[Federal Register: January 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 1738-1740]
[DOCID:fr13ja09-96]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59208; File No. SR-FINRA-2008-045]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment
No. 1 Thereto, To Amend the FINRA Rule 9520 Series Regarding
Eligibility Procedures for Persons Subject to Certain Disqualifications

January 6, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 8, 2008, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') and amended on December 11, 2008,\3\ the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been substantially prepared by FINRA. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as
amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 to SR-FINRA-2008-045 replaced and superseded
the original rule filing submitted to the Commission on September 8,
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA is proposing to amend the FINRA Rule 9520 Series, which
governs the eligibility procedures for persons subject to certain
disqualifications, to comport with the amended definition of
disqualification in the FINRA By-Laws.
    This Amendment No. 1 to SR-FINRA-2008-045 makes technical changes
to the original filing filed on September 8, 2008. The text of the
proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 5 to this filing.\4\
Amendment No. 1 replaces and supersedes the proposed rule change filed
on September 8, 2008, in its entirety, except with regard to Exhibit 2,
a proposed Regulatory Notice that details the proposed related
eligibility procedures.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The text of the proposed rule change to the FINRA Rule 9520
Series as set forth in Exhibit 5 reflects amendments adopted
pursuant to proposed rule change SR-FINRA-2008-021, which was
approved by the Commission. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
58643 (September 25, 2008), 73 FR 57174 (October 1, 2008) (SR-FINRA-
2008-021) (approval order). The FINRA Rule 9520 Series, as set forth
in SR-FINRA-2008-021, became effective on December 15, 2008. See
FINRA Regulatory Notice 08-57 (SEC Approves New Consolidated FINRA
Rules) (October 2008).
    \5\ FINRA would issue the proposed Regulatory Notice upon the
Commission's approval of the proposed rule change; the Regulatory
Notice is written in a manner that assumes such approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    In light of FINRA's obligation to enforce the federal securities
laws, and as part of the consolidation of the member firm regulatory
functions of NASD and NYSE Regulation, Inc., and the formation of
FINRA, FINRA adopted by Board and membership vote a revised By-Law
definition of disqualification that is consistent with the federal
securities laws, such that any person subject to a statutory
disqualification under Section 3(a)(39) of the Act also is subject to
disqualification under Article III, Section 4 of the FINRA By-Laws.\6\
Consequently, as further detailed in the proposed Regulatory Notice
(see Exhibit 2), FINRA's revised definition of disqualification
incorporates three additional categories of statutory disqualification,
including willful violations of the federal securities or commodities
laws, grounds for statutory disqualification that were enacted in the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and associations with certain other persons subject
to disqualification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55495 (March 20,
2007), 72 FR 14149 (March 26, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-023) (notice). See
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56145 (July 26, 2007), 72
FR 42169 (August 1, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-023) (approval order), as
amended by Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56145A (May 30,
2008), 73 FR 32377 (June 6, 2008). See also NASD, SEC No-Action
Letter, 2007 SEC No-Act. LEXIS 540 (July 27, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Absent the proposed rule change, all persons subject to any of the
added categories of disqualification would be required to obtain
approval from FINRA to enter or remain in the securities industry. The
proposed rule change would both amend the text of the FINRA Rule 9520
Series generally to reflect the amended definition of disqualification
in the By-Laws, as well as include the proposed Regulatory Notice that
outlines in detail the applicable eligibility procedures. The amended
FINRA Rule 9520 Series would incorporate by reference the procedures
set forth in the Regulatory Notice. As further detailed in the
Regulatory Notice, the need for a member to file an application with
FINRA for approval notwithstanding the disqualification would depend on
(1) The type of the disqualification; (2) the date of the
disqualification; and (3) whether the firm or individual is seeking
admission, readmission or continuation in the securities industry.
    The proposed rule change would amend FINRA Rule 9522 to address the
initiation of eligibility proceedings and the authority of FINRA's
Department of Member Regulation (``Member Regulation'') to approve
applications relating to a disqualification, where the disqualification
arises from findings or orders specified in Section 15(b)(4)(D), (E) or
(H) of the Act or arises under Section 3(a)(39)(E) of the Act (i.e.,
the added categories of disqualification). Currently, FINRA Rule
9522(a)(1) provides, among other things, that if FINRA staff has reason
to believe that a disqualification exists, FINRA staff will issue a
written notice to the member or applicant for membership under NASD
Rule 1013, specifying the grounds for such disqualification. The
proposed amendments to FINRA Rule 9522(a)(1) provide that FINRA staff
would issue such written notice with respect to the added categories of
disqualification only when the member or applicant is required to file
an application pursuant to the Regulatory Notice. Similarly, the
proposed rule change would amend FINRA Rule 9522(b) to require a member
to file an application with FINRA with respect to the added categories
of disqualification only when instructed to submit one by the
Regulatory Notice.
    Moreover, under the current rules, Member Regulation is responsible
for evaluating applications for relief from a disqualification filed by
a disqualified member or sponsoring member. In certain circumstances,
Member

