Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Notices 33283

4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

5 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44212,

(April 23, 2001), 66 FR 21425. 3Letters to Jonathan Katz, Secretary, SEC, from

Chris Concannon, Vice President, The Island ECN,

Inc. (May 21, 2001) (‘‘Island letter’’); William H.

Navin, Executive Vice President and General

Counsel, OCC (June 1, 2001) (‘‘OCC letter’’); and

Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P., on behalf of The

Philadelphia Stock Exchange, (June 7, 2001)

(‘‘PHLX letter’’).

Exchange know whether members have

active securities accounts.

2. Statutory Basis

The Exchange believes the proposed

rule change, as amended, is consistent

with Section 6(b)(5) 4 of the Act, which

requires that an exchange have rules

that are designed to promote just and

equitable principles of trade, to remove

impediments to and perfect the

mechanism of a free and open market

and a national market system, and, in

general, to protect investors and the

public interest. The Exchange believes

that the proposed rule change, as

amended, will help accomplish these

ends by strengthening the Exchange’s

ability to surveil the Floor activities of

members.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Exchange does not believe that

the proposed rule change, as amended,

will impose 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

The Exchange has neither solicited

nor received written comments on the

proposed rule change.

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 Exchange 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 Amendment No. 2 to

the proposed rule change is consistent

with the Act. Persons making written

submission should file six copies

thereof with the Secretary, Securities

and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549–

0609. 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. Copies of the filing will also be

available for inspection and copying at

the principal offices of the NYSE. All

submissions should refer to File No.

SR–NYSE–99–25 and should be

submitted by July 6, 2001.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.5

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–15622 Filed 6–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–44434; File No. SR–OCC–

2001–05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The

Options Clearing Corporation; Order

Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule

Change Relating to Clearing Security

Futures

June 15, 2001.

On March 21, 2001, The Options

Clearing Corporation (‘‘OCC’’) filed with

the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) and on

April 16, 2001, amended a proposed

rule change (File No. SR–OCC–2001–05)

pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’).1 Notice of the proposal was

published in the Federal Register on

April 30, 2001.2 Three comment letters

were received.3 For the reasons

discussed below, the Commission is

granting approval of the proposed rule

change.

I. Description

The Commodity Futures

Modernization Act (‘‘CFMA’’), which

became law on December 21, 2000,

eliminated the preexisting ban on

trading in futures contracts on

individual securities and narrow-based

stock indices. Such ‘‘security futures’’

will be permitted to be traded on a

principal to principal basis between

‘‘eligible contract participants’’ on

August 21, 2001, and by other classes of

customers on December 21, 2001. The

purpose of OCC’s proposed rule change

is to make an initial identification of the

kinds of markets for whom OCC will

clear transactions in security futures.

OCC proposed to amend its By-Laws

to provide that OCC may clear

transactions in security futures effected

on any national securities exchange or

association registered under Section 6(a)

or 15A(a) of the Act, as amended, or any

‘‘designated contract market’’ (as that

term is used in the Commodity

Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’)) that is registered

as a national securities exchange under

Section 6(g) of the Act.

OCC anticipates that some or all of

OCC’s five participant exchanges will

trade security futures, either on the

participant exchange itself or on an

affiliated futures exchange. OCC expects

that it will therefore enter into the

business of clearing security futures.

However, the types of entities that can

provide a marketplace for security

futures include markets in addition to

the options exchanges that are OCC’s

participant exchanges. These include

other national securities exchanges and

national securities associations as well

as any ‘‘board of trade’’ that has been

designated as a ‘‘contract market’’ under

the CEA. An SEC-regulated market that

wishes to trade security futures is

required to obtain a limited-purpose

registration as a designated contract

market in security futures products

under the CEA through a notice filing

with the Commodity Futures Trading

Commission (‘‘CFTC’’). A CFTCregulated market trading security

futures is required to obtain a limitedpurpose registration with the

Commission as a national securities

exchange under a similar procedure.

Each market will be regulated primarily

by the agency (i.e., the Commission or

the CFTC) with which it is fully

registered.

OCC believes that it is well-positioned

to clear security futures for any of these

types of markets. OCC’s role as the

common clearinghouse for equity

options offers opportunities for margin

offsets and other efficiencies that would

not be as readily available if positions

in security futures were carried with

other clearinghouses. OCC’s settlement

interface with the National Securities

Clearing Corporation gives OCC the

33284 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Notices

4 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(1).

5At the present, OCC does not define the term

‘‘security futures market’’ to include an ‘‘alternative

trading system’’ or a ‘‘derivatives transaction

execution facility’’ even though such markets may

also trade security futures under provisions of the

CFMA.

