[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 182 (Friday, September 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 56419]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22338]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73102; File No. SR-BYX-2014-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To Establish a New Market Data Product Called the BATS One Feed

September 15, 2014.
    On July 18, 2014, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``BYX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
establish a new market data product called the BATS One Feed. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on August 1, 2014.\3\ No comments on the proposal have been
received.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72690 (July 28,
2014), 79 FR 44929.
    \4\ But see Letter from Sal Arnuk and Joe Saluzzi, Themis
Trading LLC, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated
August 21, 2014 (SR-BATS-2014-028); Letter from Ira D. Hammerman,
General Counsel, SIFMA, to Kevin M. O'Neill, Deputy Secretary,
Commission, dated August 22, 2014 (SR-BATS-2014-028) (letters
commenting on a companion BATS filing that proposes to offer the
same feed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the
comments received on a similar companion proposal. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\6\ designates
October 30, 2014, as the date by which the Commission shall either
approve or disapprove or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change (File No. SR-BYX-2014-011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-22338 Filed 9-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27265-27266]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12326]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-2463]

Request for Nominations on Device Good Manufacturing Practice
Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting that any
industry organization interested in participating in the selection of a
nonvoting industry representative to serve on the Device Good
Manufacturing Practice Advisory Committee (DGMPAC) in the Center for
Devices and Radiological Health notify FDA in writing. FDA is also
requesting nominations for a nonvoting industry representative to serve
on DGMPAC. A nominee may either be self-nominated or nominated by an
organization to serve as a nonvoting industry representative.
Nominations will be accepted for the upcoming vacancy effective with
this notice.

DATES: Any industry organizations interested in participating in the
selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry
interests must send a letter stating that interest to FDA by July 14,
2017 (see sections I and III of this document for further details).
Concurrently, nomination materials for prospective candidates should be
sent to FDA by July 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: All statements of interest from industry organizations
interested in participating in the selection process of nonvoting
industry representative nominations should be sent to Margaret Ames
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). All nominations for nonvoting
industry representatives should be submitted electronically by
accessing 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 of an
FDA advisory committee can also be obtained by visiting FDA's Web site
at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Ames, Office of Management,
Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5264, Silver
Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 520 of the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360j), as amended, provides that DGMPAC shall
be composed of two representatives of interests of the device
manufacturing industry. The Agency is requesting nominations for a
nonvoting industry representative on DGMPAC. FDA is publishing a
separate document announcing the request for notification for voting
members on DGMPAC.

I. Function of DGMPAC

    DGMPAC reviews proposed regulations issuance regarding good
manufacturing practices governing the methods used in, and the
facilities and controls used for, the manufacture, packaging, storage,
installation, and servicing of devices, and makes recommendations
regarding the feasibility and reasonableness of those proposed
regulations. The committee also reviews and makes recommendations on
proposed guidelines developed to assist the medical device industry in
meeting the good manufacturing practice requirements, and provides
advice with regard to any petition submitted by a manufacturer for an
exemption or variance from good manufacturing practice regulations.

II. Qualifications

    Persons nominated for DGMPAC should possess appropriate
qualifications to understand and contribute to the committee's work as
described in the committee's function.

III. Selection Procedure

    Any industry organization interested in participating in the
selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry
interests should send a letter stating that interest to the FDA contact
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) within 30 days of publication of
this document (see DATES). Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will send
a letter to each organization that has expressed an interest, attaching
a complete list of all such organizations, and a list of all nominees
along with their current resumes. The letter will also state that it is
the responsibility of the interested organizations to confer with one
another and to select a candidate, within 60 days after the receipt of
the FDA letter, to serve as the nonvoting member to represent industry
interests for the committee. The interested organizations are not bound
by the list of nominees in selecting a candidate. However, if no
individual is selected within the 60 days, the Commissioner of Food and
Drugs will select the nonvoting member to represent industry interests.

IV. Application Procedure

    Individuals may self-nominate and/or an organization may nominate
one or more individuals to serve as a nonvoting industry
representative. Contact information, a current curriculum vitae, and
the name of the committee of interest should be sent to the FDA
Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal (see ADDRESSES) within
30 days of publication of this document (see DATES). FDA will forward
all nominations to the organizations expressing interest in
participating in the selection process for the committee. (Persons who
nominate themselves as nonvoting industry representatives will not
participate in the selection process).
    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. Specifically, in
this document, nominations for nonvoting representatives of industry
interests are encouraged from the device manufacturing industry.
    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: June 9, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-12326 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 133 (Thursday, July 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37317-37318]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15094]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG21-194-000.
    Applicants: Rainbow Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator
Status of Rainbow Energy Center, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210708-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/21.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2290-009.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status Reflect Participation in
Energy Imbalance Market of Avista Corporation.
    Filed Date: 6/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210630-5329.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-857-002; ER21-856-002.
    Applicants: Trent River Solar, LLC, PGR Lessee P, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Trent River
Solar, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210630-5377.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1191-006.
    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amended and Restated Minden PSA to
be effective 8/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210709-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1790-001.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2021-07-09 Load, Exports and
Wheeling Extension Waiver to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210709-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1917-001.
    Applicants: Assembly Solar III, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Service Agreement filing to be
effective 7/14/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210709-5126.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1961-001.
    Applicants: Big River Solar, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Market-Based Rate
Application to be effective 7/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210708-5053.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2382-000.
    Applicants: Shell Energy North America (US), L.P.
    Description: Compliance filing: Spot Market Sale Above Soft Cap to
be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210708-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2383-000.
    Applicants: kWantix Trading Fund I, LP.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation to be
effective 7/9/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/8/21.
    Accession Number: 20210708-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2384-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, SA No. 6103;
Queue Nos. AC1-091/092/093/094 and AC2-184/185 to be effective 6/10/
2021.
    Filed Date: 7/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210709-5006.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2385-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX-Louise Solar (Texana
Solar) Interconnection Agreement to be effective 6/30/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210709-5026.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2386-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPA, Service
Agreement No. 5855; Queue No. AF2-100 to be effective 11/10/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210709-5029.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2387-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA SA No. 6112;
Queue No. AG1-317 to be effective 6/10/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210709-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2388-000.
    Applicants: Clines Corners Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Certificate of Concurrence
with Red Cloud Wind LLC (ER21-2362-000) to be effective 7/8/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210709-5056.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2389-000.
    Applicants: Duran Mesa LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Certificate of Concurrence
with Red Cloud Wind LLC (ER21-2362-000) to be effective 7/8/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210709-5060.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2390-000.
    Applicants: Tecolote Wind LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Certificate of Concurrence
with Red Cloud Wind LLC (ER21-2362-000) to be effective 7/8/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210709-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2391-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to ISA, SA# 5098 &
CSA, SA# 5099; Queue No. AB1-173/AB1-173A/AB2-031 to be effective 5/21/
2018.
    Filed Date: 7/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210709-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2392-000.
    Applicants: Power Authority of the State of New York, New York
Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 205: NYPA Cost Containment
Mechanism for Segment A to be effective 9/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20210709-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/21.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF21-480-000; QF21-481-000; QF21-482-000; QF21-483-
000.
    Applicants: Arcadia Solar, LLC, WGL Georgia Project Group, LLC.
    Description: Refund Report of Arcadia Solar, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/7/21.
    Accession Number: 20210707-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/28/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 9, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15094 Filed 7-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32292-32295]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11538]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1172; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00939-T;
Amendment 39-22051; AD 2022-11-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus SAS Model A300 series airplanes, Model A300 B4-600, B4-
600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F
airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). This
AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the main landing gear (MLG)
support rib 5 lower flange. This AD requires a one-time detailed
inspection (DET) of the affected area, and applicable corrective
actions, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 5, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 5,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2021-1172.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1172; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments
received, and other information. The address for Docket Operations is
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large
Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0190, dated August 17, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0190) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A300, A300-600, and A300-
600ST airplanes. Model A300-600ST airplanes are not certificated by the
FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this
AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS
Model A300 series airplanes and Model A300-600 series airplanes. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2022 (87 FR
1703). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracking in the MLG support
rib 5 lower flange. The NPRM proposed to require a one-time DET of the
affected area, and applicable corrective actions, as specified in EASA
AD 2021-0190.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking of the MLG support
rib 5 lower flange. This condition, if not detected and corrected,
could affect the structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for
additional background information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received a comment from FedEx. The following presents the
comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.

