Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 2615 

6 71 FR at 64172. 

7See 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

8 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

9 47 FR 18618 (Apr. 30, 1982). 

10 Id. at 18619. 

11 7 U.S.C. 19(a). 

12 71 FR at 64172–73. 

supervision of at least one SRO.’’ 6 The 

Commission invites interested persons 

to read the Proposing Release for a fuller 

discussion of the purpose of the 

amendment contained in the Proposal. 

D. The Comments on the Proposal 

The Commission received two 

comment letters on the Proposal. One 

was from NFA, which expressed 

support for the amendment. The other 

was from legal counsel representing 

clients who would be affected by the 

Proposal in the event the Commission 

adopted it. This latter commenter 

requested that, in the event the 

Commission adopted the Proposal, the 

Commission make the amendment 

effective 60 days after publication in the 

Federal Register. The additional 30 

days was requested ‘‘in order to provide 

an orderly time for transition and permit 

sufficient time for registrants affected by 

the proposed amendment to determine 

their future course of action if the 

proposed amendment is approved.’’

In response, the Commission notes 

that, as an agency of the Federal 

Government, in adopting regulations, it 

is subject to the provisions of the 

Administrative Procedure Act. Among 

other things, this means that, in the 

absence of certain specified 

circumstances, the Commission may not 

make a substantive regulation effective 

earlier than 30 days before the 

regulation is published in the Federal 

Register.7 Thus, the Commission 

typically makes its substantive 

regulations effective 30 days after the 

date on which the regulation is 

published in the Federal Register. With 

respect to the instant matter, the 

Commission believes that 30 days is 

sufficient time to achieve compliance 

with the amended regulation, given the 

reasons cited by the commenter. 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

determined to adopt the amendment to 

Regulation 170.15(a) as proposed and to 

make the amendment effective 30 days 

after publication in the Federal 

Register. 

II. Related Matters 

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 8

requires that agencies, in issuing 

regulations, consider the impact of those 

regulations on small businesses. The 

amended Regulation would affect 

persons that are registered as FCMs, 

even if they are not required to be so 

registered. The Commission has 

previously established certain 

definitions of ‘‘small entities’’ to be used 

by the Commission in evaluating the 

impact of its regulations on such entities 

in accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act.9 The Commission 

previously determined that registered 

FCMs are not small entities for the 

purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act.10

The Commission did not receive any 

public comments relative to its analysis 

of the application of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to the Proposal. 

B. Cost-Benefit Analysis 

Section 15(a) of the Act 11 requires the 

Commission to consider the costs and 

benefits of its action before issuing a 

new regulation under the Act. By its 

terms, Section 15(a) does not require the 

Commission to quantify the costs and 

benefits of a new regulation or to 

determine whether the benefits of the 

proposed regulation outweigh its costs. 

Rather, Section 15(a) simply requires 

the Commission to ‘‘consider the costs 

and benefits’’ of its action. 

Section 15(a) further specifies that 

costs and benefits shall be evaluated in 

light of five broad areas of market and 

public concern: (1) Protection of market 

participants and the public; (2) 

efficiency, competitiveness, and 

financial integrity of futures markets; (3) 

price discovery; (4) sound risk 

management practices; and (5) other 

public interest considerations. The 

Commission, in its discretion, can 

choose to give greater weight to any one 

of the five enumerated areas and 

determine that, notwithstanding its 

costs, a particular regulation is 

necessary or appropriate to protect the 

public interest or to effectuate any of the 

provisions or to accomplish any of the 

purposes of the Act. 

The Proposal contained an analysis of 

the Commission’s consideration of these 

costs and benefits and solicited public 

comment thereon.12 The Commission 

did not receive any public comments 

relative to its cost-benefit analysis of the 

Proposal. 

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 170 

Authority delegations (Government 

agencies), Commodity futures, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Commission hereby 

amends Chapter I of Title 17 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 170—REGISTERED FUTURES 

ASSOCIATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 170 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6p, 12a and 21, as 

amended by the Commodity Futures 

Modernization Act of 2000, Appendix E of 

Pub. L. 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000). 

■ 2. Section 170.15 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 170.15 Futures commission merchants. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, each person 

registered as a futures commission 

merchant must become and remain a 

member of at least one futures 

association that is registered under 

section 17 of the Act and that provides 

for the membership therein of such 

futures commission merchant, unless no 

such futures association is so registered. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 16, 

2007, by the Commission. 

Eileen A. Donovan, 

Acting Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–805 Filed 1–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

29 CFR Part 4011 

RIN 1212–AB12 

Disclosure to Participants 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Final rule; technical 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: Section 4011 of ERISA 

requires certain underfunded plans to 

notify participants of plan funding 

status and the limits on the PBGC’s 

guarantee. The Pension Protection Act 

of 2006 repealed section 4011 for plan 

years beginning after 2006 and replaced 

the disclosure requirement under that 

section with a disclosure requirement 

under Title I of ERISA. This rule 

amends PBGC’s regulation on 

Disclosure to Participants to reflect that 

statutory change. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 22, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

H. Hanley, Director, Legislative and 

Regulatory Department; or Catherine B. 

Klion, Manager, Regulatory and Policy 

Division, Legislative and Regulatory 

Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., 

Washington DC 20005–4026; 202–326–


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
2616 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the 

Federal relay service toll-free at 1–800–

877–8339 and ask to be connected to 

202–326–4024.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

4011 of ERISA requires certain 

underfunded plans to give an annual 

notice to participants of plan funding 

status and the limits on the PBGC’s 

guarantee. The PBGC’s implementing 

regulations are at 29 CFR part 4011. 