Regulation is authorized to approve the application, while in other
cases, Member Regulation must make a recommendation to either approve
or deny the applications to the National Adjudicatory Council
(``NAC''). The proposed amendments to FINRA Rule 9522 would authorize
Member Regulation to approve applications based on the added categories
of disqualification. In the event Member Regulation does not approve
these applications, the disqualified member or sponsoring member would
have the right to have the matter decided by the NAC after a hearing
and consideration by the Statutory Disqualification Committee under
FINRA Rule 9524.
    In addition, if Member Regulation determines that an application
relating to a disqualification that arises from findings or orders
specified in Section 15(b)(4)(D), (E), or (H) of the Act or arises
under Section 3(a)(39)(E) of the Act should be approved, but with
specific supervisory requirements that have the consent of the
disqualified member, sponsoring member and/or disqualified person, then
proposed FINRA Rule 9523(b) would authorize Member Regulation to
approve a supervisory plan, without submitting a recommendation to the
Chairman of the Statutory Disqualification Committee, acting on behalf
of the NAC. Consistent with the current rule regarding the submission
of supervisory plans,\7\ proposed FINRA Rule 9523(b)(1) would provide
that, by submitting an executed letter consenting to a supervisory
plan, a disqualified member, sponsoring member and/or disqualified
person waive the following (in summary):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See FINRA Rule 9523(b)(1) (to be renumbered to FINRA Rule
9523(a)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) The right to a hearing and any right of appeal to challenge the
validity of the supervisory plan;
    (b) The right to claim bias or prejudgment by Member Regulation or
the General Counsel regarding the supervisory plan; and
    (c) The right to claim a violation of the ex parte prohibitions or
the separation of functions provisions of FINRA Rules 9143 and 9144,
respectively, in connection with participation in the supervisory plan.
    If the supervisory plan is rejected, the disqualified member,
sponsoring member and/or disqualified person would have the right to
proceed under FINRA Rule 9524.
    The proposed rule change also would make several technical
amendments. For example, the proposed rule change would amend FINRA
Rule 9522(c) to allow a member that has filed a statutory
disqualification application to withdraw that application after the
start of a hearing but prior to the issuance of a decision by the NAC
by filing a written notice with FINRA's Department of Registration and
Disclosure and FINRA's Office of General Counsel. In addition, for
purposes of clarity and consistency, the proposed rule change would
amend FINRA Rule 9522(e) to replace references that Member Regulation
``may grant'' or ``may approve'' certain matters with ``is authorized
to approve'' such matters.
    The effective date will be 90 days following Commission approval of
the proposed rule change.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\8\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of the Act noted above because it should
allow FINRA to integrate filings mandated by the revised definition of
disqualification into established programs that monitor subject persons
and allow FINRA and the Commission to focus resources on filings that
raise important investor protection concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2008-045 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2008-045. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2008-045 and should be
submitted on or before February 3, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-438 Filed 1-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 9)]
[
Notices]
[Page 1711]
[DOCID:fr16ja07-32]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER07-232-000]

Aragonne Wind, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

January 8, 2007.
    Aragonne Wind, LLC (Aragonne) filed an application for market-based
rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule. The proposed
market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy and capacity
at market-based rates. Aragonne also requested waivers of various
Commission regulations. In particular, Aragonne requested that the
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Aragonne.
    On December 27, 2006, pursuant to delegated authority, the
Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the
requests for blanket approval under Part 34. The Director's order also
stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the
Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of
protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard or to protest
the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability by Aragonne should file a motion to intervene or protest with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214
(2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest is January 26, 2007.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
Aragonne is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or
liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect
of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of
Aragonne, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably
necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Aragonne's issuance of securities or assumptions
of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-432 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 177)]
[Notices]
[Page 54036]
[DOCID:fr13se06-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-572-000]

Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

September 6, 2006.
    Take notice that on August 31, 2006, Colorado Interstate Gas
Company (CIG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First
Revised Volume No 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective
October 1, 2006:

Forty-Third Revised Sheet No. 11A
First Revised Sheet No. 380H

    CIG states that the tariff sheets are being filed to revise the
Fuel Reimbursement Percentages applicable to Lost, Unaccounted-For and
Other Fuel Gas, Transportation Fuel Gas, Storage Fuel Gas and Rate
Schedule CS-1 Firm Compression Fuel Gas and Lost and Unaccounted-For
Gas.
    CIG states that copies of its filing have been sent to all firm
customers, interruptible customers, and affected state commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online 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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary,
[FR Doc. E6-15162 Filed 9-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 144 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43902-43903]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18305]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of Availability of a Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the California High-Speed Train Project Fresno to
Bakersfield Section

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), United States Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been
prepared for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the California High-
Speed Train (HST) Project (Project). FRA is the lead Federal agency and
the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) is the lead state
agency for the environmental review process. The Supplemental Draft EIS
was prepared by FRA and the Authority to meet the federal requirements
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and to serve as the
Authority's Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in
compliance with the state law requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) is a Cooperating Agency for the Supplemental Draft EIS.