Request for Allowance of Previously Approved Hardware

    FedEx requested that the FAA include a comment allowing previous
Airbus Repair Design Approval Sheet (RDAS)-approved hardware that is
different from the hardware specified in Airbus Alert Operators
Transmission (AOT) A57W017-21 (which is referred to in EASA AD 2021-
0190). FedEx noted that it had airplanes with different fasteners than
those specified in a required for compliance (RC) step in Airbus AOT
A57W017-21, and that those different fasteners were approved through an
Airbus RDAS. FedEx added that Airbus provided configuration approval
and structural acceptance of its proposed deviations to the fastener
specifications through Airbus Statement of Airworthiness Compliance
(ASAC) 80955386/006/2021 Issue 1, dated August 25, 2021, and ASAC
08955386/024/2022 Issue 1, dated February 25, 2022. FedEx stated that
adding such a provision in the proposed AD would eliminate the
necessity for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC).
    The FAA concurs with FedEx's request because the alternative method
will provide an acceptable level of

safety. The ASAC documents are equivalent to an AMOC approval. The FAA
has redesignated paragraph (i)(1) of the proposed AD as paragraph
(i)(1)(i) of this AD and added paragraph (i)(1)(ii) to this AD to
specify that Airbus ASAC 80955386/006/2021, Issue 1, dated August 25,
2021, and ASAC 80955386/024/2022, Issue 1, dated February 25, 2022, are
approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD, for the
airplanes identified in those ASACs only.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes
described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None
of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0190 specifies procedures for a DET of the affected
area, a one-time fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) around some
fastener holes in the affected area, and applicable corrective
action(s) including crack repair.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 124 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 work-hours x $85 per hour = $1,955........................              $0           $1,955         $242,420
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to replace any cracked rib
that would be required based on the results of any required actions and
repair status. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need this on-condition action:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Labor cost              Parts cost        Cost per product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 1,500 work-hours x $85           $620,000  Up to $747,500.
 per hour = $127,500.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the repair specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2022-11-01 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-22051; Docket No. FAA-2021-1172;
Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00939-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 5, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes, certificated in any
category, without Airbus modification 11912 and identified in figure
1 to paragraph (c) of this AD.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31MY22.224

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the main landing
gear (MLG) support rib 5 lower flange, inboard and outboard of Rib
5, on the right-hand and left-hand sides. The FAA is issuing this AD
to address cracking of the MLG support rib 5 lower flange. This
condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the
structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2021-0190, dated August 17, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0190).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0190

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0190 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0190 specifies to
``accomplish those instructions accordingly'' if any crack is
detected, for this AD if any crack is detected, the crack must be
repaired before further flight using a method approved by the
Manager, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch,
FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval
(DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.
    (3) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0190 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):
    (i) The Manager, Large Aircraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If
sending information directly to the Large Aircraft Section,
International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved
AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a
principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards
Office.
    (ii) Airbus Statement of Airworthiness Compliance (ASAC)
80955386/006/2021, Issue 1, dated August 25, 2021, and ASAC
80955386/024/2022, Issue 1, dated February 25, 2022, are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD for the airplanes
identified in those ASACs only.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, if any service information referenced
in EASA AD 2021-0190 contains paragraphs that are labeled as RC, the
instructions in RC paragraphs, including subparagraphs under an RC
paragraph, must be done to comply with this AD; any paragraphs,
including subparagraphs under those paragraphs, that are not
identified as RC are recommended. The instructions in paragraphs,
including subparagraphs under those paragraphs, not identified as RC
may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the instructions identified as RC can
be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
Any substitutions or changes to instructions identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International
Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0190,
dated August 17, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2021-0190, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on May 13, 2022.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-11538 Filed 5-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 57708]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20362]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4663-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Kentucky; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4663-DR), dated July 29, 2022,
and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 19, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended to include Public
Assistance for the following areas among those areas determined to have
been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the
President in his declaration of July 29, 2022.

    Lee, Lincoln, and Powell Counties for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-20362 Filed 9-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


September 27, 2004 I hereby authorize the publication of Docket RCRA 2003 0003, with a revised name, FROM Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels, TO: Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Management Rule, Part 1 ( LFs/ SIs).

Signed:

Alexander Livnat, PhD Environmental Scientist


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 58 (Monday, March 29, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16303]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06452]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0152]

Annual Marine Events in the Eighth Coast Guard District

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulation for the
Riverfest boat races on the Neches River in Port Neches, TX from April
30, 2021 through May 2, 2021 to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events
within the Eighth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area
for this event in Port Neches, TX. During the enforcement periods, the
operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with
directions from the Patrol Commander or designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.801 Table 3 will be enforced from
2 p.m. through 6 p.m. on April 30, 2021, and from 8:30 a.m. through 6
p.m. on May 1 and May 2, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email Mr. Scott Whalen, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce special local
regulations in 33 CFR 100.801 Table 3 for the Port Neches Riverfest
boat races display from 2 p.m. through 6 p.m. on April 30, 2021, and
from 8:30 a.m. through 6 p.m. on May 1 and May 2, 2021. This action is
being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways
during this three day event. Our regulations for marine events within
the Eighth Coast Guard District, Sec.  100.801, specifies the location
of the safety zone for the Riverfest boat races which encompasses a
portions of the Neches River adjacent to Port Neches Park. During the
enforcement period, as reflected in Sec.  100.801 Table 3, if you are
the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with
directions from the Patrol Commander or designated representative.
    In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register,
the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of the enforcement
periods via Local Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety Information
Bulletin and Vessel Traffic Service Advisory.

    Dated: March 22, 2021.
Molly. A. Wike,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Marine Safety Zone Port
Arthur.
[FR Doc. 2021-06452 Filed 3-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


                               November 17, 2010
                     Definition of Solid Waste Rulemaking
                    Compliance Research Background Document

Introduction
	The purpose of this background document is to describe compliance research literature supporting the following propositions:
   * Regulation (legislation and rules) is a critical determinant of facility environmental behavior  -  more important than any other single factor.

   * Self-monitoring, reporting, and disclosure of the associated compliance information can promote significant compliance and performance improvements.

   * Inspections and enforcement actions consistently produce improved compliance and/or environmental performance at evaluated or sanctioned facilities (specific deterrence).

   * Inspections and enforcement actions consistently produce significant compliance/ performance spillover effects on similarly situated non-evaluated or sanctioned facilities (general deterrence).

   * Higher penalties can produce greater deterrence.

Primary Sources for Quotations and Citations in Compliance Research Background Document
	The primary sources for most of the quotations and citations in this Compliance Research Background Document are:
   (1)  Shimshack, Jay P.; Monitoring, Enforcement, & Environmental Compliance: Understanding Specific & General Deterrence  -  State-of-Science White Paper (October 2007) (hereinafter cited as Deterrence White Paper) http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/resources/reports/compliance/research/meec-whitepaper.pdf
   (2)  USEPA; Compliance Literature Search Results -- Citations to Over Two Hundred Compliance-Related Books and Articles From 1999 to 2007 (April 2007) (hereinafter cited as Compliance Literature Search Results). http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/resources/reports/compliance/research/lit-results-2007.pdf
   Additional compliance and deterrence measurement information (including statistically valid empirical deterrence research results) on the following topics may also be found in the additional resources on EPA's Compliance Research Literature web page: http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/resources/reports/compliance/research/index.html.
   * Compliance assurance
   * Compliance monitoring
   * Deterrence
   * Enforcement
   * Environmental management
   * Program measurement and evaluation
   * Voluntary programs
   * Environmental performance
   * Relationship of compliance and performance to business value and competitiveness

Regulation (legislation and rules) is a critical determinant of facility environmental behavior  -  more important than any other single factor:
   * "Despite the many factors influencing environmental performance ... the literature strongly suggests one result central to this report. Regulation, monitoring, and enforcement have historically been, and remain, critical determinants of environmental behavior.  ... Every reviewed study indicated that regulation/legislation is a more important determinant of environmental behavior than any other single factor."  Deterrence White Paper at 9 (emphasis added).
   *
While Khanna and Anton's [2002] survey of S&P 500 firms indicated that second-order environmental practices like total quality management were largely attributable to market factors, first-order practices like environmental staffing, audits, and internal policies were attributable to legal and regulatory factors. Kagan et al. [2003] argued that regulation is principally responsible for large environmental gains for pulp and paper facilities in the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. In a survey of Canadian pulp and paper facilities, Doonan et al. [2005] discovered that a full 70 percent of managers rated the government as the single most important source of environmental pressure. Similarly, Delmas and Toffel's [2005] survey of 493 US industrial sources indicated that the influence of regulators and legislators on environmental performance was considerably stronger than community organizations, activist groups, and the media. Finally, May [2005] showed that traditional regulation had a considerably stronger influence on marine industry managers' deterrence viewpoints than non-mandatory regulation."  Id. at 9-10 (emphasis added).

   * Paper examines the role of rationality and complexity in compliance and finds empirical evidence to support that both are necessary to explain hazardous waste compliance behavior. ... [F]acilities subject to more complex regulations are more likely to violate but learn from past inspections.  Stafford, S. L.; Rational or Confused Polluters? Evidence from Hazardous Waste Compliance; Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy: Vol. 5 : Iss. 1, Art. 21 (2006).  Compliance Literature Search Results at 18 (emphasis added).  http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/contributions/vol5/iss1/art21/

   * Empirical study of fourteen pulp and paper mills in 4 countries, including the United States. Article discusses factors affecting firm-level performance differences.  Large improvements are linked to tightening regulatory requirements and political pressures which serve as coordinating mechanisms for culture and behavior.  Kagan, R., Gunningham, N., & Thornton, D.; Explaining Corporate Environmental Performance: How Does Regulation Matter?; Law & Society Review, Vol. 37, No. , pp. 51-90 (2003).  Compliance Literature Search Results at 26 (emphasis added).   http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1084&context=igs

   * Empirical study of Canadian program combining traditional enforcement and public disclosure finds .... stricter standards and higher penalties ... also significantly affected emissions because strong, clear standards, together with a significant, credible penalty system, sends appropriate signals to the regulated community which responds by lowering pollution emissions.  Laplante, B., Lanoie, P. & Foulon, J.; Incentives for Pollution Control - Regulation and Public Disclosure; No 2291, Policy Research Working Paper Series, The World Bank (2000) (emphasis added). http://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/2291.html

Self-monitoring, reporting, and/or disclosure of associated compliance information can promote significant compliance and performance improvements:

   * The issue of the relationship between enhanced self-monitoring, reporting, and/or disclosure of associated compliance information to improved regulatory compliance and environmental performance has to date been the subject of relatively little formal research.  Nevertheless, the following examples demonstrate that the relationship exists and can be significant.

   * Several studies have linked the public availability of Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data to improved compliance and reduced pollution.  For example, using a micro-level data set linking TRI releases to plant level Census data, one researcher found, among other things, that the local and state governmental use of TRI disclosures helps induce firms to become cleaner. Bui, L.; Public Disclosure of Private Information as a Tool for Regulating Environmental Emissions: Firm-Level Responses by Petroleum Refineries to the Toxics Release Inventory; Brandeis Univ. Working Paper Series (June 2005). http://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/05-13.html

   * Under the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), the systematic use of performance monitoring and benchmarking as a regulatory tool has been cited as a watershed event enabling and compelling facilities to monitor, compare, and improve their environmental performance.  At the same time, it enhances enhancing transparency and accountability to external parties.  Karkkainen, Bradley C.; Information as Environmental Regulation: TRI and Performance Benchmarking, Precursor to a New Paradigm?, 89 Geo. L.J. 257 (2001). By decreasing the time required for EPA to compile, verify, and analyze data, e-filing can reduce the lag times from when EPA receives data to when the Agency is able to make it publicly available.  TRI e-reporting, for example, achieves this by reducing costly and cumbersome paperwork for reporters while speeding EPA's ability to make it publicly available.  Id. at 289, 336-7.

