Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 1995 / Notices 20301

obtain exemptions for each Future

Account with respect to the same issues

addressed in this application. Thus,

investors would receive no benefit or

additional protection and might be

disadvantaged by General American’s

increased overhead expenses.

12. Applicants submit that, for the

reasons stated above, it is appropriate in

the public interest and consistent with

the protection of investors and the

purposes fairly intended by the policy

and provisions of the 1940 Act to

deduct a DAC Tax Charge and to

exclude it from sales load.

B. Waiver of Notice of Withdrawal and

Refund Rights

1. Section 27(e) requires, with respect

to any periodic payment plan certificate

sold subject to Section 27(d), written

notification of the right to surrender and

receive a refund of the excess sales load.

Section 27(d) requires the refund of any

excess sales load paid during the first

eighteen months after issuance of a

periodic payment plan certificate. Rule

27e–2 establishes the requirements for

the notice mandated by Section 27(e)

and prescribes Form N–271–1 for that

purpose. Rule 6e–3(T)(b)(13) modifies

the requirements of Section 27 and the

rules thereunder. Rule 6e–

3(T)(b)(13)(vii) adopts Form N–27–1,

originally intended for application to

contractual plans, and requires it to be

sent to a contract owner upon issuance

of the contract and again during any

lapse period in the first two contract

years. The Form requires statements of

(1) the contract owner’s right to a refund

of the excess sales load for a surrender

during the first two contract years, (2)

the date that the right expires, and (3)

the circumstances in which the right

may not apply upon lapse. Thus,

Section 27(e) of the 1940 Act and Rules

27e–1 and 6e–3(T)(b)(13)(vii), in effect,

require a notice of right of withdrawal

and refund, on Form N–271–1, to be

provided to owners of the Contracts or

Future Contracts (‘‘Contract Owners’’)

entitled to a refund of sales load in

excess of the limits stated in paragraph

(b)(13)(v)(A) of Rule 6e–3(T).

2. Applicants note that the CDSC may

be deducted upon surrender, face

amount reduction or lapse of the

Contract, which does not assess any

other sales charges. The CDSC does not,

during the first two Contract years, or

during the first two Contract years after

the increase in face amount, exceed the

limits described under paragraph

(b)(13)(v)(A) of Rule 6e–3(T), beyond

which sales charges are characterized as

‘‘excess sales charges.’’ Thus,

Applicants assert that no ‘‘excess sales

charge’’ is ever paid by a Contract

Owner surrendering, reducing the face

amount, or lapsing in the first two

Contract years, or during the first two

Contract years after the increase in face

amount. Moreover, Applicants state that

the Contract does not impose an excess

sales load upon lapse, thus negating the

value of a notice being sent during the

lapse period.

3. Rule 27e–1, pursuant to which

Form N–271–1 was first prescribed,

specifies in paragraph (e) that a notice

need be mailed when there is otherwise

no entitlement to receive any refund of

sales charges. Moreover, Rule 27e–1 and

Rule 6e–2, from which Rule 6e–3(T) was

derived, were adopted in the context of

front-end loaded products only and in

the broader context of the companion

requirements in Section 27 for the

depositor or underwriter to maintain

segregated funds as security to assure

the refund of any excess sales charges.

4. Applicants submit that requiring of

a Form N–271–1 could confuse Contract

Owners or encourage them to surrender

during the first two Contract years, or

surrender or decrease face amount

during the first two Contract years

following a face amount increase, when

it may not be in their best interests to

do so. A Contract Owner with a

declining contingent deferred sales load,

unlike a contract with a front-end sales

charge, does not foreclose the

opportunity, at the end of the first two

Contract years, to receive a refund of

monies spent. Such a Contract Owner

has not paid any excess sales charge

and, as the deferred sales charge

declines over the life of the Contract,

may never pay it. Applicants thus assert

that encouraging a surrender during the

first two Contract years could cost such

a Contract owner more in total sales

load, relative to total premium

payments, than would otherwise be

paid if the Contract were held for the

long-term period originally intended.

5. Applicants submit that the absence

of excess sales charge and, therefore, the

absence of an obligation to assure

repayment of that amount, do not create

a right in a Contract owner which Form

N–271–1 was designed to highlight. In

the absence of this right, the notification

contemplated by Form N–271–1 is an

unnecessary and counter-productive

administrative burden the cost of which

appears unjustified. Any other purpose

potentially served by Form N–271–1

would already be addressed by the

required Form N–271–2 Notice of

Withdrawal Right, generally describing

the charges associated with the

Contract, and prospectus disclosure

detailing the sales load design. Neither

Congress, in enacting Section 27, nor

the Commission, in adopting Rule 27e–

1, contemplated the applicability of

Form N–271–1 in the context of a

contract with a declining contingent

deferred sales load.