DATES: Written comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS for the Fresno to
Bakersfield Section should be provided to the Authority at the address
listed below on or before September 20, 2012. Public hearings are
scheduled on August 27, August 28, and August 29, 2012, at the times
and dates listed in the Addresses Section below in Fresno, Hanford, and
Bakersfield, CA.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS should be
sent to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, EIR/EIS Comments, 770
L Street, Suite 800, Sacramento, CA 95814, or may be submitted online
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments may also be provided orally
or in writing at the public hearings scheduled at the following times
and locations:
     Fresno, CA, Wednesday, August 29, 2012, 3:00 to 8:00 p.m.,
Fresno Convention Center, Exhibit Hall III, 848 M Street, Fresno, CA;
     Hanford, CA, Tuesday, August 28, 2012, 3:00 to 8:00 p.m.,
Hanford Fraternal Hall, 1015 N. 10th Avenue, Hanford, CA; and
     Bakersfield, CA, Monday, August 27, 2012, 3:00 to 8:00
p.m., Beale Memorial Library, 701 Truxton Avenue, Bakersfield, CA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Valenstein, Chief,
Environment and Systems Planning Division, Office of Railroad Policy
and Development, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., MS-20, Washington, DC 20590
(telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed California HST system would
provide intercity, high-speed passenger rail service on more than 800
miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population
centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley,
Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. It will
use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-
steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and
automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to
220 miles per hour (mph) over a fully graded-separated, dedicated
double track alignment. The HST System is comprised of multiple
sections, one of which is the Fresno to Bakersfield Section analyzed in
the Supplemental Draft EIS.
    This project-level EIS tiers off of the Statewide Program EIR/EIS
published by the Authority and the FRA in 2005 and builds off of
subsequent decisions. The Fresno to Bakersfield Section is comprised of
a 114-mile dedicated, double-track high-speed passenger rail corridor
between Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. The Project includes proposed
stations in downtown Fresno and Bakersfield, and a possible Kings/
Tulare Regional Station in the vicinity of Hanford, CA. A heavy
maintenance facility for assembly, testing, and commissioning of
trains, train inspection and service, and train overhaul may be
constructed in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section.
    In August 2011, FRA issued a Draft EIS and circulated the document
for a 60-day public and agency review and comment period. The Draft EIS
analyzed a no action alternative and various action alternatives for
the construction and operation of the California HST Project Fresno to
Bakersfield Section, including alignment alternatives and station
locations. FRA and Authority held three public hearings on the Draft

EIS held in Fresno, Hanford, and Bakersfield on September 20, September
21, and September 22, 2011 respectively to collect public comments.
    Based on substantive comments received during the public and agency
review of the Draft EIS, the Authority and FRA decided to reintroduce
alignment alternatives west of Hanford. In response to concerns raised
by stakeholders in metropolitan Bakersfield, the Authority and FRA also
decided to evaluate another alternative in Bakersfield (Bakersfield
Hybrid Alternative) in an effort to minimize impacts to residential and
community facilities. The Authority and FRA determined that the
introduction of these new alternatives and other refinements being
considered for existing Fresno to Bakersfield route alternatives
required preparation of a Supplemental Draft EIS under NEPA and a
Revised Draft EIS under CEQA.
    Consistent with the provisions of NEPA Section 102(2)(c) (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations
implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500 et seq.), and FRA's Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999), the
Supplemental Draft EIS describes the Project's purpose and need,
identifies the reasonable range of alternatives including the no action
alternative, evaluates the potential environmental effects associated
with those alternatives, and identifies mitigation measures to minimize
potential environmental effects.
    Copies of the Supplemental Draft EIS are available online at FRA's
Web site: www.fra.dot.gov; the Authority's Web site:
www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov; and are also available for viewing at the
following locations near the planned rail system:
     Fresno County Public Library, Central Branch, Central
Reference Department, 2420 Mariposa Street, Fresno, CA;
     Fresno County Public Library, Clovis Regional Library,
1155 Fifth Street, Clovis, CA;
     Fresno County Public Library, Laton Branch, 6313 DeWoody
Street, Laton, CA;
     Kern County Library, Beale Memorial Library, 701 Truxtun
Avenue, Bakersfield, CA;
     Kern County Library, Corcoran Branch, 1001 Chittenden
Avenue, Corcoran, CA;
     Kern County Library, Delano Branch, 925 10th Avenue,
Delano, CA;
     Kern County Library, Shafter Branch, 236 James Street,
Shafter, CA;
     Kern County Library, Wasco Branch, 1102 7th Street, Wasco,
CA;
     Kings County Library, Hanford Branch (Main Library), 401
N. Douty Street, Hanford, CA;
     Kings County Library, Lemoore Branch, 457 C Street,
Lemoore, CA;
     Tulare County Library, Visalia Branch (Main Library), 200
West Oak Avenue, Visalia, CA; and
     Tulare Public Library, 475 North M Street, Tulare, CA.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 19, 2012.
Paul Nissenbaum,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Policy & Development.
[FR Doc. 2012-18305 Filed 7-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