On August 17, 2006, the President 

signed into law the Pension Protection 

Act of 2006, Public Law 109–280 (PPA 

2006). Section 501 of PPA 2006 repealed 

section 4011 of ERISA for plan years 

beginning after 2006 and replaced the 

disclosure requirement under that 

section with a disclosure requirement 

under Title I of ERISA (under the 

jurisdiction of the Department of Labor). 

The PBGC is amending its regulation 

implementing section 4011 of ERISA to 

reflect that statutory change. Section 

4011 continues to apply for plan years 

beginning on or after January 1, 1995, 

and before January 1, 2007. 

Because this rule is simply a technical 

amendment that conforms PBGC’s 

regulation to the statutory change, PBGC 

has determined that notice and public 

comment on this amendment are 

unnecessary. Further, because the 

statutory change is effective for plan 

years beginning after 2006, PBGC finds 

good cause for making this amendment 

effective immediately. 

The PBGC has determined that this 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under the criteria set forth in 

Executive Order 12866. Because no 

general notice of proposed rulemaking 

is required for this amendment, the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does 

not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2). 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 4011 

Employee benefit plans, Reporting 

and disclosure requirements. 

■ For the reasons given above, 29 CFR 

part 4011 is amended as follows. 

PART 4011—DISCLOSURE TO 

PARTICIPANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 4011 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1311. 

■ 2. Section 4011.1 is amended by 

adding the words ‘‘and on or before 

December 31, 2006,’’ after the words 

‘‘January 1, 1995,’’. 

Issued in Washington, DC, this 16th day of 

January, 2007. 

Vincent K. Snowbarger, 

Interim Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. E7–761 Filed 1–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7709–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[CGD07–05–097] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf 

Intracoastal Waterway, Anna Maria, FL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing 

the operating regulations governing the 

Cortez (SR 684) Bridge and the Anna 

Maria (SR 64) (Manatee Avenue West) 

Bridge across the Gulf Intracoastal 

Waterway, miles 87.4 and 89.2 in Anna 

Maria, Manatee County, Florida. This 

rule will require the drawbridges to 

open on signal, except during daytime 

hours when the bridge will be on a 30- 

minute schedule during the winter 

months and a 20-minute schedule for all 

other months. 

DATES: This rule is effective February 

21, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket, are part of 

dockets (CGD07–05–097) and (Public 

Meeting CGD07–06–012) and are 

available for inspection or copying at 

Commander (dpb), Seventh Coast Guard 

District, 909 SE. 1st Avenue, Room 432, 

Miami, Florida 33131–3050 between 8 

a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Michael Lieberum, Seventh Coast Guard 

District, Bridge Branch, telephone 

number 305–415–6744. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

On August 16, 2005, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

entitled ‘‘Drawbridge Operation 

Regulations; Gulf Intracoastal 

Waterway, Anna Maria, FL’’ in the 

Federal Register (70 FR 48091). We 

received 28 comments on the proposed 

rule. On January 31, 2006, we published 

an announcement of a public meeting 

entitled ‘‘Announcement of Public 

Meeting Regarding the Proposed 

Drawbridge Schedule Change for the 

Anna Maria and Cortez Drawbridge, 

Anna Maria, FL,’’ in the Federal 

Register (71 FR 5033). The public 

meeting was held on March 29, 2006 at 

Holmes Beach City Hall, 5801 Marina 

Drive, Holmes Beach, Florida. 

On November 8, 2006, as a result of 

the previous comments received, we 

published a supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) entitled 

‘‘Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Anna 

Maria, FL’’ in the Federal Register (71 

FR 65443). We received two comments 

on this proposed rule; one in favor of 

the proposed schedule and one against 

the new schedule. 

Background and Purpose 

The existing regulations of the Cortez 

(SR 684) Bridge, mile 87.4, and Anna 

Maria (SR 64) Bridge, mile 89.2 at Anna 

Maria, published in 33 CFR 

117.287(d)(1) and (2) require the draw to 

open on signal, except that from 7 a.m. 

to 6 p.m., the draw need open only on 

the hour, twenty minutes past the hour 

and forty minutes past the hour if 

vessels are present. 

On June 1, 2005, the City officials of 

Holmes Beach in cooperation with the 

cities of Anna Maria and Bradenton 

Beach and the Town of Longboat Key 

requested that the Coast Guard review 

the existing regulations governing the 

operation of the Cortez and Anna Maria 

(Manatee Avenue West) bridges. The 

review was requested by city officials 

because they believed the current 

drawbridge regulations were not 

meeting the needs of vehicle traffic. 

This rule is necessary to assist the 

local community in determining 

additional corrective action that may be 

needed to alleviate the severe vehicle 

traffic congestion on Anna Maria Island 

during the winter season. 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

The Coast Guard received 45 

responses to the initial Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking and at the Public 

Meeting convened on March 29, 2006. 

The responses were supplied by 30 

written comments and 15 oral 

comments and several persons provided 

more than one comment per letter or 

verbally. These responses consisted of 

11 form letters in favor of the proposal, 

six additional comments also in favor of 

the proposal, seven comments against 

the morning and afternoon curfew 

hours, six comments against the 

nighttime closures, two comments 

requesting staggered hours between the 

two bridges rather than both opening on 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES