions to the
Guaranty Fund attributable to Non-Bidding Participants.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ICC Rule 802(b) and the default auction priority set out
in the Auction Procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Updates to Defined Terms and Clarifications

    Related to the changes described above, the proposed rule change
would update defined terms and make an additional clarification to the
Auction Procedures.
    In connection with the proposed requirement that Clearing
Participants submit bids through the DMS, and to better specify the
meaning of the defined term, the proposed rule change would change the
defined term ``Closing Time'' to ``Bidding Close Time.'' The proposed
rule change would define the term as the bidding close time specified
by ICC in the relevant auction specifications.
    To distinguish all or nothing bids, the proposed rule change would
add to the Auction Procedures the defined term ``Standard Bid.'' A
Standard Bid would be a valid bid submitted by a Clearing Participant
that was not an all or nothing bid.
    To refer to a bid submitted through the DMS, rather than in paper
through the bid form, the proposed rule change would create the defined
term ``Bid Submission.'' The proposed rule change would define the term
Bid Submission to mean a bid submitted through the DMS.
    Finally, the Auction Procedures currently allow a Clearing
Participant to transfer its minimum bid requirement to an affiliate
that is also a Clearing Participant. The Auction Procedures specify
that, in such a case, a Clearing Participant that so transfers or
outsources its minimum bid requirement to an affiliate remains liable
for any breach by its affiliate in respect of such Clearing
Participant's Minimum Bid Requirement. The proposed rule change would
further clarify that in such a case, a Clearing Participant will take
on the same position as a Senior Bidder, Split Bidder, Subordinate
Bidder, or Non-Bidding Participant as the affiliate, as appropriate.
This change is unrelated to the other changes discussed above, but ICC
is using the proposed rule change to submit this additional
clarification.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\6\ For the reasons given below, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \7\ and Rule 17Ad-22(d)(11) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of ICC be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, as well
as to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of ICC or for which it is responsible, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.\9\ As discussed
above, the proposed rule change would require that ICC use the DMS to
communicate certain information to Clearing Participants, such as
specific parameters of an auction, and would in turn, require Clearing
Participants to use the DMS to communicate their bids to ICC. The DMS
would also automatically reject bids that do not satisfy the minimum
bid size. The Commission

believes that in doing so the proposed rule change would improve the
efficiency and accuracy of communications regarding default auctions,
which may help to avoid delays or miscommunications that could delay
the completion of an auction. Thus, in requiring use of the DMS, the
Commission believes the proposed rule change would help to promote the
prompt resolution of default auctions. Similarly, the Commission
believes that all or nothing bidding would enhance ICC's ability to
sell all of the open CDS contracts in an initial default auction by
providing a means for a single bidder to take all of the contracts and
requiring that ICC allocate such contracts to that bidder if the all or
nothing bid meets the Auction Clearing Price. Finally, the Commission
believes that the updates to the defined terms and the clarification
regarding a Clearing Participant's ability to transfer its minimum
requirement to an affiliate would support and enhance ICC's ability to
implement these changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through default auctions, ICC allocates the open CDS contracts of a
defaulting Clearing Participant to other, non-defaulting Clearing
Participants. Thus, in improving the efficiency of such auctions, the
Commission believes the proposed rule change would promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of the CDS transactions resulting
from such auctions. Moreover, the Commission believes that the default
of a Clearing Participant, if not promptly resolved, could causes
losses for ICC. The Commission believes the proposed rule change would
help to avoid these losses by promoting the prompt resolution of
default auctions, and therefore the prompt resolution of a Clearing
Participant's default. Because losses resulting from the default of a
Clearing Participant could disrupt ICC's ability to operate and
therefore threaten ICC's access to securities and funds, the Commission
believes the proposed rule change also would help to assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds in ICC's custody and control.
Finally, for these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed
rule change would, in general, protect investors and the public
interest.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change would
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in ICC's
custody and control, and, in general, protect investors and the public
interest, consistent with the Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(d)(11)

    Rule 17Ad-22(d)(11) requires that ICC establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to make key aspects of its default procedures publicly
available and establish default procedures that ensure that ICC can
take timely action to contain losses and liquidity pressures and to
continue meeting its obligations in the event of a participant
default.\11\ As discussed above, the Commission believes the proposed
rule change would improve the efficiency and accuracy of communications
regarding default auctions and increase the likelihood that ICC is able
to allocate all open CDS contracts in an initial auction by providing a
means for a single bidder to take all of the contracts up for auction.
The Commission believes that these changes would help ICC to resolve
defaults quickly through auctions. The Commission believes, in turn,
that resolving defaults quickly through auctions would therefore help
to ensure that ICC can take timely action to contain losses and
liquidity pressures and to continue meeting its obligations in the
event of a Clearing Participant's default.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 17Ad-22(d)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, for the above reasons the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(d)(11).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 17Ad-22(d)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \13\ and Rule 17Ad-22(d)(11) thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\15\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2019-011), be, and hereby
is, approved.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \16\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-27872 Filed 12-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86571-86572]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28833]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-3233]

Request for Nominations for Voting Members on a Public Advisory
Committee; Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards
Committee

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting
nominations for voting members to serve on the Technical Electronic
Product Radiation Safety Standards Committee (TEPRSSC) in the Center
for Devices and Radiological Health. Nominations will be accepted for
current and upcoming vacancies effective with this notice. FDA seeks to
include the views of women and men, members of all racial and ethnic
groups, and individuals with and without disabilities on its advisory
committees and, therefore, encourages nominations of appropriately
qualified candidates from these groups.

DATES: Nominations received on or before March 1, 2021, will be given
first consideration for membership on TEPRSSC. Nominations received
after March 1, 2021, will be considered for nomination to the committee
as later vacancies occur.

ADDRESSES: All nominations for membership should be sent electronically
by logging into FDA's Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal
at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/FACTRSPortal/FACTRS/index.cfm
or by mail to Advisory Committee Oversight and Management Staff, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5103,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Information about becoming a member on an
FDA advisory committee can also be obtained by visiting FDA's website
at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricio G. Garcia, Division of
Management Services, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5216,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is requesting nominations for voting
members to serve on TEPRSSC that include five general public
representatives and five government representatives.

I. General Description of the Committee's Duties

    The committee provides advice and consultation to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) on the technical feasibility,
reasonableness, and practicability of performance standards for
electronic products to control the emission of radiation from such
products, and may recommend electronic product radiation safety
standards to the Commissioner for consideration.

II. Criteria for Voting Members

    The committee consists of a core of 15 voting members including the
Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or
designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the fields of science
or engineering, applicable to electronic product radiation safety.
Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4
years. Terms of more than 2 years are contingent upon the renewal of
the committee by appropriate action prior to its expiration.

III. Nomination Procedures

    Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified
individuals for membership on the committee. Self-nominations are also
accepted. Nominations must include a current, complete
r[eacute]sum[eacute] or curriculum vitae for each nominee, including
current business address and/or home address, telephone number, and
email address if available and a signed copy of the Acknowledgement and
Consent form available at the FDA Advisory Nomination Portal (see
ADDRESSES). Nominations must also specify the advisory committee for
which the nominee is recommended. Nominations must also acknowledge
that the nominee is aware of the nomination unless self-nominated. FDA
will ask potential candidates to provide detailed information
concerning such matters related to financial holdings, employment, and
research grants and/or contracts to permit evaluation of possible
sources of conflicts of interest.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

    Dated: December 22, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-28833 Filed 12-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 6, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14446-14447]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04988]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0082]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Cheesequake Creek, Morgan, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
regulation governing the operation of the New Jersey Transit Rail
Operation (NJTRO) Railroad Bridge across Cheesequake Creek, mile 0.2,
at Morgan, New Jersey. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge may
remain in the closed position for three weekends to facilitate
scheduled bridge repairs.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on March 2, 2013, until
4 p.m. on March 3, 2013; from 6 a.m. on March 9, 2013, until 4 p.m. on
March 10, 2013; and from 6 a.m. on March 16, 2013, until 4 p.m. on
March 17, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2013-0082] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First
Coast Guard District<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NJTRO railroad bridge has a vertical
clearance of 3 feet at mean high water, and 8 feet at mean low water in
the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are
found at 33 CFR 117.709(b).
    The bridge owner, New Jersey Transit Rail Operations (NJTRO),
requested a bridge closure to facilitate structural and track repairs
at the bridge.
    Under this temporary deviation, the NJTRO railroad bridge may
remain in the closed position on three consecutive weekends, from 6
a.m. on March 2, 2013, until 4 p.m. on March 3, 2013, from 6 a.m. on
March 9, 2013 until 4 p.m. on March 10, 2013, and from 6 a.m. on March
16, 2013, until 4 p.m. on March 17, 2013.
    In the event weather conditions are favorable during the first two
weekends, the third weekend may be unnecessary. In that event, the
bridge would return to its regular operating schedule during the third
weekend.
    Cheesequake Creek is predominantly a recreational waterway. The
bridge rarely opens in the winter months when this temporary deviation
will be in effect.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
repair period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: February 21, 2013.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-04988 Filed 3-4-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 204)]
[Notices]
[Page 65312-65313]
[DOCID:fr22oc10-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

October 13, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC10-85-001.
    Applicants: Mystic Development, LLC, Fore River Development, LLC,
Boston Generating, LLC, Mystic I, LLC, Constellation Mystic Power, LLC.
    Description: Response to Deficiency Letter and Request for
Shortened Comment Period and Expedited Review of Fore River
Development, LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 10/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101008-5184.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 8, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: EC11-4-000.
    Applicants: Conectiv Energy Supply, Inc.
    Description: Application for approval under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and request for expedited treatment and shortened
comment period.
    Filed Date: 10/07/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101008-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 28, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: EC11-5-000.
    Applicants: Morgan Stanley.
    Description: Request for Reauthorization and Extension of Existing
Blanket Authorization to Acquire Securities under Section 203(a)(2) of
the FPA and Request for Expedited Action of Morgan Stanley.
    Filed Date: 10/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101008-5171.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 29, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER95-1528-022.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status for Market-
Based Rate Authority of Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Filed Date: 10/07/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101007-5168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 28, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER97-324-020; ER97-3834-026.
    Applicants: DTE Energy Trading, Inc., The Detroit Edison Company
    Description: Application of The Detroit Edison Company and DTE
Energy Trading, Inc. for Continued Waiver of Affiliate Restrictions
related to The Detroit Edison Company's Summer 2011 Auction for
Capacity.
    Filed Date: 10/12/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101012-5365.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 2, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1520-001; ER10-1521-001; ER10-1522-001.
    Applicants: Occidental Power Services, Inc., Occidental Power
Marketing, LP, Occidental Chemical Corporation.
    Description: Errata to Notice of Change in Status of Occidental
Power Services, Inc., et. al.
    Filed Date: 10/12/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101012-5272.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 2, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2078-000; ER10-2078-001.
    Applicants: White Oak Energy LLC.
    Description: Supplement to Market-Based Rate Application of White
Oak Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101008-5169.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-59-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Texas, Inc., Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy
Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy
Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc.

    Description: Entergy Texas, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Proposed Extension of ICT Arrangement to be effective
12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 10/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101008-5028.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 15, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-81-000.
    Applicants: CPower, Inc.
    Description: Request for Limited Waiver and Expedited Treatment of
CPower, Inc.
    Filed Date: 10/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101008-5172.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 21, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-91-000.
    Applicants: Western Electricity Coordinating Council.
    Description: Notice of Proposed Cancellation of Western Electricity
Coordinating Council's Reliability Management System.
    Filed Date: 10/12/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101012-5219.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 2, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-26760 Filed 10-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 60259]
[DOCID:fr10oc08-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR08-15-003]

Energy Transfer Fuel, LP; Notice of Compliance Filing

October 6, 2008.
    Take notice that on October 1, 2008, Energy Transfer Fuel, LP filed
a Report of Refunds in compliance with the Commission's letter order
issued on July 11, 2008 in Docket Nos. PR08-15-000 and PR08-15-001.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest 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 review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-24159 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 150)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43580-43581]
[DOCID:fr06au07-23]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0610; FRL-8448-7]

Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Maricopa
County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Maricopa County
portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision
concerns reductions of particulate matter (PM) emissions from the
paving of unpaved road and use of these reductions to satisfy the
offset requirements under the new source review provisions of the Clean
Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are proposing to
approve a local rule to assure that the PM emission reductions
resulting from the road paving meet the criteria for valid offsets
under the Act.

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by September 5, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2007-0610, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow

the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an

``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lily Wong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4114<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following local
rule: Maricopa County Air Quality Department Rule 242, ``Emission
Offsets Generated by the Voluntary Paving of Unpaved Roads.'' In the
Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are
approving this local rule in a direct final action without prior
proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial.
If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in
subsequent action based on this proposed rule.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: July 20, 2007.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
 [FR Doc. E7-15119 Filed 8-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 51869-51874]
[DOCID:fr11se07-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-27965; File No. 812-13359]

Financial Investors Variable Insurance Trust et al., Notice of
Application September 4, 2007

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or the
``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of application (``Application'') for exemption, pursuant
to section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the
``1940 Act''), from the provisions of sections 9(a), 13(a), 15(a) and
15(b) of the Act and Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) thereunder.

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

    Applicants: Ibbotson Conservative ETF Asset Allocation Portfolio,
Ibbotson Income and Growth ETF Asset Allocation Portfolio, Ibbotson
Balanced ETF Asset Allocation Portfolio, Ibbotson Growth ETF Asset
Allocation Portfolio, Ibbotson Aggressive Growth ETF Asset Allocation
Portfolio (collectively, the ``Existing Funds''), each a series of
Financial Investors Variable Insurance Trust (the ``Trust''), any other
series established from time to time under the Trust (collectively with
the Existing Funds, the ``Insurance Funds''), and any future investment
company that is designed to fund insurance products and for which ALPS
Advisers, Inc. (the ``Investment Adviser''), any successor in interest
(collectively with the Investment Adviser, the ``Investment
Advisers''), or any affiliates of the Investment Advisers may serve as
investment manager, investment adviser, subadviser, administrator,
principal underwriter or sponsor (funds advised by such Investment
Advisers herein also referred to collectively as the ``Insurance
Funds'') (the Trust, the Existing Funds, the Insurance Funds, the
Investment Adviser, and the Investment Advisers, referred to
collectively as the ``Applicants'').
    Summary of Application: The Applicants request an order exempting
certain life insurance companies on behalf of their separate accounts
that currently invest or may hereafter invest in the Insurance Funds to
the extent necessary to permit shares of the Existing Funds (the
``Shares'') and the Insurance Funds to be sold to and held by: (i)
Separate accounts funding variable annuity contracts and variable life
insurance policies (collectively ``Variable Contracts'') issued by both
affiliated life insurance companies and unaffiliated life insurance
companies; (ii) trustees of qualified group pension and group
retirement plans outside of the separate account context (``Qualified
Plans''); (iii) separate accounts that are not registered as investment
companies under the 1940 Act pursuant to exemptions from registration
under section 3(c) of the 1940 Act; (iv) any Adviser to an Insurance
Fund that is permitted to hold shares in an Insurance Fund consistent
with the requirements of regulations issued by the Treasury Department
(individually a ``Treasury Regulation'' and collectively the ``Treasury
Regulations''), specifically Treasury Regulation Section 1.817-5 for
the purpose of providing seed capital to an Insurance Fund; and (v) any
other Participating Insurance Company permitted to hold shares of an
Insurance Fund (``General Accounts'').
    Filing Date: The Application was filed on January 26, 2007, and
amended and restated on May 21, 2007.
    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 Secretary of
the Commission 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 September 26, 2007, 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 requester'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 Secretary of the
Commission.