   * Studies of enhanced disclosure regulations and environmental compliance in other contexts have also linked enhanced disclosure to statistically significant compliance improvements.  See, e.g.,  Bennear & Olmstead; The Impacts of the "Right to Know" Information Disclosure and the Violation of Drinking Water Standards, JEEM Vol. 50, Iss. 2; pp. 117-130 (2008) (larger utilities required to mail annual Consumer Confidence Reports on water supplier compliance pursuant to the 1998 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments reduced total violations by 30%-44% and more severe health violations by 40-57%).

   * Evidence gathered in an EPA Region 5 study of the refinery sector demonstrated that when facilities installed Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) equipment, they uncovered previously unknown operational and mechanical problems.  This allowed operators to take corrective action to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.  Operations and maintenance (O&M) methods did not indicate the true picture of what was being emitted to the environment. After the installation of the CEM, previously unknown operational and mechanical problems were uncovered. The data generated by the CEM, allowed operators to take the necessary corrective actions and ultimately reduce emissions of SO2 to the atmosphere.  Curtis, C.; The Benefits of CEM as Enhanced Monitoring: A Study Based on Two Investigative Approaches at Petroleum Refineries (1995).   http://www.epa.gov/reg5oair/enforce/cemrefpp.html
   * Monitoring, disclosure, and e-reporting together have produced extremely significant emission reductions.  Specifically, EPA's Acid Rain Program contributed to the "largest quantified human health benefits of any federal regulatory program implemented in the last 10 [years], with annual benefits exceeding costs by >40 to 1."  It did so by promoting "public confidence in the programs, highly accurate and complete emissions data, and a high compliance rate (>99% overall)." Schakenbach, et al.; Fundamentals of Successful Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification under a Cap-and-Trade Program, J. Air & Waste Manage.. Assoc., 56:1576 - 1583 2006).  http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/cap-trade/docs/fundamentals.pdf

   * E-reporting of environmental data is being increasingly adopted by states because of the positive environmental and financial benefits it provides.  An example is Michigan DEQ's eDMR system for wastewater facilities.  As MI DEQ reports on its web page, the benefits of the state's e-reporting system include: (1) saving wastewater discharge facilities compliance costs with a streamlined reporting method and readily available computer tools; (2) saving program costs by reducing resources required for managing paper-based DMR reports; (3) improve the accuracy of compliance data by eliminating potential errors that might otherwise be introduced through manual data entry in the database; and (4) improving the DEQ wastewater program's overall effectiveness with faster responses to data analyses, compliance assessment, and decision-making.

Inspections and enforcement actions consistently produce improved compliance and/or environmental performance at evaluated or sanctioned facilities (specific deterrence):
   * The emphasis in this section is on the impact of inspections on compliance and environmental performance, though information on the impact of enforcement actions and penalties is included for some studies addressing both.  See the Deterrence White Paper and the resources posted on EPA's Compliance Research Literature web page at http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/resources/reports/compliance/research/index.html if additional information is desired on the relationship of enforcement actions, penalties, and compliance/performance.

   * [S]pecific deterrence refers to the effects of regulatory actions on the evaluated or sanctioned firm itself. General deterrence effects, in which regulatory actions aimed at one facility impact the environmental performance at other facilities, are considered in the next section.  [f.n. omitted]  ... Collectively, the results of the specific deterrence literature indicate that both qualitative and quantitative methods exist to measure specific deterrence. Further, joint results show that significant reductions in non-compliance and emissions are obtainable with traditional monitoring and enforcement. Inspections and enforcement actions consistently produce improved future environmental performance at the evaluated or sanctioned facility. Results hold both historically and currently.  Deterrence White Paper at 10-11 (emphasis in original).
   * Environmental monitoring and enforcement activities generate substantial specific deterrence.  [paragraph break omitted]  Every reviewed study that examined the impacts of domestic environmental monitoring and enforcement actions on the inspected or sanctioned facility found at least some evidence for specific deterrence. This includes Magat and Viscusi [1990], Deily and Gray [1991], Gray and Deily [1996], Nadeau [1997], Earnhart [2004a], Earnhart [2004c], May [2005], Gray and Shadbegian [2005], Keohane et al. [2006], and Glicksman and Earnhart [2007]. In many cases, the specific deterrence effects were large."  Id.  at 22 (emphasis added).

   * "The seminal paper empirically assessing specific deterrence is Magat and Viscusi [1990]. Magat and Viscusi [1990] explored the relationship between EPA inspections and self-reported biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) discharges at 77 major US pulp and paper mills for the period 1982-1985. The authors found that lagged inspections had statistically significant negative impacts on both BOD compliance status and continuous BOD discharges. The results were also economically significant. Lagged inspections induced as much as a 20 percent reduction in mean BOD discharges in the quarter following an inspection."  Id. at 11.

   * "Deily and Gray [1991] studied 49 steel plants between 1976 and 1986, a period of rapid decline in the steel industry. They studied the response of plant-closing probabilities to all EPA/state enforcement actions in the industry. The authors found that a 12 percent increase in the predicted probability of EPA and state enforcement activity over the entire sample period increased the likelihood that a plant would close by 1 percentage point.  Id.

   * In a related study, Gray and Deily [1996] analyzed the impact of non-monetary enforcement actions on the self-reported annual particulate, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide compliance of 41 US steel manufacturers for the period 1980-1989. Here, the authors detected a substantial impact of actual lagged inspections and non-monetary enforcement actions on air pollution compliance, ... Actual enforcement actions seem to have spurred changes in environmental behavior." Id.

   * "In a study of self-reported air pollution compliance rates for 175 US pulp and paper plants from 1979-1989, Nadeau [1997] showed that EPA regulatory activity can significantly affect plants' duration of non-compliance. In particular, Nadeau [1997] studied the response of time spent in violation of air pollution statutes to EPA/state inspections and enforcement actions. Results indicated that a 10 percent increase in a plant's predicted threat of enforcement actions, including monetary penalties, resulted in a 4 to 5 percent reduction in the violation length. Results for predicted inspection activity, however, were largely indeterminate. A 10 percent increase in a plant's predicted threat of inspection resulted in a 0 to 4 percent reduction in the length of non-compliance." Id.

   * "Earnhart [2004a] and Earnhart [2004c] investigated the relationship between regulator activity and self-reported BOD discharges from 40 Kansas wastewater treatment facilities for the period 1990-1998. The key metric in both studies was the response of BOD discharges to EPA/state enforcement and monitoring actions. The most consistent result across the analyses was that lagged actual inspections and lagged actual enforcement actions caused reductions in BOD discharges (as a percentage of permitted levels)." Id.