-2.77%
CY2008
                                     4.17%
                                     4.24%
                                     1.98%
                                     3.48%
                                     5.30%
                                     4.70%
                                                                         -10.2%
                                                                         -10.4%
                                                                         -12.3%
                                                                         -12.8%
                                                                         -6.89%
                                                                         -6.21%
AL
                                     144%
                                     55.5%
                                     92.4%
                                     22.1%
                                     130%
                                     43.2%
                                                                          -9.0%
                                                                          57.2%
                                                                         -23.8%
                                                                          38.9%
                                                                         -26.1%
                                                                          38.7%
KS
                                     63.3%
                                     6.50%
                                     40.9%
                                     -7.5%
                                     59.5%
                                     5.84%
                                                                         -85.7%
                                                                         -75.9%
                                                                         -87.4%
                                                                         -78.0%
                                                                         -88.1%
                                                                         -79.1%
KY
                                     158%
                                     35.1%
                                     138%
                                     18.3%
                                     199%
                                     45.4%
                                                                         -78.5%
                                                                         -61.0%
                                                                         -81.6%
                                                                         -64.9%
                                                                         -82.1%
                                                                         -65.5%
MD
                                    -1.96%
                                    -11.8%
                                    -13.3%
                                    -22.8%
                                    -4.69%
                                    -10.5%
                                                                         -60.4%
                                                                         -65.1%
                                                                         -54.4%
                                                                         -58.4%
                                                                         -51.1%
                                                                         -55.6%
MI
                                     97.6%
                                     9.39%
                                     64.8%
                                    -9.66%
                                     78.9%
                                     2.47%
                                                                         -89.2%
                                                                         -78.8%
                                                                         -91.0%
                                                                         -81.2%
                                                                         -89.5%
                                                                         -78.9%
MO
                                     98.8%
                                     28.7%
                                     63.0%
                                     4.31%
                                     90.8%
                                     19.3%
                                                                         -70.9%
                                                                         -54.4%
                                                                         -71.9%
                                                                         -54.3%
                                                                         -73.3%
                                                                         -57.0%
NE
                                     85.4%
                                    -1.57%
                                     58.7%
                                    -13.0%
                                     66.0%
                                    -7.52%
                                                                         -74.4%
                                                                         -52.6%
                                                                         -73.7%
                                                                         -52.3%
                                                                         -77.1%
                                                                         -55.3%
NJ
                                     84.7%
                                     31.0%
                                     69.1%
                                     16.6%
                                     79.4%
                                     23.5%
                                                                         -91.8%
                                                                         -87.5%
                                                                         -91.9%
                                                                         -87.1%
                                                                         -92.5%
                                                                         -87.5%
PA
                                    -28.2%
                                    -27.0%
                                    -23.9%
                                    -22.4%
                                    -24.9%
                                    -21.5%
                                                                         -75.6%
                                                                         -79.0%
                                                                         -75.4%
                                                                         -77.9%
                                                                         -76.5%
                                                                         -79.9%
WA
                                       --
                                       --
                                       --
                                       --
                                       --
                                       --
                                       --
                                       --
                                       --
                                       --
                                       --
                                       --
WI
                                     49.6%
                                     7.61%
                                     37.8%
                                    -3.91%
                                     37.4%
                                    -3.15%
                                                                         -74.5%
                                                                         -64.5%
                                                                         -76.6%
                                                                         -66.6%
                                                                         -76.8%
                                                                         -66.1%
WY
                                     138%
                                     53.2%
                                     36.6%
                                    -13.7%
                                     97.8%
                                     23.5%
                                                                         -75.0%
                                                                         -56.6%
                                                                         -77.6%
                                                                         -65.2%
                                                                         -75.5%
                                                                         -57.1%
* Values in red are statistically significant at the 95% level.

Appendix B: Discussion of crash frequency and risk per crash results in Kahane 2012

Below is the discussion of DRI's estimates of crash frequency and risk per crash included in Kahane 2012.

   For passenger cars and truck-based LTVs, overall and for many of the individual crash types, these analyses tend to show that (1) mass reduction lowers F/A [i.e. risk per crash], but (2) increases A/VMT [i.e. crash frequency].

   The analyses appear to be computationally valid. The sum of the F/A and the A/VMT coefficients is usually close to the baseline coefficients in NHTSA's analysis.

   However, in most of their tables, Van Auken and Zellner label the column of F/A coefficients as the "effect of mass reduction on crashworthiness and crash compatibility" and the A/VMT coefficients as its "effect on crash avoidance." In other words, the tables say mass reduction benefits crashworthiness and harms crash avoidance. NHTSA believes these are not accurate characterizations of the coefficients and they lead, in turn, to misunderstandings. Specifically, the ICCT in their public comment argue that the observed benefit to crashworthiness and harm to crash avoidance is counterintuitive and may be evidence of a flaw in the baseline analysis, such as a need for additional or different control variables.

   NHTSA believes the metric of fatalities per reported crash (F/A) does not measure just crashworthiness but also certain important aspects of crash avoidance, namely the severity of a crash. In addition, it could be influenced by how often crashes are reported or not reported.

