Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 47611

to our future notice of proposed

rulemaking, we will not be able to

complete this rulemaking by the current

expiration date of our rules. We

therefore intend to issue a notice of

proposed rulemaking to extend the

existing rules while we complete this

rulemaking.

We currently intend to complete our

pending study of the CRS business and

airline marketing practices before we

issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in

this proceeding. We note that we

followed a similar procedure in our last

major CRS rulemaking.

Regulatory Process Matters

Regulatory Assessment

Our CRS rules were a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and were

reviewed by the Office of Management

and Budget under that order. As

required by section 6(a)(3) of that

Executive Order, we prepared an

assessment of the rules’ costs and

benefits. The rules were also significant

under the regulatory policies and

procedures of the Department of

Transportation, 44 FR 11034.

At this point, we do not know

whether we will propose new rules that

would have a substantial impact and

would thus be considered significant

under the Executive Order.

The comments submitted in response

to this notice should address the

potential effects any changes would

have on the economy, costs or prices for

consumers and the government, and

adverse effects on competition.

We do not expect that this rulemaking

will impose unfunded mandates or

requirements that will have any impact

on the quality of the human

environment.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of

1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., was enacted

by Congress to ensure that small entities

are not unnecessarily and

disproportionately burdened by

government regulations. The act

requires agencies to review proposed

regulations that may have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. For purposes

of this rule, small entities include

smaller U.S. and foreign airlines and

smaller travel agencies.

Any rules adopted by us regulating

CRS operations are likely to affect the

operations of many small entities,

primarily travel agencies, even though

they would not be regulated directly if

we readopted the existing rules. When

we publish a notice of proposed

rulemaking in this proceeding, we will

include an initial regulatory flexibility

analysis as required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

That act also requires each agency to

periodically review rules which have a

significant economic impact upon a

substantial number of small entities. 5

U.S.C. 610. This rulemaking will

constitute the required review of our

CRS rules.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The current rules contain no

collection-of-information requirements

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act,

Public Law No. 96–511, 44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35. See 57 F.R. at 43834.

Federalism Implications

This request for comments will have

no substantial direct effects 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. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12812,

we have determined that it does not

present sufficient federalism

implications to warrant preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 255

Air carriers, Antitrust, Consumer

protection, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Travel agents.

Issued in Washington, DC on August 28,

1997.

Rodney E. Slater,

Secretary of Transportation.

[FR Doc. 97–23944 Filed 9–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

15 CFR Part 922

[Docket No. 970404078–7078–01]

RIN 0648–AE41

Proposed Thunder Bay National

Marine Sanctuary

AGENCY: Sanctuaries and Reserves

Division (SRD), Office of Ocean and

Coastal Resource Management (OCRM),

National Ocean Service (NOS), National

Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), Department of

Commerce (DOC).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

comment period.

SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration’s

Sanctuaries and Reserves Division

(NOAA/SRD) issued a proposed rule on

June 23, 1997 (62 FR 33768) to designate

an approximately 808 square-mile area

of Great Lakes waters on Lake Huron,

Michigan, over and surrounding

Thunder Bay, and the submerged lands

thereunder, off the northeastern coast of

the State of Michigan, as a National

Marine Sanctuary. The original public

comment period on this proposal was to

close on September 22, 1997. During

July 1997, representatives of a variety of

interests in the communities adjoining

the proposal area formed a group to

work with NOAA and the State of

Michigan on completion of the process

to consider the designation of Thunder

Bay as a National Marine Sanctuary.

Those communities requested

additional time to review the proposal

and to develop recommendations for

NOAA and the State. On July 23, 1997,

NOAA extended the public comment

period through October 31, 1997 (62 FR

39494). Pursuant to requests from

community representatives, a Sanctuary

Advisory Council (SAC) has been

established to facilitate public review

and discussion of the proposal, and to

make written recommendations to

NOAA and the State of Michigan

regarding various alternatives, and other

comments on the Draft Environmental

Impact Statement/Draft Management

Plan by October 3, 1997. The SAC

conducted its first meeting on August

26, 1997, and has recommended an

additional extension to the comment

period, to allow time for completion of

the SAC’s responsibilities. NOAA has

adopted this recommendation. This

notice extends the comment period

through November 14, 1997.