ADDRESSES: The Commission: Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants:
c/o Jeffrey T. Pike, Esq., Secretary, Financial Investors Variable
Insurance Trust, 1290 Broadway, Suite 1100, Denver, Colorado 80203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey A. Foor, Senior Counsel, or
Zandra Y. Bailes, Branch Chief, Office of Insurance Products, Division
of Investment Management, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
Application. The complete Application is available for a fee from the
SEC's Public Reference Branch, 100 F Street, NE., Room 1580,
Washington, DC 20549 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. Each Insurance Fund is, or will be, registered under the 1940
Act as an open-end management investment company. The Trust (File No.
811-21987) is registered under the 1940 Act as a non-diversified
management investment company. Applicants state that the Trust's shares
are registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the ``1933
Act'') (File No. 333-139186) and the investment adviser to the Trust,
ALPS Advisers, Inc. is registered with the Commission as an investment
adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended.
    2. Applicants state that the Existing Funds intend to, and other
Insurance Funds may in the future, offer Shares to separate accounts of
affiliated and unaffiliated insurance companies funding variable
annuity or variable life products. Applicants state that these separate
accounts are, or will be, registered as investment companies under the
1940 Act or will be exempt from such registration (individually a
``Separate Account'' and collectively the ``Separate Accounts'').
Insurance companies whose Separate Account(s) may now or in the future
own Shares are referred to herein as ``Participating Insurance
Companies.''
    3. Applicants propose that the Funds be permitted to offer and/or
sell shares to Separate Accounts funding Variable Contracts issued by
Participating Insurance Companies. Applicants represent that the
Participating Insurance Companies at the time of their investment in
the Insurance Funds either have established or will establish their own
Separate Accounts and design their own Variable Contracts. Each
Participating Insurance Company has or will have the legal obligation
of satisfying all applicable requirements under both state and federal
law. Applicants represent that each Participating Insurance Company on
behalf of its Separate Accounts has entered or will enter into an
agreement with each Insurance Fund in which it invests concerning
participation by the Participating Insurance Company in such Insurance
Fund (a ``Participation Agreement''). The role of the Insurance Funds
under this agreement, insofar as the federal securities laws are
applicable, will consist of, among other things, offering shares to the
Separate Accounts and complying with any conditions that the Commission
may impose.
    4. Applicants propose that the Insurance Funds also be permitted to
offer and/or sell Shares to Qualified Plans administered by a Trustee.
Section 817(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
``Code''), imposes certain diversification standards on the underlying
assets of Separate Accounts funding Variable Contracts. The Code
provides that Variable Contracts shall not be treated as an annuity
contract or life insurance policy for any period (or any subsequent
period) for which the underlying assets are not, in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Treasury Department, (individually, a
``Treasury Regulation'' and collectively the ``Treasury Regulations''),
adequately diversified. On March 2, 1989, the Treasury Department
issued Treasury Regulations (Treas. Reg. Section 1.817-5) that
established diversification requirements for Variable Contracts, which
require the Separate Accounts upon which these contracts or policies
are based to be diversified as provided in the Treasury Regulations. In
the case of Separate Accounts that invest in underlying investment
companies, the Treasury Regulations provide a ``look through'' rule
that permits the Separate Account to look to the underlying investment
company for purposes of meeting the diversification requirements,
provided that the beneficial interests in the investment company are
held only by the segregated asset accounts of one or more insurance
companies. However, the Treasury Regulations also contain certain
exceptions to this requirement, one of which allows shares in an
investment company to be held by the trustee of a qualified pension or
retirement plan without adversely affecting the tax status of Variable
Contracts (Treas. Reg. Section 1.817-5(f)(3)(iii)). Another exception
allows the investment manager of the investment company and certain
companies related to the investment manager to hold shares of the
investment company, an exception that is often used to provide the
capital required by section 14(a) of the 1940 Act.
    5. Applicants also propose that the Funds be permitted to offer
and/or sell shares to an Adviser for the purpose of providing initial
capital to an Insurance Fund and to General Accounts. The Regulations
permit such sales to an Adviser and to General Accounts so long as the
return on shares held by each is computed in the same manner as for
shares held by the Separate Accounts, and the Adviser and the General
Accounts do not intend to sell shares of the Portfolio held by it to
the public. The Treasury Regulations impose an additional restriction
on sales to investment advisers, who may hold shares only in connection
with the creation of an Insurance Fund. Applicants anticipate that
sales in reliance on these provisions of the Treasury Regulations will
be made to an Adviser for the purpose of providing the initial capital
for a Fund and that any Shares purchased by an Adviser will be redeemed
immediately if and when the Adviser's investment advisory agreement
terminates.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. In connection with the funding of scheduled premium variable
life insurance contracts issued through a Separate Account registered
as a unit investment trust (``UIT'') under the 1940 Act, Rule 6e-
2(b)(15) provides partial exemptions from sections 9(a), 13(a), 15(a)
and 15(b) of the 1940 Act. Section 9(a)(2) of the 1940 Act makes it
unlawful for any company to serve as an investment adviser or principal
underwriter of any UIT, if an affiliated person of that company is
subject to a disqualification enumerated in section 9(a)(1) or (2) of
the 1940 Act. Sections 13(a), 15(a) and 15(b) of the 1940 Act have been
deemed by the Commission to require ``pass-through'' voting with
respect to an underlying investment company's shares. Rule 6e-2(b)(15)
provides these exemptions apply only where all of the assets of the UIT
are shares of management investment companies ``which offer their
shares exclusively to variable life insurance separate accounts of the
life insurer or of any affiliated life insurance company.'' Therefore,
the relief granted by Rule 6e-2(b)(15) is not available with respect to
a scheduled premium life insurance Separate Account that owns shares of
an underlying fund that also offers its shares to a variable annuity
Separate Account or flexible premium variable life insurance Separate
Account of the same company or any other affiliated insurance company.
The use of a common management investment company as the underlying
investment vehicle for both variable annuity and variable life
insurance separate accounts of the same life insurance company or of
any affiliated life insurance company is referred to herein as ``mixed
funding.''
    2. The relief granted by Rule 6e-2(b)(15) also is not available
with respect to a scheduled premium variable