C. Applicants’ Conclusion

For the reasons and upon the facts set

forth above, Applicants submit that the

exemptions requested under Section

6(c) of the 1940 Act form: (1) Section

27(c)(2) of the 1940 Act and Rule 6e–

3(T)(c)(4)(v) thereunder to permit

General America to deduct up to 1.25%

from premium payments as a DAC Tax

Charge, and (2) under Section 27(e) of

the 1940 Act and Rules 27e–1 and 6e–

3(T)(b)(13)(vii) thereunder to permit the

elimination of the requirement of

written notice to owners of the Contract

or Future Contracts concerning certain

withdrawal and refund rights, are

appropriate in the public interest and

consistent with the protection of

investors and the purposes fairly

intended by the policy and provisions of

the 1940 Act.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Investment Management, pursuant to

delegated authority.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–10132 Filed 4–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Commercial Space Transportation

Advisory Committee; Open Meeting

Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub.

L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is

hereby given of a meeting of the

Commercial Space Transportation

Advisory Committee (COMSTAC). The

meeting will take place on Thursday,

May 18, 1995, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30

p.m. in Room 2230 of the Department of

Transportation’s headquarters building

at 400 Seventh Street, SW, in

Washington, DC. This will be the

twenty-first meeting of the COMSTAC.

In addition to reports from the

respective COMSTAC Working Groups,

the meeting will provide a legislative

update on Congressional activities

involving commercial space

transportation; a briefing on the status of

the insurance industry; an activities

report from the Office of Commercial

Space Transportation; and other related

topics. This meeting is open to the

public; however, space may be limited.

Additional information may be obtained

by contacting Linda H. Strine at (202)

366–5770.
20302 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 1995 / Notices

Dated: April 19, 1995.

Frank C. Weaver,

Director, Office of Commercial Space

Transportation.

[FR Doc. 95–10114 Filed 4–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Notice of Opportunity to Submit

Written Comments on WTO Members’

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Legislation and Regulations

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice of opportunity to submit

written comments to the Office of the

United States Trade Representative on

other World Trade Organization (WTO)

Members’ antidumping and

countervailing duty legislation and

regulations.

SUMMARY: The WTO Committee on

Antidumping Practices and the WTO

Committee on Subsidies and

Countervailing Measures will hold

meetings the week of June 12, 1995 to

begin reviewing Members’ notifications

of the full and integrated texts of their

antidumping and countervailing duty

laws and regulations. USTR invites

interested persons to provide comments

on other WTO Members’ notifications to

assist USTR in preparing for these

meetings. USTR is particularly

interested in receiving comments that

are illustrated with examples taken from

application of other Members’ actual

antidumping and countervailing duty

laws and regulations. The notifications

are available for reading and

photocopying in the Public Reading

Room at USTR and in Room B–099 of

the Central Records Unit at the

Department of Commerce.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to

provide written comments to USTR on

the following WTO Members’

notifications by May 15, 1995: Korea,

Australia, Venezuela, Mexico, Chile,

New Zealand, Canada, Argentina,

Brazil, India, and the European Union.

Comments on other WTO Members’

notifications should be provided by July

1, 1995.

FORMAT AND NUMBER OF COPIES:

Interested persons should submit the

original and two copies of their

typewritten comments on other WTO

Members’ notifications to Sybia

Harrison, WTO Members’ AD/CFD

Notifications, Office of the USTR, Room

223, 600 17th Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20506.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions concerning USTR’s Public

Reading Room and the availability of

specific Members’ notifications should

be directed to: Brenda Webb,

Information Services Assistant (202)

395–6186. Questions concerning

Commerce’s Central Records Unit and

the availability of specific Members’

notifications should be directed to:

Andrew Lee Beller, Director of Central

Records (202) 482–1248. Other inquiries

should be directed to Joanna McIntosh,

Assistant General Counsel, (202) 395–

7203.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Article

18.5 of the WTO Agreement on

Implementation of Article VI and

Article 32.6 of the WTO Agreement on

Subsidies and Countervailing Measures

require Members to inform the relevant

Committee of any changes in their laws,

regulations, or administration thereof,

relevant to the Agreements. The

Antidumping and Subsidies Committees

agreed at their inaugural meetings in

February 1995 that WTO Members

should notify the full and integrated

texts of their antidumping and

countervailing duty laws and

regulations to the relevant Committees

by March 15, 1995.

The Committees further decided to

begin reviewing the following twelve

notifications at meetings to be held the

week of June 12, 1995: Korea, Australia,

Venezuela, Mexico, Chile, United

States, New Zealand, Canada,

Argentina, Brazil, India, and the

European Union. Other Members’

notifications will be reviewed

subsequently.

The Committees have requested

Members to submit written questions

concerning the notifications prior to the

respective meetings. Answers to the

questions will be given orally at the

meetings and subsequently in writing.

The review process offers a meaningful

opportunity to verify other Members’

compliance with the Antidumping and

Subsidies Agreements and to provide

suggestions as to possible modifications

to Members’ laws, regulations or the

administration of those provisions.

Irving Williamson,

Deputy General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 95–10139 Filed 4–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M