6A security futures market would not be defined

as an exchange under OCC’s By-Laws because such

market would not be required to purchase OCC

stock, would not have representation on the OCC

board, and would not be required to execute a

participant agreement under Article VII of OCC’s

By-Laws.

7The term ‘‘security futures market’’ is included

in the above-named terms in OCC’s rules so that

OCC will be able to clear security futures for such

a market.

8This is similar to the requirement that

participant exchanges make an investment in OCC

of common stock but is considerably less than the

$1 million fee associated with making such an

investment.

9Such completed formula will be subject to a

future rule filing by OCC either as a statement of

fees or as part of the clearing agreement for security

futures.

ready ability to effect delivery of

underlying stocks with respect to

physically settled security futures.

Because of OCC’s experience and

expertise in adjusting equity option

contracts to compensate for various

corporate actions, OCC is prepared to

perform the same necessary function for

security futures. Finally, OCC, as a

securities clearing agency, is legally able

to clear security futures transactions

originating on any type of market

whereas a futures clearinghouse cannot

clear security futures transactions

originating on national securities

exchanges that are registered with the

Commission pursuant to Section 6(a) of

the Act without registering as a

securities clearing agency.4

Clearing members have conveyed to

OCC their desire to consolidate

clearance, settlement, and

collateralization of similar or hedgeable

products. This need grows in urgency

with the scale of the collateral necessary

to support the growing security

derivatives markets.

OCC believes that by clearing security

futures, it will minimize the scale and

cost of collateral, maximize the

efficiency of clearance and settlement,

reduce systemic risk, provide the best

possible service to clearing members at

the lowest possible price, and ultimately

will reduce costs to investors. Therefore,

as an initial step in providing clearing

services for security derivatives markets,

OCC wishes to begin clearing stock

futures transactions for any national

securities exchange or association

registered under Section 6(a) or 15A(a)

of the Act or any ‘‘designated contract

market’’ (as that term is used in the

CEA) that is registered as a national

securities exchange under Section 6(g)

of the Act.

Because these products and the

systems and other infrastructure needed

to clear them are still being designed

and developed, OCC has not yet filed a

complete set of rules for clearing

security futures. These rules, including

a proposed form of clearing agreement

for security futures, will be filed

subsequently under Rule 19b–4.

However, OCC filed the present rule

filing to identify for which markets OCC

will initially clear so those markets and

OCC can begin preparing for the start of

security futures trading, which can

begin on August 21, 2001.

Accordingly, the proposed

amendment to Article I of OCC’s ByLaws defines a separate category of

market—a ‘‘security futures market’’—

for whom OCC would clear transactions

in security futures. The definition of

‘‘security futures market’’ includes

certain marketplaces for security futures

under the provisions of the CFMA other

than participant exchanges.5 A security

futures market would not be defined as

an ‘‘exchange’’ under OCC’s By-Laws,

and OCC would be simply a provider of

clearing services to such markets.6 For

convenience, however, the terms

‘‘exchange transaction,’’ ‘‘exchange

rules,’’ and ‘‘exchange member’’ would

be redefined to include transactions on,

and the rules and members of, as the

case may be, a security futures market.7

OCC anticipates that it will clear

security futures transactions on the

same terms and subject to the same

clearing fees for any market for which

it clears. However, OCC proposes to

distinguish in limited ways between

participant exchanges and security

futures markets that are affiliated with

a participant exchange, on the one hand,

and non-affiliated security futures

markets on the other hand.

For example, OCC proposes that

markets other than participant

exchanges and their affiliates be

required to make some form of

‘‘investment’’ in OCC analogous to the

redeemable equity investments required

of participant exchanges. However, OCC

does not propose that such markets be

offered common stock. Instead, OCC

proposes that non-affiliated security

futures markets be required to make a

‘‘good faith’’ deposit with OCC of

$250,000 to support the clearing of

transactions for security futures.8 That

deposit will be refunded to the security

futures market in whole or in part if it

ceases clearing security futures through

OCC. OCC is considering formula that

would fix the amount of the refund at

the lesser of either the full amount of

the original deposit or 50% of the

amount of clearing fees received by OCC

from clearing members as a result of

transactions on that market (i.e., a kind

of ‘‘earn out’’ provision).9

OCC would not be obligated to

undertake security futures clearing for

any non-affiliated security futures

market if it determined that to do so

would tax OCC’s resources in a way that

would jeopardize OCC’s ability to fully

perform its other contractual and

statutory responsibilities. Any OCC

determination to refuse to undertake

security futures clearing for a nonaffiliated security futures market will be

done on a fair and non-discriminatory

basis.