   * "May [2005] analyzed survey results from approximately 200 marine facilities (marinas and boatyards) in Washington and California. In a study of how managers' reported deterrence fears responded to regulator inspections and sanctions, the author found that inspections significantly contributed to managers' deterrence viewpoints. Facilities inspected in the last 5 years had higher deterrent fears than those not inspected." Id. at 11-12.

   * "... Glicksman and Earnhart [2007] analyzed both qualitative and quantitative evidence of specific deterrence for water discharges in the chemical industry. The statistical database analysis examined how plants' composite BOD and TSS discharges responded to EPA/state enforcement actions. The survey component covered 267 of the 1003 originally solicited chemical facilities (a 26.6 percent response rate). Glicksman and Earnhart [2007] established that inspections and fines both produced significant deterrence effects. Nearly 75 percent of survey respondents reported that fines were an effective deterrent and approximately 87 percent reported that inspections definitely or probably effectively induced water pollution compliance. Similarly, the statistical results indicated that both inspections and enforcement actions resulted in decreased aggregate conventional water pollution emissions."  Id. at 12.

   * "Gray and Shadbegian [2005]. In addition to measuring specific deterrence in a framework consistent with earlier studies, the authors also considered factors that influenced the responsiveness to monitoring and enforcement actions. They examined 116 pulp and paper mills for the period 1979-1990, and their key metric was the response of air pollution compliance to EPA/state inspections and enforcement actions. Results indicated that plants increased their CDS-reported air pollution compliance rates by approximately 10 percent in response to a marginal regulator action."  Id.

   * "Specific deterrence effects are not restricted to domestic environmental institutions. For example, Laplante and Rilstone [1996] explored the impact of inspections and the predicted threat of inspection on the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solid (TSS) discharges of 47 Canadian pulp and paper mills. The authors found inspections and their associated threat reduced mills' absolute BOD discharges by approximately 28 percent. Similarly, Dasgupta et al. [2001] demonstrated that inspections on manufacturing facilities in Zenjiang, China reduced common water pollutants by between 0.4 and 1.2 percent and reduced air particulates by approximately 0.3 percent. Outside of the environmental arena, Gray and Mendeloff [2005] found that OSHA inspections reduced workplace injuries by approximately 19% in 1979-1985, 11% in 1987-1991, and 1% in 1992-1998. Further, they showed that inspections with penalties had a significantly stronger effect than inspections without penalties." Id. at 12-13.

   * "Gray and Mendeloff [2005] found that OSHA inspections reduced workplace injuries by approximately 19% in 1979-1985, 11% in 1987-1991, and 1% in 1992-1998. Further, they showed that inspections with penalties had a significantly stronger effect than inspections without penalties."  Id. at 13.

Inspections and enforcement actions consistently produce significant compliance/performance spillover effects on similarly situated non-evaluated or sanctioned facilities (general deterrence):

   * The emphasis in this section is, again, on the impact of inspections on compliance and environmental performance, though information on the impact of enforcement actions and penalties is included for some studies addressing both.  See the Deterrence White Paper and the resources posted on EPA's Compliance Research Literature web page at http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/resources/reports/compliance/research/index.html if additional information is desired on the relationship of enforcement actions, penalties, and compliance/performance.

   * "Collectively, the results of the general deterrence literature indicate that both qualitative and quantitative methods exist to measure general deterrence. Further, joint results show that environmental facilities learn from the experiences of their neighbors, and this learning impacts compliance behavior. Inspections and enforcement actions consistently produce significant spillover effects on non-sanctioned facilities. Consequently, a substantial improvement in environmental quality might be achieved from a relatively small additional investment in traditional monitoring and enforcement."  Deterrence White Paper at 14 (emphasis in original).
   * "Environmental monitoring and enforcement activities generate substantial general deterrence.  [paragraph break omitted] Every reviewed study that examined the spillover effects of environmental monitoring and enforcement on other facilities uncovered support for the existence of general deterrence. This includes Thorton et al. [2005], Gunningham et al. [2005], Shimshack and Ward [2005], Oregon DEQ [2004], Gray and Shadbegian [2007], and Shimshack and Ward [2007]. In many cases, general deterrence effects are practically important."  Id. at 24.

   * "Shimshack and Ward [2005] used data on BOD and TSS discharges from 217 pulp and paper mills to explore the regulator reputation-building effect of general deterrence. In particular, the authors statistically analyzed the response of plants' BOD and TSS discharges to lagged enforcement and monitoring activity at both the sanctioned plant and other plants in the same regulatory jurisdiction. Shimshack and Ward [2005] found that an additional fine induced about a two-thirds reduction in the statewide water pollution violation rate in the year following that fine. Nearly all of this large result was attributable to spillover effects, as the average deterrence impact on each of the other plants in a state was almost as strong as the impact on the sanctioned facility." Id. at 15-16.

   * "State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality [2004] conducted an extensive survey of 450 regulated companies in Oregon for one month in 2002. The sample was selected primarily from high priority industries, and thus results are not representative for less visible industrial sectors. Key metrics included the response of managers' self-reported environmental behavior to hearing about inspections and sanctions at other facilities. Respondents frequently reported significant general deterrence effects. For example, 38 percent of surveyed companies made changes in response to hearing about inspections at another facility and 14 percent reportedly made changes in response to hearing about sanctions at other facilities. Such changes included improved water treatment, investment in new equipment, environmental personnel additions, and employee training. Oregon DEQ estimated that inspections and penalties directly generated an average of 1.6 environmental changes per company. 2.6 additional environmental actions per company occurred when other facilities later heard about the enforcement response.  [paragraph break omitted]  In Oregon DEQ [2004], inspections seemed to have stronger specific and general deterrence effects than penalty actions, largely because inspections appeared to be better publicized."  Id. at 16.

   * "In a study of particulate, sulfur dioxide, and toxics emissions from 521 US manufacturing plants located within 50 miles of three major cities, Gray and Shadbegian [2007] analyzed the response of toxic and conventional air pollution violations and emissions to EPA/state inspections and enforcement actions. The authors found evidence for both specific and general deterrence. Inspections increased compliance with regulations for both the inspected facility and for nearby plants. The specific and general deterrence effects of inspections were found to be approximately the same magnitude.  Id.