   Conceptually, crashworthiness is the likelihood that an occupant will survive, given an impact to a vehicle that in turn results in a particular physical insult to the occupant. It is quite appropriate for the regression analyses to control for driver age and gender, because it is known that, given the same physical insult, a person is more likely to die with each year that he or she gets older. Furthermore, from young adulthood up to middle age, a female is more likely to die from the same physical insult as a male of the same age. Crash-data analyses have shown increases in fatality risk of 2 to 4 percent for each year that a person gets older. Young adult females are 20 to 30 percent more vulnerable than males of the same age; that differences decreases over time and eventually reverses by late middle age, but averaging across all ages, females are still 5 to 20 percent more vulnerable than males of the same age.

   In other words, if these F/A regressions truly modeled crashworthiness, the analyses of the crash types where most fatalities are in the case vehicle (rollover, fixed-object, heavy-truck, and the various types of collisions where the other vehicle is heavier) should have coefficients like -0.03 for M14_30, F14_30, M30_50, and F30_50, each of which measure how many years the driver is younger than 30 or 50, respectively. They should have coefficients like +0.03 for M50_70, F50_70, M70_96, and F70_96, which measure how many years the driver is older than 50 or 70. They should have a coefficient like -0.10 for DRVMALE, because a male is less vulnerable than a female. In crashes where the fatalities are uncommon in the case vehicle (hitting a pedestrian or a much lighter vehicle), the coefficients should all be close to zero, because the age or gender of the driver will not affect how the pedestrian reacts to a physical insult.
   Instead, the regressions rather consistently estimate positive or near-zero coefficients for M14_30, F14_30, M30_50, and F30_50 and positive coefficients for DRVMALE. They say F/A decreases as the occupant ages up to age 50 and F/A is lower for females than males.

   A more blatant example: on purely crashworthiness considerations, whether it is light or dark outside ought to have little effect on the risk of death from a given physical insult, except perhaps to the extent it affects EMS arrival. But NITE is consistently associated with an extraordinary increase in F/A.

   Of course, it is obvious what is going on. These crash data have no measure of crash severity, such as delta v. M14_30, F14_30, M30_50, F30_50, DRVMALE, and NITE all act as surrogates for crash severity. They not only indicate crashworthiness (ability to survive a physical insult) but also, and in some cases primarily, crash avoidance  -  namely, the ability of age 30-50 drivers, females, and daytime drivers to stay out of situations that lead to fatal crashes, while having their share of fender-benders. Driving at night, on the other hand, is a way to avoid fender-benders characteristic of rush-hour traffic and thereby increases F/A.

   Just as many of the control variables in the F/A regressions measure effects of crash avoidance in addition to (and sometimes in place of) crashworthiness, by the same token, there is no particular reason that the coefficients for UNDRWT00, OVERWT00, and FOOTPRNT measure the effects of crashworthiness exclusively and not also crash avoidance. Control variables such as M14_30, F14_30, M30_50, F30_50, DRVMALE, NITE, and also SPDLIM55 and RURAL may account for much of the effect of crash severity on risk per reported crash, but it is unknown exactly how much.

   A salient feature of NHTSA's approach, where the numerator is fatalities and the denominator VMT, is to take crash-reporting rates out of the formula for calculating risk.  A fatality is a fatality and a mile of travel is a mile of travel  -  unlike contact events that may or may not be police-reported, depending on the vehicle, the driver, the locality, or the circumstances of the moment.  These analyses of F/A and A/VMT appear to be computationally valid, but NHTSA doubts they truly measure the "effect of mass reduction on crashworthiness" and "effect of mass reduction on crash avoidance."

References

Kahane, C.J. 2012. Relationships Between Fatality Risk, Mass, and Footprint in Model Year 2000-2007 Passenger Cars and LTVs.  Final report prepared for the National Center for Statistics and Analysis, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 811 665; August.

Wenzel, Tom. 2012. An Analysis of the Relationship between Casualty Risk per Crash and Vehicle Mass and Footprint for Model Year 2000-2007 Light-Duty Vehicles.  Final report prepared for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, US Department of Energy.  Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory;  August.  LBNL-5697E.

Wenzel, Tom. 2013. Assessment of DRI's Two-Stage Logistic Regression Model Used to Simultaneously Estimate the Relationship between Vehicle Mass or Size Reduction and U.S. Fatality Risk, Crashworthiness/Compatibility, and Crash Avoidance.  Draft report prepared for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, US Department of Energy.  Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.  January

Wenzel, Tom. 2014. Sensitivity of Light-Duty Vehicle Crash Frequency per Vehicle Mile of Travel to Additional Vehicle and Driver Variables.  Draft report prepared for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, US Department of Energy; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2014; February.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72715-72718]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28648]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 31360; File No. 812-14328]

Alternative Strategies Fund and Ladenburg Thalmann Asset
Management, Inc.; Notice of Application

December 1, 2014.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from sections 18(c)
and 18(i) of the Act, under sections 6(c) and 23(c)(3) of the Act for
an exemption from rule 23c-3 under the Act, and for an order pursuant
to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.

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

SUMMARY: Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit
certain registered closed-end management investment companies to issue
multiple classes of shares and to impose asset-based distribution fees
and early withdrawal charges (``EWCs'').