DATES: Comments on the DEIS/DMP

must be received by November 14, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to Ellen L. Brody, On-Site

Liaison, Thunder Bay Project,

Sanctuaries and Reserves Division,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Great Lakes

Environmental Research Laboratory

(GLERL), 2205 Commonwealth

Boulevard, Ann Arbor, Michigan

48105–2945. Comments will be

available for public inspection at the

GLERL offices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Brubeck at (616) 526–8434, Ellen

Brody at (313) 741–2270, or Sherrard

Foster at (301) 713–3137, ext. 151.
47612 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1See Rule 1.55(a) (risk disclosure requirement

concerning trading domestic commodity futures);

rule 30.6(a) (risk disclosure requirement concerning

non-United States commodity futures or options

contracts); and rule 33.7(a) (risk disclosure

requirement concerning domestic, exchange-traded

commodity options).

2Commission rule 190.10 does not require an

FCM to obtain a customer’s written

acknowledgment of receipt of this statement.

3See 58 FR 17495 (April 5, 1993) (amending rules

to consolidate foreign futures and foreign

commodity options risk disclosure statement

required by Rule 30.6(a) with the domestic futures

risk disclosure statement required by Rule 1.55(a)).

4See 59 FR 34376 (July 5, 1994) (amending rules

so that single risk disclosure statement set forth in

Appendix A of Rule 1.55 would satisfy risk

disclosure obligations under Rules 1.55(a), 30.6(a)

and 33.7(a) as well as disclosure required pursuant

to Rule 190.10(c)). The risk disclosure statement set

forth at Appendix A to Rule 1.55 also fulfills risk

disclosure requirements in the United Kingdom and

Ireland for certain specified instruments. The rules

proposed herein would not alter an FCM’s or IB’s

disclosure obligations under the laws or regulations

of any foreign jurisdiction. Further, as the

Commission has previously emphasized,

compliance with the risk disclosure obligations

specified in CFTC Rules 1.55, 30.6 and 33.7 does

not relieve FCMs and IBs of obligations under the

Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘Act’’), state and

common law, or Commission rule 1.55(f) to disclose

to customers all material information concerning a

transaction. See, e.g., it. at 34378. Nor does

compliance with these Commission rules fulfill

individual exchange particularized risk disclosure

requirements related to linkage arrangement and

other special products.

5 Id. at 34378.

6Rule 4.7 became effective September 8, 1992. 57

FR 34853 (August 7, 1992) (adopting release for

Rule 4.7). Among other things, Rule 4.7 relieves

commodity pool operators (‘‘CPOs’’) and CTAs from

most specified reporting and disclosure obligations,

including risk disclosure obligations, with respect

to certain qualified eligible participants (‘‘QEPs) in

rule 4.7 pools or qualified eligible clients (‘‘QECs’’)

of a CTA, as defined in the rule.

Dated: September 4, 1997.

Nancy Foster,

Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services

and Coastal Zone Management.

[FR Doc. 97–23982 Filed 9–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–08–M

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 1, 30, 33 and 190

Distribution of Risk Disclosure

Statements by Futures Commission

Merchants and Introducing Brokers

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rules.