Higher penalties can produce greater deterrence:
   * Consider ... the relationship between penalty amounts and deterrence.  While there is a dearth of data in this regard,[f.n. omitted] the established wisdom is that the effectiveness of a legal threat depends on three related factors, (1) the certainty that a lawbreaker will be caught (certainty), (2) the nature and severity of the punishment (severity), and (3) the speed of apprehension and punishment (celerity), and that increases in each dimension correlate with increased deterrence and compliance. [f.n. omitted]"  Silberman, J D..; Does Environmental Deterrence Work? Evidence and Experience Say Yes, But We Need to Understand How and Why; 30 Env. Law Inst. 10523-36 (July 2000). Abridged version reprinted in Making Law Work (INECE 2005).   http://www.inece.org/mlw/Chapter4_DomesticEnforcementStrategies.pdf

   * "Shimshack and Ward [2005] used data on BOD and TSS discharges from 217 pulp and paper mills to explore the regulator reputation-building effect of general deterrence. In particular, the authors statistically analyzed the response of plants' BOD and TSS discharges to lagged enforcement and monitoring activity at both the sanctioned plant and other plants in the same regulatory jurisdiction. Shimshack and Ward [2005] found that an additional fine induced about a two-thirds reduction in the statewide water pollution
violation rate in the year following that fine. Nearly all of this large result was attributable to spillover effects, as the average deterrence impact on each of the other plants in a state was almost as strong as the impact on the sanctioned facility. The authors also showed that general deterrence was increasing in the amount of the penalty. In other words, larger fines induced fewer subsequent violations by other plants in the state. Other results included the finding that non-monetary enforcement responses like notices of violation alone had little influence on plant-level compliance."  Deterrence White Paper at 15-16 (emphasis added).

   * "Stafford [2002] studied the response of 8411 hazardous waste-generating facilities to a rule change that significantly increased financial penalties for violation. The 10 to 20 fold increase in potential fine magnitudes generated an approximately 15 percent reduction in regulated plants' violation probabilities." Deterrence White Paper at 13.  S. Stafford, The Effect of Punishment on Firm Compliance with Hazardous Waste Regulations, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 44, 290-308 (2002).  Id. at 13 (emphasis added).


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60344-60347]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23831]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 30716; File No. 812-14183]

Forethought Variable Insurance Trust, et al.; Notice of
Application

September 25, 2013.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a) of
the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain
disclosure requirements.

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

SUMMARY:
     Summary of Application: Applicants request an order that would
permit them to enter into and materially amend sub-advisory agreements
with Wholly-Owned Sub-Advisers (as defined below) and non-affiliated
sub-advisers without shareholder approval and would grant relief from
certain disclosure requirements.

Applicants: Forethought Variable Insurance Trust (the ``Trust'') and
Forethought Investment Advisors, LLC (``FIA'').

DATES:  Filing Dates: The application was filed on July 23, 2013 and
amended on September 20, 2013.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on October 21, 2013, and should be accompanied by proof of service
on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants,
300 North Meridian St., Suite 1800, Indianapolis, IN 46204.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emerson S. Davis, Sr., Senior Counsel,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Daniele Marchesani, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-
6821 (Division of Investment Management, Exemptive Applications
Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Trust is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and is
registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company.
The Trust may offer one or more series of shares (each, a ``Series'')
with its own distinct investment objective, strategies, policies and
restrictions. FIA is registered as an investment adviser under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act''). Each Series will
have as its investment adviser, FIA, or another investment adviser
controlling, controlled by or under common control with FIA or its
successors (each, an ``Adviser'').\1\ Any future Adviser will also be
registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For purposes of the requested order, ``successor'' is
limited to an entity that results from a reorganization into another
jurisdiction or a change in the type of business organization.
    \2\ Applicants request that the relief apply to applicants, as
well as to any future Series and any other existing or future
registered open-end management investment company or series thereof
that (a) is advised by an Adviser, (b) uses the manager of managers
structure described in the application (``Manager of Managers
Structure''), and (c) complies with the terms and conditions of the
application (``Sub-Advised Series''). All registered open-end
investment companies that currently intend to rely on the requested
order are named as applicants. Any entity that relies on the
requested order will do so only in accordance with the terms and
conditions contained in the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Adviser will serve as the investment adviser to each Series
pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the Trust
(``Investment Advisory Agreement''). The Investment Advisory Agreement
will be approved by the board of trustees of the Trust (``Board''),\3\
including a majority of the members of the Board who are not
``interested persons,'' as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of
the Trust, of a Series or the Adviser (``Independent Trustees'') and by
the shareholders of the relevant Series as required by sections 15(a)
and 15(c) of the Act and rule 18f-2 thereunder. The terms of the
Investment Advisory Agreement comply with section 15(a) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Board'' also includes the board of trustees or
directors of a future Series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Under the terms of the Investment Advisory Agreement, the
Adviser, subject to the supervision of the Board, will provide
continuous investment management of the assets of each Series. The
Adviser will periodically review each Series' investment objective,
policies and strategies, and based on the need of a Series may
recommend changes to the investment objective, policies and strategies
of the Series for consideration by the Board. For its services to each
Series under the Investment Advisory Agreement, the Adviser will
receive an advisory fee from that Series based on the average daily net
assets of that Series. The Investment Advisory Agreement provides that
the Adviser may, subject to the approval of the Board, including a
majority of the Independent Trustees, and the shareholders of the
applicable Series (if required), delegate portfolio management
responsibilities of all or a portion of the assets of a Series to a
Sub-Adviser.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As used herein, a ``Sub-Adviser'' is (a) an indirect or
direct ``wholly-owned subsidiary'' (as such term is defined in the
Act) of the Adviser for that Series; (b) a sister company of the
Adviser for that Series that is an indirect or direct ``wholly-owned
subsidiary'' (as such term is defined in the Act) of the same entity
that, indirectly or directly, wholly owns the Adviser (each of (a)
and (b), a ``Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser'' and collectively, the
``Wholly-Owned Sub-Advisers''), or (c) not an ``affiliated person''
(as such term is defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act) of the
applicable Series, the Trust, or the Adviser, except to the extent
that an affiliation arises solely because the Sub-Adviser serves as
a sub-adviser to a Series (each, a ``Non-Affiliated Sub-Adviser'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Applicants request an order to permit the Adviser, subject to
the approval of the Board, including a majority of the Independent
Trustees, to, without obtaining shareholder approval: (i) Select Sub-
Advisers to manage all or a portion of the assets of a Series and enter
into Sub-Advisory Agreements (as defined below) with the Sub-Advisers,
and (ii) materially amend Sub-Advisory Agreements with the Sub-
Advisers.\5\ The requested relief will not extend to any sub-adviser,
other than a Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser, who is an affiliated person, as
defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Sub-Advised Series, of
the Trust, or of the Adviser,

other than by reason of serving as a sub-adviser to one or more of the
Sub-Advised Series (``Affiliated Sub-Adviser'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Shareholder approval will continue to be required for any
other sub-adviser change (not otherwise permitted by rule or other
action of the Commission or staff) and material amendments to an
existing sub-advisory agreement with any sub-adviser other than a
Non-Affiliated Sub-Adviser or a Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser (all such
changes referred to as ``Ineligible Sub-Adviser Changes'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Pursuant to the terms of the Investment Advisory Agreement, the
Adviser will have overall responsibility for the management and
investment of each Series' assets. These responsibilities include
recommending the removal or replacement of Sub-Advisers, determining
the portion of that Sub-Advised Series' assets to be managed by any
given Sub-Adviser and reallocating those assets as necessary from time
to time.
    6. The Adviser will enter into sub-advisory agreements with various
Sub-Advisers (``Sub-Advisory Agreements'') to provide investment
management services to the Sub-Advised Series.\6\ The terms of the Sub-
Advisory Agreements will comply with the requirements of section 15(a)
of the Act and will be approved by the Board, including a majority of
the Independent Trustees, in accordance with sections 15(a) and 15(c)
of the Act and rule 18f-2 thereunder. The specific day-to-day
investment decisions for each applicable Series will be made by that
Series' Sub-Adviser, which has discretionary authority to invest the
assets or a portion of the assets of that Series subject to the general
supervision of the Adviser and the Board. The Adviser will compensate
each Sub-Adviser out of the advisory fees paid to the Adviser under the
Investment Advisory Agreement; in the future, Sub-Advised Series may
directly pay advisory fees to the Sub-Advisers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ If the name of any Sub-Advised Series contains the name of a
Sub-Adviser, the name of the Adviser that serves as the primary
adviser to the Sub-Advised Series, or a trademark or trade name that
is owned by that Adviser, will precede the name of the Sub-Adviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Sub-Advised Series will inform shareholders of the hiring of a
new Sub-Adviser pursuant to the following procedures (``Notice and
Access Procedures''): (a) Within 90 days after a new Sub-Adviser is
hired for any Sub-Advised Series, that Sub-Advised Series will send its
shareholders either a Multi-Manager Notice or a Multi-Manager Notice
and Multi-Manager Information Statement \7\; and (b) the Sub-Advised
Series will make the Multi-Manager Information Statement available on
the Web site identified in the Multi-Manager Notice no later than when
the Multi-Manager Notice (or Multi-Manager Notice and Multi-Manager
Information Statement) is first sent to shareholders, and will maintain
it on that Web site for at least 90 days thereafter. In the
circumstances described in the application, a proxy solicitation to
approve the appointment of new Sub-Advisers provides no more meaningful
information to shareholders than the proposed Multi-Manager Information
Statement. Applicants state that each Board would comply with the
requirements of sections 15(a) and 15(c) of the Act before entering
into or amending a Sub-Advisory Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A ``Multi-Manager Notice'' will be modeled on a Notice of
Internet Availability as defined in rule 14a-16 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''), and specifically will,
among other things: (a) Summarize the relevant information regarding
the new Sub-Adviser; (b) inform shareholders that the Multi-Manager
Information Statement is available on a Web site; (c) provide the
Web site address; (d) state the time period during which the Multi-
Manager Information Statement will remain available on that Web
site; (e) provide instructions for accessing and printing the Multi-
Manager Information Statement; and (f) instruct the shareholder that
a paper or email copy of the Multi-Manager Information Statement may
be obtained, without charge, by contacting the Sub-Advised Series.
    A ``Multi-Manager Information Statement'' will meet the
requirements of Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C and Item 22 of Schedule
14A under the Exchange Act for an information statement, except as
modified by the order to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure (as defined
below). Multi-Manager Information Statements will be filed with the
Commission via the EDGAR system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Applicants also request an order exempting the Sub-Advised
Series from certain disclosure obligations that may require each Sub-
Advised Series to disclose fees paid by the Adviser to each Sub-
Adviser. Applicants seek relief to permit each Sub-Advised Series to
disclose (as a dollar amount and a percentage of the Sub-Advised
Series' net assets): (a) The aggregate fees paid to the Adviser and any
Wholly-Owned Sub-Advisers; (b) the aggregate fees paid to Non-
Affiliated Sub-Advisers; and (c) the fee paid to each Affiliated Sub-
Adviser (collectively, the ``Aggregate Fee Disclosure'').

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 15(a) of the Act states, in part, that it is unlawful
for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered
investment company ``except pursuant to a written contract, which
contract, whether with such registered company or with an investment
adviser of such registered company, has been approved by the vote of a
majority of the outstanding voting securities of such registered
company.'' Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class
of stock in a series investment company affected by a matter must
approve that matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
    2. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end
investment companies. Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A requires a registered
investment company to disclose in its statement of additional
information the method of computing the ``advisory fee payable'' by the
investment company, including the total dollar amounts that the
investment company ``paid to the adviser (aggregated with amounts paid
to affiliated advisers, if any), and any advisers who are not
affiliated persons of the adviser, under the investment advisory
contract for the last three fiscal years.''
    3. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect
to a registered investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under
the Exchange Act. Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and
22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together, require a proxy statement for
a shareholder meeting at which the advisory contract will be voted upon
to include the ``rate of compensation of the investment adviser,'' the
``aggregate amount of the investment adviser's fee,'' a description of
the ``terms of the contract to be acted upon,'' and, if a change in the
advisory fee is proposed, the existing and proposed fees and the
difference between the two fees.
    4. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial
statements required to be included as part of a registered investment
company's registration statement and shareholder reports filed with the
Commission. Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X require
a registered investment company to include in its financial statement
information about the investment advisory fees.
    5. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission by order
upon application may conditionally or unconditionally exempt any
person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of persons,
securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or from any
rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Applicants state that their requested relief meets this standard for
the reasons discussed below.
    6. Applicants assert that the shareholders expect the Adviser,
subject to the review and approval of the Board, to select the Sub-
Advisers that are suited to achieve the Series' investment objective.
Applicants assert that, from the perspective of the shareholder, the
role of the Sub-Adviser is substantially equivalent to the role of the
individual portfolio managers employed by an investment adviser to a
traditional investment company. Applicants