life insurance Separate Account that owns shares of an underlying fund
that also offers its shares to Separate Accounts funding Variable
Contracts of one or more unaffiliated life insurance companies. The use
of a common management investment company as the underlying investment
vehicle for variable annuity and/or variable life insurance Separate
Accounts of unaffiliated life insurance companies is referred to herein
as ``shared funding.''
    3. Moreover, because the relief under Rule 6e-2(b)(15) is available
only where shares are offered exclusively to variable life insurance
Separate Accounts of a life insurer or any affiliated life insurance
company, additional exemptive relief is necessary if the Shares are
also to be sold to Qualified Plans, an Adviser and General Accounts
(collectively, ``Eligible Purchasers''). Applicants note that if the
Shares were sold only to Separate Accounts funding variable annuity
contracts and/or Eligible Purchasers, exemptive relief under Rule 6e-
2(b)(15) would not be necessary. The relief provided for under this
section does not relate to Eligible Purchasers or to a registered
investment company's ability to sell its shares to Eligible Purchasers.
The use of a common management investment company as the underlying
investment vehicle for Separate Accounts funding Variable Contracts
issued by affiliated and unaffiliated insurance companies, and for
Eligible Purchasers, is referred to herein as ``extended mixed and
shared funding.''
    4. In connection with flexible premium variable life insurance
contracts issued through a separate account registered under the 1940
Act as a UIT, Rule 6e-3(T)(b)(15) provides partial exemptions from
sections 9(a), 13(a), 15(a) and 15(b) of the 1940 Act. The exemptions
granted by Rule 6e-3(T)(b)(15) are available only where all the assets
of the Separate Account consist of the shares of one or more registered
management investment companies that offer to sell their shares
``exclusively to separate accounts of the life insurer, or of any
affiliated life insurance companies, offering either scheduled
contracts or flexible contracts, or both; or which also offer their
shares to variable annuity separate accounts of the life insurer or of
an affiliated life insurance company or which offer their shares to any
such life insurance company in consideration solely for advances made
by the life insurer in connection with the operation of the separate
account.'' Therefore, Rule 6e-3(T)(b)(15) permits mixed funding but
does not permit shared funding.
    5. Moreover, because the relief under Rule 6e-3(T) is available
only where shares are offered exclusively to variable life insurance
separate accounts of a life insurer or any affiliated life insurance
company, additional exemptive relief is necessary if the shares of the
Portfolios are also to be sold to Eligible Purchasers, as described
above. Applicants note that if the Shares were sold only to Separate
Accounts funding variable annuity contracts and/or Eligible Purchasers,
exemptive relief under Rule 6e-3(T)(b)(15) would not be necessary. The
relief provided for under this section does not relate to Eligible
Purchasers or to a registered investment company's ability to sell its
shares to Eligible Purchasers.
    6. Applicants maintain, as discussed below, that there is no policy
reason for the sale of the Portfolios' shares to Eligible Purchasers to
result in a prohibition against, or otherwise limit a Participating
Insurance Company from relying on the relief provided by Rules 6e-
2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15). However, because the relief under Rules
6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) is available only when shares are
offered exclusively to Separate Accounts, additional exemptive relief
may be necessary if the shares of the Portfolios are also to be sold to
Eligible Purchasers. Applicants therefore request relief in order to
have the Participating Insurance Companies enjoy the benefits of the
relief granted in Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) even where
Eligible Purchasers are investing in the relevant Insurance Fund.
Applicants note that if the Shares were to be sold only to Eligible
Purchasers, and/or Separate Accounts funding variable annuity
contracts, exemptive relief under Rule 6e-2(b)(15) and Rule 6e-
3(T)(b)(15) would be unnecessary. The relief provided for under Rules
6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) does not relate to Eligible Purchasers,
or to a registered investment company's ability to sell its shares to
Eligible Purchasers.
    7. Consistent with the Commission's authority under section 6(c) of
the 1940 Act to grant exemptive orders to a class or classes of persons
and transactions, the Application requests relief for the class
consisting of Participating Insurance Companies and their Separate
Accounts (and to the extent necessary, investment advisers, principal
underwriters and depositors of such Separate Accounts).
    8. In effect, the partial relief granted in Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and
6e-3(T)(b)(15) under the 1940 Act from the requirements of section 9 of
the 1940 Act limits the amount of monitoring necessary to ensure
compliance with section 9 to that which is appropriate in light of the
policy and purposes of section 9. Those rules recognize that it is not
necessary for the protection of investors or the purposes fairly
intended by the policy and provisions of the 1940 Act to apply the
provisions of section 9(a) to individuals in a large insurance complex,
most of whom will have no involvement in matters pertaining to
investment companies in that organization. Applicants assert that it is
also unnecessary to apply section 9(a) of the 1940 Act to the many
individuals in various unaffiliated insurance companies (or affiliated
companies of Participating Insurance Companies) that may utilize the
Insurance Funds as investment vehicles for Variable Contracts.
Applicants argue that there is no regulatory purpose in extending the
monitoring requirements to embrace a full application of section 9(a)'s
eligibility restrictions because of mixed funding or shared funding and
sales to Qualified Plans, an Adviser or General Accounts. Applicants
represent that the Participating Insurance Companies and Qualified
Plans are not expected to play any role in the management of the
Insurance Funds. Applicants argue that those individuals who
participate in the management of the Insurance Funds will remain the
same regardless of which Separate Accounts or Qualified Plans invest in
the Insurance Funds. Applying the monitoring requirements of section
9(a) of the 1940 Act because of investment by Separate Accounts of
Participating Insurance Companies or Qualified Plans would be
unjustified and would not serve any regulatory purpose. Furthermore,
the increased monitoring costs could reduce the net rates of return
realized by contract owners and Qualified Plan holders.
    9. Rules 6e-2(b)(15)(iii) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15)(iii) under the 1940
Act provide exemptions from the pass-through voting requirement with
respect to several significant matters, assuming the limitations on
mixed and shared funding are observed. Rules 6e-2(b)(15)(iii)(A) and
6e-3(T)(b)(15)(iii)(A) provide that the insurance company may disregard
the voting instructions of its contract owners with respect to the
investments of an underlying fund, or any contract between such a fund
and its investment adviser, when required to do so by an insurance
regulatory authority (subject to the provisions of paragraphs (b)(5)(i)
and (b)(7)(ii)(A) of Rules 6e-2 and 6e-3(T), respectively, under the
1940 Act). Rules 6e-2(b)(15)(iii)(B) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15)(iii)(A)(2)
provide that the insurance company may disregard the