The proposed By-Law provision

would also require an exchange or

security futures market that wishes OCC

to clear its transactions in security

futures to enter into a clearing

agreement with OCC that would define

the business relationship between OCC

and such market with respect to security

futures. Additionally, as described

below, OCC proposes covering security

futures udner separate clearing

agreements between it and the markets

desiring to clear security futures

transactions through OCC rather than to

incorporate such agreements concerning

security futures in the Restated

Participant Exchange Agreement

(‘‘RPEA’’). OCC anticipates that there

will be separate but uniform (except for

provisions relating to the good faith

deposit required of non-affiliated

security futures markets) clearing

agreements with each exchange and

security futures market that clears

security futures through OCC. These

agreements would cover some of the

same matters covered in the RPEA but

would omit inapplicable provisions

relating to the registration statement on

which OCC registers options,

registration under state securities laws,

and the options disclosure document.

The clearing agreement would also

contain appropriate indemnification of

OCC and its officers and directors. The

clearing agreement would terminate if

the exchange or security futures market

is no longer eligible to list security

futures, no longer lists security futures

despite being eligible to do so, or is in

material breach of the clearing

agreement.

II. Discussion

Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act directs

the Commission to approve a proposed

rule change of a self-regulatory

organization if it finds that such

proposed rule change is consistent with

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Notices 33285

10 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(A), (F).

11 15 U.S.C. 78q–I(b)(3)(I).

12 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(10).

13See also Securities Exchange Act of 1934,

Section 3(f) (in reviewing rule of self-regulatory

organization, Commission shall consider protection

of investors, efficiency, competition, and capital

formation) (emphasis added); See also Bradford

Nat’l Clearing Corp. v. SEC, 191 U.S. App. D.C. 383;

590 F.2d 1085 (1978) (competition is one factor

among others that the Commission must consider

in connection with the approval of a clearing

agency’s rules).

14Meeting between George Hender, Management

Vice Chairman, William H. Navin, Executive Vice

President and General Counsel, and Susan Milligan,

First Vice President and Special Counsel, OCC, and

staff of the Division of Market Regulation on May

24, 2001.

the requirements of the Act and the

rules and regulations thereunder

applicable to such organization. For the

reasons set forth below, the Commission

believes that OCC’s proposed rule

change is consistent with OCC’s

obligations under the Act. Specifically,

the proposal rule change is consistent

with Section 17A(b)(3)(A) of the Act

which requies that a clearing agency be

organized and have the capacity to be

able to facilitate the prompt and

accurate clearance and settlement of

securities transactions and with Section

17A(b)(3)(F) which requires that the

rules of a clearing agency be designed to

promote the prompt and accurate

clearance and settlement of securities

transactions and to assure the

safeguarding of securities and funds

which are in the custody or control of

the clearing agency or for which it is

responsible.10 For the reasons set forth

below, the Commission also finds that

the proposed rule change is consistent

with Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act

which requires that the rules of a

clearing agency not impose any burden

on competition not necessary or

appropriate in furtherance of the

purposes of the Act.11

A. Prompt and Accurate Clearance and

Settlement of Securities Transactions

Among other things, the CFMA

amended the Act to include ‘‘security

future’’ within the definition of

‘‘security.’’ 12 Under Section 17A of the

Act, registered clearing agencies are

authorized to clear securities. OCC’s

proposed rule change amends its ByLaws to allow it to clear and settle

security futures effected on any national

securities exchange or association

registered under Section 6(a) or 15A(a)

of the Act or on any ‘‘designated

contract market’’ that is registered as a

national securities exchange under

Section 6(g) of the Act. OCC’s proposed

rule change is consistent with Sections

17A(b)(3)(A) and (F) of the Act in that

it should facilitate the prompt and

accurate clearance and settlement of

transactions in security futures by

providing an efficient and reliable

clearing facility for these instruments.

B. Clearing Agency Rules and the

Burden on Competition

In response to OCC’s proposed rule

change, the Commission received one

negative comment letter, from The

Island ECN, Inc. (‘‘Island’’). Island’s

main objection to the proposed rule

change is that it does not include

clearance and settlement provisions for

Alternative Trading Systems (‘‘ATSs’’),

of which Island is one. The Island letter

urged the Commission to withhold its

approval of the proposed rule change

unless OCC opens its clearing services

to all market participants that are

allowed to trade security futures

concurrent with national securities

exchanges or associations. The Island

letter asserts that because the CFMA

allows an ATS to trade security futures,

OCC must provide clearing services to

ATSs with the current proposed rule

change; otherwise, the Commission will

be allowing OCC and its participant

exchanges to eliminate or restrict any

ATS competition that they may face.