Applicants:  Alternative Strategies Fund (``Initial Fund'') and
Ladenburg Thalmann Asset Management, Inc. (``Adviser'').

Filing Dates:  The application was filed on July 2, 2014, and amended
on September 19, 2014 and November 25, 2014.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the requested
relief 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 December 23, 2014 and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for
lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act,
hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any
facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, 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. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, 570 Lexington
Avenue, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Courtney S. Thornton, Senior Counsel,
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or David P. Bartels, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's 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 for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Initial Fund is a Delaware statutory trust that is
registered under the Act as a diversified, closed-end management
investment company. The Initial Fund's primary investment objective is
to seek attractive risk-adjusted returns with low to moderate
volatility and low correlation to the broader markets, through a
concentrated multi-strategy alternative investment approach with an
emphasis on income generation. The Initial Fund pursues its investment
objectives by investing primarily in private and publicly traded
alternative investment funds and real estate investment trusts. The
Initial Fund will limit its total investments in private pooled
vehicles to 35% or less of its total assets, including no more than 15%
in hedge funds.
    2. The Adviser is a New York corporation and is registered as an
investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as
amended. The Adviser serves as investment adviser to the Initial Fund.
The Adviser is responsible for the overall management of the Initial
Fund's business affairs and selecting the Initial Fund's investments
according to the Initial Fund's investment objectives, policies, and
restrictions.
    3. The Applicants seek an order to permit the Initial Fund to issue
multiple classes of shares, each having its own fee and expense
structure, and to impose EWCs and asset-based distribution fees with
respect to a certain class.
    4. Applicants request that the order also apply to any
continuously-offered registered closed-end management investment
company that has been previously organized or that may be organized in
the future for which the Adviser or any entity controlling, controlled
by, or under common control with the Adviser, or any successor in
interest to any such entity,\1\ acts as investment adviser and which
operates as an interval fund pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the Act or
provides periodic liquidity with respect to its shares pursuant to rule
13e-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'')
(together with the Initial Fund, the ``Funds'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A successor in interest is limited to an entity that results
from a reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the
type of business organization.
    \2\ Any Fund relying on this relief in the future will do so in
a manner consistent with the terms and conditions of the
application. Applicants represent that each entity presently
intending to rely on the requested relief is listed as an applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Initial Fund is currently making a continuous public
offering of its common shares following the effectiveness of its
registration statement. The Initial Fund anticipates that it will
continue its continuous public offering of its common shares.
Applicants state that additional offerings by any Fund relying on the
order may be on a private placement or public offering basis. Shares of
the Funds will not be listed on any securities exchange, nor quoted on
any quotation medium. The Funds do not expect there to be a secondary
trading market for their shares.
    6. If the requested relief is granted, the Initial Fund intends to
redesignate its common shares as ``Class A Shares.'' Additionally, if
the requested relief is granted, the Initial Fund intends to
continuously offer an additional class of shares (``Class C Shares''),
with such class having its own fee and expense structure. Applicants
state that Class A Shares will be subject to a front-end sales charge,
with breakpoints generally based on the size of the investment, but no
distribution fees or EWCs. Class C Shares will be subject to a deferred
sales charge (load), as well as a distribution and service fee, an EWC,
and other expenses.
    7. Applicants state that, from time to time, the Initial Fund may
create additional classes of shares, the terms of which may differ from
the Class A and Class C Shares in the following respects: (i) The
amount of fees permitted by different distribution plans or different
service fee arrangements; (ii) voting rights with respect to a
distribution plan of a class; (iii) different class designations; (iv)
the impact of any class expenses directly attributable to a particular
class of shares allocated on a class basis as described in this
application; (v) any differences in dividends and net asset value
resulting from differences in fees under a distribution plan or in
class expenses; (vi) any EWC or other sales load structure; and (vii)
exchange or conversion privileges of the classes as permitted under the
Act.
    8. Applicants state that the Initial Fund has adopted a fundamental
policy to repurchase a specified percentage of its shares (no less than
5%) at net asset value on a quarterly basis. Such repurchase offers
will be conducted pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the Act. Each of the
other Funds will likewise adopt fundamental investment policies in
compliance with rule 23c-3 and make quarterly repurchase offers to its