voting instructions of its contract owners if the contract owners
initiate any change in an underlying fund's investment policies,
principal underwriter, or any investment adviser (provided that
disregarding such voting instructions is reasonable and subject to the
other provisions of paragraphs (b)(5)(ii), (b)(7)(ii)(B), and
(b)(7)(ii)(C), respectively, of Rules 6e-2 and 6e-3(T) under the 1940
Act).
    10. Rule 6e-2 under the 1940 Act recognizes that a variable life
insurance contract, as an insurance contract, has important elements
unique to insurance contracts and is subject to extensive state
regulation of insurance. In adopting Rule 6e-2(b)(15)(iii), the
Commission expressly recognized that state insurance regulators have
authority, pursuant to state insurance laws or regulations, to
disapprove or require changes in investment policies, investment
advisers, or principal underwriters. The Commission also expressly
recognized that state insurance regulators have authority to require an
insurer to draw from its general account to cover costs imposed upon
the insurer by a change approved by contract owners over the insurer's
objection. The Commission, therefore, deemed such exemptions necessary
``to assure the solvency of the life insurer and performance of its
contractual obligations by enabling an insurance regulatory authority
or the life insurer to act when certain proposals reasonably could be
expected to increase the risks undertaken by the life insurer.'' In
this respect, flexible premium variable life insurance contracts are
identical to scheduled premium variable life insurance contracts.
Applicants, therefore, assert that the corresponding provisions of Rule
6e-3(T) under the 1940 Act undoubtedly were adopted in recognition of
the same factors.
    11. Applicants also assert that the sale of Shares to Qualified
Plans, an Adviser and General Accounts will not have any impact on the
relief requested herein. With respect to the Qualified Plans, which are
not registered as investment companies under the 1940 Act, shares of a
portfolio of an investment company sold to a Qualified Plan must be
held by the trustees of the Qualified Plan pursuant to section 403(a)
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, as amended (``ERISA'').
Applicants note that (1) Section 403(a) of ERISA endows Qualified Plan
trustees with the exclusive authority and responsibility for voting
proxies provided neither of two enumerated exceptions to that provision
applies; (2) some of the Qualified Plans may provide for the
trustee(s), an investment adviser (or advisers), or another named
fiduciary to exercise voting rights in accordance with instructions
from participants; and (3) there is no requirement to pass through
voting rights to Qualified Plan participants.
    12. Applicants argue that an Investment Manager and General
Accounts are similar in that they are not subject to any pass-through
voting requirements. Applicants therefore conclude that, unlike the
case with insurance company Separate Accounts, the issue of resolution
of material irreconcilable conflicts with respect to voting is not
present with Eligible Purchasers.
    13. Applicants represent that where a Qualified Plan does not
provide participants with the right to give voting instructions, the
trustee or named fiduciary has responsibility to vote the shares held
by the Qualified Plan. In this circumstance, the trustee has a
fiduciary duty to vote the shares in the best interest of the Qualified
Plan participants. Accordingly, even if an Adviser or an affiliate of
an Adviser were to serve in the capacity of trustee or named fiduciary
with voting responsibilities, an Adviser or its affiliates would have a
fiduciary duty to vote relevant Shares in the best interest of the
Qualified Plan participants.
    14. Further, Applicants assert that even if a Qualified Plan were
to hold a controlling interest in a Portfolio, Applicants do not
believe that such control would disadvantage other investors in such
Portfolio to any greater extent than is the case when any institutional
shareholder holds a majority of the voting securities of any open-end
management investment company. In this regard, Applicants submit that
investment in a Portfolio by a Qualified Plan will not create any of
the voting complications occasioned by mixed funding or shared funding.
Unlike mixed funding or shared funding, Applicants argue that Qualified
Plan investor voting rights cannot be frustrated by veto rights of
insurers or state regulators.
    15. Where a Qualified Plan provides participants with the right to
give voting instructions, Applicants see no reason to believe that
participants in Qualified Plans generally or those in a particular
Qualified Plan, either as a single group or in combination with
participants in other Qualified Plans, would vote in a manner that
would disadvantage Variable Contract holders. Applicants assert that
the purchase of Shares by Qualified Plans that provide voting rights
does not present any complications not otherwise occasioned by mixed or
shared funding.
    16. Applicants do not believe that sale of the Shares to Qualified
Plans will increase the potential for material irreconcilable conflicts
of interest between or among different types of investors. In
particular, Applicants see very little potential for such conflicts
beyond those which would otherwise exist between Variable Contract
owners.
    17. Applicants assert that permitting an Insurance Fund to sell its
shares to an Adviser or to the General Account of a Participating
Insurance Company will enhance management of each Insurance Fund
without raising significant concerns regarding material irreconcilable
conflicts. Unlike the circumstances of many investment companies that
serve as underlying investment media for variable insurance products,
the Fund may be deemed to lack an insurance company ``promoter'' for
purposes of Rule 14a-2 under the 1940 Act. Accordingly, the Fund and
any other such Future Funds or Portfolios that are established as new
registrants will be subject to the requirements of section 14(a) of the
1940 Act, which generally requires that an investment company have a
net worth of $100,000 upon making a public offering of its shares.
Portfolios also will require more limited amounts of initial capital in
connection with the creation of new series and the voting of initial
shares of such series on matters requiring the approval of
shareholders. A potential source of the requisite initial capital is a
Portfolio's adviser or a Participating Insurance Company. Either of
these parties may have an interest in making the requisite capital
investments and in participating with an Insurance Fund in its
organization. Applicants note, however, that the provision of seed
capital or the purchase of shares in connection with the management of
an Insurance Fund by its investment adviser or by a Participating
Insurance Company may be deemed to violate the exclusivity requirement
of Rule 6e-2(b)(15) and/or Rule 6e-3(T)(b)(15).
    18. Given the conditions of Treas. Reg. Section 1.817-5(f)(3) and
the harmony of interest between an Insurance Fund, on the one hand, and
an Adviser or a Participating Insurance Company, on the other,
Applicants assert that little incentive for overreaching exists.
Furthermore, Applicants assert such investment should not implicate the
concerns discussed above regarding the creation of material
irreconcilable conflicts. Instead, Applicants argue that permitting
investments by an Adviser, or by General Accounts, will permit the
orderly and efficient creation of an Insurance Fund, and reduce the
expense