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures

Trading Commission (‘‘CFTC’’ or

‘‘Commission’’) is proposing to amend

its Rule 1.55 in order that futures

commission merchants (‘‘FCMs’’) or

introducing brokers (’’IBs’’) would no

longer be required to furnish the

specified written risk disclosure

statement to certain categories of

financially accredited customers or to

obtain from these customers written

acknowledgments of receipt of the risk

disclosure statement before opening a

commodity futures account for such

customers. In addition, the Commission

is proposing amendments to relieve

FCMs and IBs from requirements to

furnish disclosure statements to these

customers pursuant to Rule 30.6(a) (risk

disclosure pertaining to foreign futures

or foreign options), Rule 33.7(a) (risk

disclosure pertaining to domestic

exchange-traded commodity options),

Rule 1.65(a)(3) (risk disclosure for

customers whose accounts are

transferred other than at the customer’s

request to another FCM or IB) and Rule

190.10(c) (disclosure pertaining to

treatment in bankruptcy of non-cash

margin held by an FCM).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before November 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

amendments should be sent to Jean A.

Webb, Secretary of the Commission,

Commodity Futures Trading

Commission, 1155 21st Street, NW.,

Washington DC 20581. In addition,

comments may be sent by facsimile

transmission to facsimile number (202)

418–5221, or by electronic mail to

secretary@cftc.gov. Reference should be

made to ‘‘FCM/IB Risk Disclosure

Amendments.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas E. Joseph, Attorney-Adviser,

Division of Trading and Markets,

Commodity Futures Trading

Commission, 1155 21st Street, NW.,

Washington DC 20581. Telephone (202)

418–5450.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

CFTC rules require FCMs and IBs to

provide customers with Commissionapproved disclosure statements

describing the risks of trading in

domestic (and, as applicable, foreign)

commodity futures and options and to

receive written acknowledgment of

receipt of such statements prior to

opening an account for the customer.1

In addition, Commission Rule 190.10(c)

requires an FCM to provide a customer

with a disclosure statement concerning

the treatment in bankruptcy of any noncash property deposited as margin at the

FCM by a customer before the FCM may

accept non-cash property from the

customer to margin, guarantee or secure

any commodity contract.2

In 1993 and 1994, the Commission

amended its rules to simplify these

disclosure requirements, reduce the

potential for duplicative disclosure

requirements and ease administrative

burdens on FCMs and IBs without

sacrificing the important customer

protection purposes served by these

regulations. In this regard, the

Commission adopted amendments to

consolidate the risk disclosures required

by Rules 1.55(a) and 30.6(a) into a

single, generic statement set forth in

CFTC Rule 1.55(b) satisfying risk

disclosure obligations with respect to

domestic futures transactions and

foreign futures and options

transactions.3 In addition, the

Commission amended its rules to

include the generic risk disclosure

statement set forth in Appendix A to

CFTC Rule 1.55, which may be used to

satisfy the risk disclosure obligations

under Commission Rules 1.55(a), 30.6(a)

and 33.7(a) for domestic futures and

commodity options transactions, foreign

futures and commodity options

transactions and the CFTC Rule 190.10

disclosure concerning non-cash

property used to margin futures

transactions, as well as to satisfy the risk

disclosure requirements of certain

foreign jurisdictions.4

When adopting the generic risk

disclosure statement set forth in

Appendix A to Rule 1.55 and the related

rule amendments, the Commission

noted that one commenter on the

proposed rule amendments had

suggested that the Commission

eliminate the requirement of receipt of

a written acknowledgment of disclosure

with respect to sophisticated investors.5

The Commission determined not to

address the issues raised by that

comment at that time. However, since

adopting the Rule 1.55 Appendix A risk

disclosure statement, the Commission

has assessed the results of efforts in

other contexts to reduce disclosure

requirements and other regulatory

burdens on Commission registrants

without undermining consumer

protection safeguards. For example, the

Commission has acquired substantial

experience with the simplified

disclosure regime for sophisticated

commodity pool investors and clients of

commodity trading advisors (‘‘CTAs’’)

established in 1992 in Rule 4.7.6 Under

Rule 4.7, CPOs offering pool

participations to qualified participants

and CTAs offering managed account

programs to qualifying clients may be

exempted from the requirement to

deliver a disclosure document

containing the disclosures specified in

Rules 4.24 and 4.25 for CPOs and 4.34

and 4.35 for CTAs. However, they

remain subject to statutory and

regulatory antifraud prohibitions and