shareholders or provide periodic liquidity with respect to its shares
pursuant to rule 13e-4 under the Exchange Act.\3\ Any repurchase offers
made by the Funds will be made to all holders of shares of each such
Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Applicants submit that rule 23c-3 and Regulation M under the
Exchange Act permit an interval fund to make repurchase offers to
repurchase its shares while engaging in a continuous offering of its
shares pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Applicants represent that any asset-based service and
distribution fees for each class of shares will comply with the
provisions of NASD Rule 2830(d) (``NASD Sales Charge Rule'').\4\
Applicants also represent that each Fund will disclose in its
prospectus the fees, expenses and other characteristics of each class
of shares offered for sale by the prospectus, as is required for open-
end multiple class funds under Form N-1A. As is required for open-end
funds, each Fund will disclose its expenses in shareholder reports, and
disclose any arrangements that result in breakpoints in or elimination
of sales loads in its prospectus.\5\ In addition, applicants will
comply with applicable enhanced fee disclosure requirements for fund of
funds, including registered funds of hedge funds.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Any reference to the NASD Sales Charge Rule includes any
successor or replacement rule that may be adopted by the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'').
    \5\ See Shareholder Reports and Quarterly Portfolio Disclosure
of Registered Management Investment Companies, Investment Company
Act Release No. 26372 (Feb. 27, 2004) (adopting release) (requiring
open-end investment companies to disclose fund expenses in
shareholder reports); and Disclosure of Breakpoint Discounts by
Mutual Funds, Investment Company Act Release No. 26464 (June 7,
2004) (adopting release) (requiring open-end investment companies to
provide prospectus disclosure of certain sales load information).
    \6\ Fund of Funds Investments, Investment Company Act Rel. Nos.
26198 (Oct. 1 2003) (proposing release) and 27399 (Jun. 20, 2006)
(adopting release). See also Rules 12d1-1, et seq. of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Each of the Funds will comply with any requirements that the
Commission or FINRA may adopt regarding disclosure at the point of sale
and in transaction confirmations about the costs and conflicts of
interest arising out of the distribution of open-end investment company
shares, and regarding prospectus disclosure of sales loads and revenue
sharing arrangements, as if those requirements applied to the Fund. In
addition, each Fund will contractually require that any distributor of
the Fund's shares comply with such requirements in connection with the
distribution of such Fund's shares.
    11. Each Fund will allocate all expenses incurred by it among the
various classes of shares based on the net assets of the Fund
attributable to each class, except that the net asset value and
expenses of each class will reflect the expenses associated with the
distribution plan of that class (if any), service fees attributable to
that class (if any), including transfer agency fees, and any other
incremental expenses of that class. Expenses of the Fund allocated to a
particular class of shares will be borne on a pro rata basis by each
outstanding share of that class. Applicants state that each Fund will
comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 under the Act as if it were an
open-end investment company.
    12. Applicants state that each Fund may impose an EWC on shares
submitted for repurchase that have been held less than a specified
period and may waive the EWC for certain categories of shareholders or
transactions to be established from time to time. Applicants represent
that each of the Funds will apply the EWC (and any waivers or scheduled
variations of the EWC) uniformly to all shareholders in a given class
and consistently with the requirements of rule 22d-1 under the Act as
if the Funds were open-end investment companies.
    13. Each Fund operating as an interval fund pursuant to rule 23c-3
under the Act may offer its shareholders an exchange feature under
which the shareholders of the Fund may, in connection with the Fund's
periodic repurchase offers, exchange their shares of the Fund for
shares of the same class of (i) registered open-end investment
companies or (ii) other registered closed-end investment companies that
comply with rule 23c-3 under the Act and continuously offer their
shares at net asset value, that are in the Fund's group of investment
companies (collectively, ``Other Funds''). Shares of a Fund operating
pursuant to rule 23c-3 that are exchanged for shares of Other Funds
will be included as part of the amount of the repurchase offer amount
for such Fund as specified in rule 23c-3 under the Act. Any exchange
option will comply with rule 11a-3 under the Act, as if the Fund were
an open-end investment company subject to rule 11a-3. In complying with
rule 11a-3, each Fund will treat an EWC as if it were a contingent
deferred sales load (``CDSL'').

Applicants' Legal Analysis

Multiple Classes of Shares

    1. Section 18(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that a
closed-end investment company may not issue or sell any senior security
if, immediately thereafter, the company has outstanding more than one
class of senior security. Applicants state that the creation of
multiple classes of shares of the Funds may be prohibited by section
18(c), as a class may have priority over another class as to payment of
dividends because shareholders of different classes would pay different
fees and expenses.
    2. Section 18(i) of the Act provides that each share of stock
issued by a registered management investment company will be a voting
stock and have equal voting rights with every other outstanding voting
stock. Applicants state that multiple classes of shares of the Funds
may violate section 18(i) of the Act because each class would be
entitled to exclusive voting rights with respect to matters solely
related to that class.
    3. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security or transaction or any class or classes of persons,
securities or transactions from any provision of the Act, or from any
rule thereunder, if and to the extent 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 request an exemption under section
6(c) from sections 18(c) and 18(i) to permit the Funds to issue
multiple classes of shares.
    4. Applicants submit that the proposed allocation of expenses and
voting rights among multiple classes is equitable and will not
discriminate against any group or class of shareholders. Applicants
submit that the proposed arrangements would permit a Fund to facilitate
the distribution of its shares and provide investors with a broader
choice of shareholder services. Applicants assert that the proposed
closed-end investment company multiple class structure does not raise
the concerns underlying section 18 of the Act to any greater degree
than open-end investment companies' multiple class structures that are
permitted by rule 18f-3 under the Act. Applicants state that each Fund
will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 as if it were an open-end
investment company.