and uncertainty of using outside parties at the early stages of the
Insurance Fund's operations.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that the order granting the requested relief shall
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. A majority of the Board of Trustees (the ``Board'') of each
Insurance Fund will consist of persons who are not ``interested
persons'' of the Insurance Fund, as defined by section 2(a)(19) of the
1940 Act, and the rules thereunder, and as modified by any applicable
orders of the Commission, except that if this condition is not met by
reason of the death, disqualification, or bona-fide resignation of any
trustee or trustees, then the operation of this condition will be
suspended: (a) For a period of 90 days if the vacancy or vacancies may
be filled by the Board; (b) for a period of 150 days if a vote of
shareholders is required to fill the vacancy or vacancies; or (c) for
such longer period as the Commission may prescribe by order upon
application or by future rule.
    2. The Board of each Insurance Fund will monitor the Insurance Fund
for the existence of any material irreconcilable conflict between the
interests of the contract owners of all Separate Accounts and
participants of all Qualified Plans investing in the Insurance Fund,
and determine what action, if any, should be taken in response to such
conflicts. A material irreconcilable conflict may arise for a variety
of reasons, including: (a) An action by any state insurance regulatory
authority; (b) a change in applicable federal or state insurance, tax,
or securities laws or regulations, or a public ruling, private letter
ruling, no-action or interpretative letter, or any similar action by
insurance, tax, or securities regulatory authorities; (c) an
administrative or judicial decision in any relevant proceeding; (d) the
manner in which the investments of the Insurance Fund are being
managed; (e) a difference in voting instructions given by variable
annuity contract owners, variable life insurance contract owners, and
trustees of the Qualified Plans; (f) a decision by a Participating
Insurance Company to disregard the voting instructions of contract
owners; or (g) if applicable, a decision by a Qualified Plan to
disregard the voting instructions of Qualified Plan participants.
    3. Participating Insurance Companies (on their own behalf, as well
as by virtue of any investment of General Account assets in an
Insurance Fund), an Adviser, and any trustee on behalf of a Qualified
Plan that executes a Participation Agreement upon becoming an owner of
10 percent or more of the assets of an Insurance Fund (collectively,
``Participants'') will report any potential or existing conflicts to
the Board of the relevant Insurance Fund. Participants will be
responsible for assisting the Board in carrying out the Board's
responsibilities under these conditions by providing the Board with all
information reasonably necessary for the Board to consider any issues
raised. This responsibility includes, but is not limited to, an
obligation of each Participating Insurance Company to inform the Board
whenever contract owner voting instructions are disregarded, and, if
pass-through voting is applicable, an obligation by each Trustee for a
Qualified Plan to inform the Board whenever it has determined to
disregard Qualified Plan participant voting instructions. The
responsibility to report such information and conflicts, and to assist
the Board, will be a contractual obligation of all Participating
Insurance Companies under their Participation Agreements with the
relevant Insurance Fund, and these responsibilities will be carried out
with a view only to the interests of the contract owners. The
responsibility to report such information and conflicts, and to assist
the Board, also will be contractual obligations of all Qualified Plans
under their Participation Agreements, and such agreements will provide
that these responsibilities will be carried out with a view only to the
interests of Qualified Plan participants.
    4. If it is determined by a majority of the Board of an Insurance
Fund, or a majority of the disinterested directors/trustees of such
Board, that a material irreconcilable conflict exists, then the
relevant Participant will, at its expense and to the extent reasonably
practicable (as determined by a majority of the disinterested
directors/trustees), take whatever steps are necessary to remedy or
eliminate the material irreconcilable conflict, up to and including:
(a) Withdrawing the assets allocable to some or all of the Separate
Accounts from the relevant Insurance Fund and reinvesting such assets
in a different investment vehicle including another Insurance Fund,
submitting the question as to whether such segregation should be
implemented to a vote of all affected contract or policy owners and, as
appropriate, segregating the assets of any appropriate group (i.e.,
variable annuity contract owners or variable life insurance contract
owners of one or more Participating Insurance Companies) that votes in
favor of such segregation, or offering to the affected contract owners
the option of making such a change; and (b) establishing a new
registered management investment company or managed separate account.
If a material irreconcilable conflict arises because of a decision by a
Participating Insurance Company to disregard contract or policy owner
voting instructions, and that decision represents a minority position
or would preclude a majority vote, then the Participating Insurance
Company may be required, at the election of the relevant Insurance
Fund, to withdraw such Participating Insurance Company's Separate
Account investment in the Insurance Fund, and no charge or penalty will
be imposed as a result of such withdrawal. The responsibility to take
remedial action in the event of a Board determination of a material
irreconcilable conflict and to bear the cost of such remedial action
will be a contractual obligation of all Participants under their
Participation Agreement with the relevant Insurance Fund, and these
responsibilities will be carried out with a view only to the interests
of contract owners and Qualified Plan participants. For purposes of
this Condition 4, a majority of the disinterested directors/ trustees
of the Board of each Insurance Fund will determine whether or not any
proposed action adequately remedies any material irreconcilable
conflict, but in no event will the Insurance Fund or an Adviser, as
relevant, be required to establish a new funding vehicle for any
Variable Contract. No Participating Insurance Company will be required
by this Condition 4 to establish a new funding vehicle for any Variable
Contract if any offer to do so has been declined by vote of a majority
of the contract or policy owners materially and adversely affected by
the material irreconcilable conflict. Further, no Qualified Plan will
be required by this Condition 4 to establish a new funding vehicle for
the Qualified Plan if: (a) A majority of the Qualified Plan
participants materially and adversely affected by the irreconcilable
material conflict vote to decline such offer; or (b) pursuant to
documents governing the Qualified Plan, the Qualified Plan makes such
decision without a Qualified Plan participant vote.
    5. The Board of each Insurance Fund's determination of the
existence of a material irreconcilable conflict and its implications
will be made known in writing promptly to all Participants.
    6. As to Variable Contracts issued by Separate Accounts registered
under the 1940 Act, Participating Insurance Companies will provide
pass-through voting privileges to all Variable Contract owners as
required by the 1940 Act as