believe that permitting the Adviser to perform the duties for which the
shareholders of the Sub-Advised Series are paying the Adviser--the
selection, supervision and evaluation of the Sub-Adviser--without
incurring unnecessary delays or expenses is appropriate in the interest
of the Series' shareholders and will allow the Series to operate more
efficiently. Applicants state that the Investment Advisory Agreement
will continue to be fully subject to section 15(a) of the Act and rule
18f-2 under the Act and approved by the Board, including a majority of
the Independent Trustees, in the manner required by sections 15(a) and
15(c) of the Act. Applicants are not seeking an exemption with respect
to the Investment Advisory Agreement.
    7. Applicants assert that disclosure of the individual fees that
the Adviser or Sub-Advised Series would pay to the Sub-Advisers would
not serve any meaningful purpose. Applicants contend that the primary
reasons for requiring disclosure of individual fees paid to Sub-
Advisers are to inform shareholders of expenses to be charged by a
particular Sub-Advised Series and to enable shareholders to compare the
fees to those of other comparable investment companies. Applicants
believe that the requested relief satisfies these objectives because
the advisory fee paid to the Adviser, or the Aggregate Fee Disclosure,
in the case of a Sub-Advised Series that directly compensates a Sub-
Adviser, will be fully disclosed and, therefore, shareholders will know
what the Sub-Advised Series' fees and expenses are and will be able to
compare the advisory fees a Sub-Advised Series is charged to those of
other investment companies. Applicants assert that the requested
disclosure relief would benefit shareholders of the Sub-Advised Series
because it would improve the Adviser's ability to negotiate the fees
paid to Sub-Advisers. Applicants state that the Adviser may be able to
negotiate rates that are below a Sub-Adviser's ``posted'' amounts if
the Adviser is not required to disclose the Sub-Advisers' fees to the
public. Applicants submit that the relief requested to use Aggregate
Fee Disclosure will encourage Sub-Advisers to negotiate lower sub-
advisory fees with the Adviser if the lower fees are not required to be
made public.
    8. For the reasons discussed above, applicants submit that the
requested relief meets the standards for relief under section 6(c) of
the Act. Applicants state that the operation of the Sub-Advised Series
in the manner described in the application must be approved by
shareholders of a Sub-Advised Series before that Sub-Advised Series may
rely on the requested relief. In addition, applicants state that the
proposed conditions to the requested relief are designed to address any
potential conflicts of interest, including any posed by the use of
Wholly-Owned Sub-Advisers, and provide that shareholders are informed
when new Sub-Advisers are hired. Applicants assert that conditions 6,
7, 9, 10 and 11 are designed to provide the Board with sufficient
independence and the resources and information it needs to monitor and
address any conflicts of interest with affiliated persons of the
Adviser, including Wholly-Owned Sub-Advisers. Applicants state that,
accordingly, they believe the requested relief is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and
provisions of the Act.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Before a Sub-Advised Series may rely on the order requested in
the application, the operation of the Sub-Advised Series in the manner
described in the application, including the hiring of Wholly-Owned Sub-
Advisers, will be approved by a majority of the Sub-Advised Series'
outstanding voting securities (or if the Sub-Advised Series serves as a
funding medium for any sub-account of a registered separate account,
pursuant to voting instructions provided by the unitholders of the sub-
account), as defined in the Act, or in the case of a Sub-Advised Series
whose public shareholders (or variable contract owners through a
registered separate account) purchase shares on the basis of a
prospectus containing the disclosure contemplated by condition 2 below,
by the sole initial shareholder before offering the Sub-Advised Series'
shares to the public (or the variable contract owners through a
separate account).
    2. The prospectus for each Sub-Advised Series will disclose the
existence, substance, and effect of any order granted pursuant to the
application. Each Sub-Advised Series will hold itself out to the public
as employing the Manager of Managers Structure. Each prospectus will
prominently disclose that the Adviser has the ultimate responsibility,
subject to oversight by the Board, to oversee the Sub-Advisers and
recommend their hiring, termination and replacement.
    3. The Adviser will provide general management services to each
Sub-Advised Series, including overall supervisory responsibility for
the general management and investment of the Sub-Advised Series'
assets, and, subject to review and approval by the Board, the Adviser
will: (a) Set the Sub-Advised Series' overall investment strategies;
(b) evaluate, select, and recommend Sub-Advisers to manage all or a
portion of the Sub-Advised Series' assets; and (c) implement procedures
reasonably designed to ensure that the Sub-Advisers comply with a Sub-
Advised Series' investment objectives, policies and restrictions.
Subject to review by the Board, the Adviser will (a) when appropriate,
allocate and reallocate the Sub-Advised Series' assets among multiple
Sub-Advisers; and (b) monitor and evaluate the performance of Sub-
Advisers.
    4. A Sub-Advised Series will not make any Ineligible Sub-Adviser
Changes without the approval of the shareholders of the applicable Sub-
Advised Series.
    5. A Sub-Advised Series will inform shareholders (or, if the Sub-
Advised Series serves as a funding medium for any sub-account of a
registered separate account, the Adviser will inform the unitholders of
the sub-account) of the hiring of a new Sub-Adviser within 90 days
after the hiring of the new Sub-Adviser pursuant to the Notice and
Access Procedures.
    6. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be
Independent Trustees, and the selection and nomination of new or
additional Independent Trustees will be placed within the discretion of
the then-existing Independent Trustees.
    7. Independent Legal Counsel, as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under
the Act, will continue to be engaged to represent the Independent
Trustees. The selection of such counsel will be within the discretion
of the then-existing Independent Trustees.
    8. The Adviser will provide the Board, no less frequently than
quarterly, with information about the profitability of the Adviser on a
per Sub-Advised Series basis. The information will reflect the impact
on profitability of the hiring or termination of any sub-adviser during
the applicable quarter.
    9. Whenever a sub-adviser is hired or terminated, the Adviser will
provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on the
profitability of the Adviser.
    10. Whenever a sub-adviser change is proposed for a Sub-Advised
Series with an Affiliated Sub-Adviser or a Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser,
the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will make
a separate finding, reflected in the Trust's Board minutes, that such
change is in the best interests

of the Sub-Advised Series and its shareholders and does not involve a
conflict of interest from which the Adviser or the Affiliated Sub-
Adviser or Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser derives an inappropriate advantage.
    11. No trustee or officer of the Trust or of a Sub-Advised Series
or any partner, director, manager or officer of the Adviser will own
directly or indirectly (other than through a pooled investment vehicle
that is not controlled by such person) any interest in a Sub-Adviser
except for: (a) ownership of interests in the Adviser or any entity
that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the
Adviser; or (b) ownership of less than 1% of the outstanding securities
of any class of equity or debt of a publicly traded company that is
either a Sub-Adviser or an entity that controls, is controlled by, or
is under common control with a Sub-Adviser.
    12. Each Sub-Advised Series will disclose the Aggregate Fee
Disclosure in its registration statement.
    13. In the event the Commission adopts a rule under the Act
providing substantially similar relief to that in the order requested
in the application, the requested order will expire on the effective
date of that rule.
    14. For Sub-Advised Series that pay fees to a Sub-Adviser directly
from fund assets, any changes to a Sub-Advisory Agreement that would
result in an increase in the total management and advisory fees payable
by a Sub-Advised Series will be required to be approved by the
shareholders of the Sub-Advised Series.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-23831 Filed 9-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P