Early Withdrawal Charges

    1. Section 23(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that no
registered closed-end investment company will purchase securities of
which it is the issuer, except: (a) On a securities exchange or other
open market; (b) pursuant to tenders, after reasonable opportunity to
submit tenders given to

all holders of securities of the class to be purchased; or (c) under
other circumstances as the Commission may permit by rules and
regulations or orders for the protection of investors.
    2. Rule 23c-3 under the Act permits a registered closed-end
investment company (an ``interval fund'') to make repurchase offers of
between five and twenty-five percent of its outstanding shares at net
asset value at periodic intervals pursuant to a fundamental policy of
the interval fund. Rule 23c-3(b)(1) under the Act provides that an
interval fund may deduct from repurchase proceeds only a repurchase
fee, not to exceed two percent of the proceeds, that is paid to the
interval fund and is reasonably intended to compensate the fund for
expenses directly related to the repurchase.
    3. Section 23(c)(3) provides that the Commission may issue an order
that would permit a closed-end investment company to repurchase its
shares in circumstances in which the repurchase is made in a manner or
on a basis that does not unfairly discriminate against any holders of
the class or classes of securities to be purchased.
    4. Applicants request relief under sections 6(c), discussed above,
and 23(c)(3) from rule 23c-3 to the extent necessary for the Funds to
impose EWCs on shares of the Funds submitted for repurchase that have
been held for less than a specified period.
    5. Applicants state that the EWCs they intend to impose are
functionally similar to CDSLs imposed by open-end investment companies
under rule 6c-10 under the Act. Rule 6c-10 permits open-end investment
companies to impose CDSLs, subject to certain conditions. Applicants
note that rule 6c-10 is grounded in policy considerations supporting
the employment of CDSLs where there are adequate safeguards for the
investor and state that the same policy considerations support
imposition of EWCs in the interval fund context. In addition,
applicants state that EWCs may be necessary for the distributor to
recover distribution costs. Applicants represent that any EWC imposed
by the Funds will comply with rule 6c-10 under the Act as if the rule
were applicable to closed-end investment companies. The Funds will
disclose EWCs in accordance with the requirements of Form N-1A
concerning CDSLs. Applicants further state that the Funds will apply
the EWC (and any waivers or scheduled variations of the EWC) uniformly
to all shareholders in a given class and consistently with the
requirements of rule 22d-1 under the Act.

Asset-Based Distribution Fees

    1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit
an affiliated person of a registered investment company or an
affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from
participating in or effecting any transaction in connection with any
joint enterprise or joint arrangement in which the investment company
participates unless the Commission issues an order permitting the
transaction. In reviewing applications submitted under section 17(d)
and rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the participation of
the investment company in a joint enterprise or joint arrangement is
consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act, and
the extent to which the participation is on a basis different from or
less advantageous than that of other participants.
    2. Rule 17d-3 under the Act provides an exemption from section
17(d) and rule 17d-1 to permit open-end investment companies to enter
into distribution arrangements pursuant to rule 12b-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 under
the Act to the extent necessary to permit the Fund to impose asset-
based distribution fees. Applicants have agreed to comply with rules
12b-1 and 17d-3 as if those rules applied to closed-end investment
companies, which they believe will resolve any concerns that might
arise in connection with a Fund financing the distribution of its
shares through asset-based distribution fees.
    For the reasons stated above, applicants submit that the exemptions
requested under section 6(c) are necessary and appropriate in the
public interest and are consistent with the protection of investors and
the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Applicants further submit that the relief requested pursuant to section
23(c)(3) will be consistent with the protection of investors and will
insure that applicants do not unfairly discriminate against any holders
of the class of securities to be purchased. Finally, applicants state
that the Funds' institution of asset-based distribution fees is
consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and
does not involve participation on a basis different from or less
advantageous than that of other participants.

Applicants' Condition

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following condition:
    Each Fund relying on the order will comply with the provisions of
rules 6c-10, 12b-1, 17d-3, 18f-3, 22d-1, and, where applicable, 11a-3
under the Act, as amended from time to time, as if those rules applied
to closed-end management investment companies, and will comply with the
NASD Sales Charge Rule, as amended from time to time, as if that rule
applied to all closed-end management investment companies.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28648 Filed 12-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19534]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7757]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 866

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0165]

Medical Devices; Immunology and Microbiology Devices;
Classification of Norovirus Serological Reagents; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of March 9, 2012 (76 FR 14272), the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classified norovirus serological
reagents into class II (special controls) because special controls, in
addition to general controls, will provide a reasonable assurance of
safety and effectiveness of these devices. The document published with
inadvertent errors in the Analysis of Impacts section. This document
corrects those errors.

DATES: Effective April 9, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Gitterman, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 5518, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-6694.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2012-5675 appearing on page 14272
in the Federal Register of Friday, March 9, 2012, the following
corrections are made:
    1. On page 14274, in the first column, in section VI. Analysis of
Impacts, in the first paragraph, in the last sentence, correct the
phrase ``proposed rule'' to read ``final rule'', and in the second
paragraph, in the last sentence, correct the phrase ``proposes to
certify'' to read ``certifies''.
    2. On page 14274, in the second column, in the first full sentence,
correct the phrase ``proposed rule'' to read ``final rule''.

    Dated: March 27, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-7757 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P