interpreted by the Commission. However, as to Variable Contracts issued
by unregistered Separate Accounts, pass-through voting privileges will
be extended to contract owners to the extent granted by the issuing
insurance company. Accordingly, such Participants, where applicable,
will vote the Shares held in their Separate Accounts in a manner
consistent with voting instructions timely received from Variable
Contract owners. Participating Insurance Companies will be responsible
for assuring that each Separate Account investing in the relevant
Insurance Fund calculates voting privileges in a manner consistent with
other Participants. The obligation to calculate voting privileges as
provided in the Application will be a contractual obligation of all
Participating Insurance Companies under their Participation Agreement
with the relevant Insurance Fund. Each Participating Insurance Company
will vote shares for which it has not received timely voting
instructions, as well as shares held in its General Account or
otherwise attributed to it, in the same proportion as it votes those
shares for which it has received voting instructions. Each Qualified
Plan will vote as required by applicable law and governing Qualified
Plan documents.
    7. As long as the 1940 Act requires pass-through voting privileges
to be provided to Variable Contract owners, an Adviser, who has
provided seed capital for the Insurance Fund, and any General Account
will vote their respective Shares in the same proportion as all
variable contract owners having voting rights with respect to that
Insurance Fund; provided, however, that an Adviser or any General
Account shall vote its Shares in such other manner as may be required
by the Commission or its staff.
    8. Each Insurance Fund will comply with all provisions of the 1940
Act requiring voting by shareholders, which, for these purposes, shall
be the persons having a voting interest in the Shares, and, in
particular, the Insurance Fund will either provide for annual meetings
(except to the extent that the Commission may interpret section 16 of
the 1940 Act not to require such meetings) or comply with section 16(c)
of the 1940 Act (although each Insurance Fund is not, or will not be,
one of those trusts of the type described in section 16(c) of the 1940
Act), as well as with section 16(a) of the 1940 Act and, if and when
applicable, section 16(b) of the 1940 Act. Further, each Insurance Fund
will act in accordance with the Commission's interpretations of the
requirements of section 16(a) with respect to periodic elections of
directors/trustees and with whatever rules the Commission may
promulgate thereto.
    9. An Insurance Fund will make its Shares available to the Separate
Accounts and Qualified Plans at or about the time it accepts any seed
capital from an Adviser or General Account of a Participating Insurance
Company.
    10. Each Insurance Fund has notified, or will notify, all
Participants that Separate Account prospectus disclosure or Qualified
Plan prospectuses or other Qualified Plan disclosure documents
regarding potential risks of mixed and shared funding may be
appropriate. Each Insurance Fund will disclose, in its prospectus that:
(a) Shares of the Existing Funds may be offered to Separate Accounts
funding both variable annuity contracts and variable life insurance
policies and, if applicable, to Qualified Plans; (b) due to differences
in tax treatment and other considerations, the interests of various
contract owners participating in the Insurance Fund and the interests
of Qualified Plans investing in the Insurance Fund, if applicable, may
conflict; and (c) the Insurance Fund's Board will monitor events in
order to identify the existence of any material irreconcilable
conflicts and to determine what action, if any, should be taken in
response to any such conflict.
    11. If and to the extent that Rule 6e-2 and Rule 6e-3(T) under the
1940 Act are amended, or proposed Rule 6e-3 under the 1940 Act is
adopted, to provide exemptive relief from any provision of the 1940
Act, or the rules promulgated thereunder, with respect to mixed or
shared funding, on terms and conditions materially different from any
exemptions granted in the order requested in the Application, then each
Insurance Fund and/or Participating Insurance Companies, as
appropriate, shall take such steps as may be necessary to comply with
Rules 6e-2 and 6e-3(T), or Rule 6e-3, as such rules are applicable.
    12. Each Participant, at least annually, will submit to the Board
of Each Insurance Fund such reports, materials, or data as a Board
reasonably may request so that the directors/trustees of the Board may
fully carry out the obligations imposed upon the Board by the
conditions contained in the Application. Such reports, materials, and
data will be submitted more frequently if deemed appropriate by the
Board of an Insurance Fund. The obligations of the Participants to
provide these reports, materials, and data to the Board, when it so
reasonably requests, will be a contractual obligation of all
Participants under their Participation Agreements with the relevant
Insurance Fund.
    13. All reports of potential or existing conflicts received by the
Board of each Insurance Fund, and all Board action with regard to
determining the existence of a conflict, notifying Participants of a
conflict and determining whether any proposed action adequately
remedies a conflict, will be properly recorded in the minutes of the
Board or other appropriate records, and such minutes or other records
shall be made available to the Commission upon request.
    14. Each Insurance Fund will not accept a purchase order from a
Qualified Plan if such purchase would make the Qualified Plan an owner
of 10 percent or more of the assets of the Insurance Fund unless the
Trustee for such Qualified Plan executes an agreement with the
Insurance Fund governing participation in the Insurance Fund that
includes the conditions set forth herein to the extent applicable. A
Trustee for a Qualified Plan will execute an application containing an
acknowledgement of this condition at the time of its initial purchase
of Shares.

Conclusions

    Applicants submit that, for the reasons summarized above and to the
extent necessary or appropriate to provide for the transactions
described herein, the requested exemptions from sections 9(a), 13(a),
15(a), and 15(b) of the 1940 Act and Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-
3(T)(b)(15) thereunder, in accordance with the standards of section
6(c) of the 1940 Act, are in the public interest and consistent with
the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the
policy and provisions of the 1940 Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-17786 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: January 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 13)]
[Notices]
[Page 3509]
[DOCID:fr18ja08-105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Sixteenth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 207/Airport Security
Access Control Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 207 Meeting, Airport Security
Access Control Systems.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 207, Airport Security Access Control
Systems.

DATES: This meeting will be held January 16, 2007 from 9:30 a.m.-4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., Conference Rooms,
1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street,
NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(202) 833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 207 meeting. The agenda will
include:

January 16

 Opening Plenary Session (Welcome, Introductions, and
Administrative Remarks).
 Review of Meeting Summary.
 Review of Workgroup Leaders Meetings.
 Workgroup Reports
     Workgroup 2: Introduction.
     Workgroup 3: Local Identity Management System.
     Workgroup 4: Physical Access Control.
     Workgroup 5: Intrusion Detection Systems.
     Workgroup 6: Video Systems.
     Workgroup 7: Security Operating Center.
     Workgroup 8: Communications Infrastructure.
     Workgroup 9: General Considerations.
     Workgroup 10: Appendices.
 Closing Plenary Session (Other Business, Establish Agenda,
Date and Place of Following Meetings.)

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 27, 2007.
Franccisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 08-165 Filed 1-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 13, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36641-36642]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14815]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31377; Amdt. No. 3963]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective July 13, 2021. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of July 13, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30. 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29, Room 104,
Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums
and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its
associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed
on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this
amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20.
The applicable FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B,
when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers or
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the typed of SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their
applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport
and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 25, 2021.
Wade E.K. Terrell,
Aviation Safety, Flight Standards Service, Manager (A), Flight
Technologies and Procedures Division.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CRF part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114,
40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 12 August 2021

Fairbanks, AK, Fairbanks Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 6B
Groveland, CA, E45, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig-D
Vacaville, CA, KVCB, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1B
Fort Lauderdale, FL, KFLL, ILS OR LOC RWY 10R, Amdt 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL, KFLL, ILS OR LOC RWY 28L, Amdt 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL, KFLL, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10R, Amdt 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL, KFLL, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28L, Amdt 2
West Palm Beach, FL, KPBI, ILS OR LOC RWY 10L, Amdt 28
West Palm Beach, FL, KPBI, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 10L, Amdt 4
West Palm Beach, FL, KPBI, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 10L, Amdt 2
West Palm Beach, FL, KPBI, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 14, Amdt 1
West Palm Beach, FL, KPBI, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 28R, Amdt 1
West Palm Beach, FL, KPBI, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 32, Amdt 1
Ruston, LA, KRSN, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1
Ruston, LA, Ruston Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Ruston, LA, KRSN, VOR-A, Amdt 1
Houston, MO, M48, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1
Morristown, NJ, KMMU, ILS OR LOC RWY 23, Amdt 13
Morristown, NJ, KMMU, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 23, Amdt 3

[FR Doc. 2021-14815 Filed 7-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P