The Commission has carefully

considered all relevant factors and

disagrees with Island’s views on the

alleged anticompetitive effects of the

proposed rule change. Section

17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act requires that a

clearing agency’s rules ‘‘do not impose

any burden on competition not

necessary or appropriate in furtherance

of the purposes of’’ the Act.13 The

Commission believes that OCC’s

proposal rule change is an appropriate

first step in implementing the rules that

will be needed to clear security futures

for the security futures markets as they

may develop. Indeed, OCC explicitly

recognized in its proposed rule change

that it will need to adopt additional

rules governing security futures, such as

the form of a clearing agreement, as the

trading in these products and markets

develop.

The Commission believes that, due to

the fact that this rule change does not

foreclose OCC from clearing security

futures for ATSs, approval of the

proposed rule change will not burden

competition or limit the ability of ATSs

to trade and clear security futures.

OCC’s proposed rule change is only an

initial step in its plans to undertake the

clearance and settlement services for

markets that trade security futures. In

addition to the proposed rule change’s

explicit recognition that OCC plans to

file additional proposed rule changes

relating to the clearance and settlement

of security futures, OCC staff has

represented orally to Commission staff

that at OCC’s July 24, 2001, board

meeting, OCC staff will recommend that

OCC’s board authorize the filing of a

proposed rule change authorizing OCC

to clear security futures for ATSs.14

Island also asserts that if it were

denied the ability to clear through OCC,

Island would be precluded from trading

security futures, which are required by

Section 6(h)(1) of the Act to be listed on

a national securities exchange or

association, because OCC would be the

only clearer for those security futures.

Under Section 6(h)(1) of the Act, an

ATS can trade a security future only if

that security future is listed on a

national securities exchange or

association. The OCC letter points out

that the security future traded by the

ATS must have contract terms identical

to the exchange or association-listed

security future but that such identical

contract terms do not mean that those

security futures must be cleared by the

same clearing organization.

The Commission believes that OCC’s

interpretation in its letter is the correct

one as to the clearing implications

presented by Sections 6(h)(1) and (5) of

the Act. The Commission believes that

the purpose of Section 6(h)(1) is to

ensure that a regulated national

securities exchange or national

securities association establish terms for

security futures and standards for the

selection of underlying securities,

consistent with the Act’s listing

standard requirements. Therefore, as

long as the security futures satisfy these

requirements and the coordinated

surveillance and trading halt protections

in Section 6(h)(5), they need not be

cleared by OCC or any other specific

clearing organization.

In addition, the Commission disagrees

with Island’s assertion that OCC’s

proposed rule change fosters the same

kind of anticompetitive behavior that is

prohibited by the settlement accord that

the options exchanges entered into with

the Department of Justice and the

Commission. OCC’s proposed rule

change does not foreclose the possibility

of clearing for other entities, such as

ATSs. Indeed, the proposed rule change

expands the types of entities for which

OCC will provide clearing services to

include contract markets that are noticeregistered as securities exchanges with

the Commission. OCC further represents

in its proposed rule change that it

expects it will clear security futures

transactions on security futures markets

on the same terms and subject to the

same clearing fees that it will apply to

security futures transactions originating

33286 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Notices

15 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

on the exchanges. Such equality of

treatment is consistent with fostering

competition.

C. Additional Provisions

The Commission also believes that the

provisions of OCC’s proposed rule

requiring (1) the deposit of $250,000 by

non-affiliated security futures markets

with OCC in return for the provision of

security future clearing services, (2) the

clearing agreement that OCC would

enter into with an exchange or securities

futures market before OCC undertakes to

clear for either of those entities, and (3)

the ability of OCC to refuse to undertake

securities clearing for any non-affiliated

security futures market if doing so

would jeopardize OCC’s ability to fully

perform its other responsibilities, are

consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of

the Act.

The Commission believes that the

$250,000 deposit to OCC in return for

the provision of clearing services to

non-affiliated security futures markets

and the clearing arrangement are

appropriate and consistent with Section

17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act because they will

assist OCC and the security futures

markets to set up the necessary

arrangements whereby OCC can provide

for the prompt and accurate clearance

and settlement of securities transactions

that take place on those markets.

The Commission believes that

allowing OCC to refuse clearing services

to any non-affiliated security futures

market if doing so would jeopardize

OCC’s ability to fully perform its other

responsibilities is consistent with OCC’s

obligation under Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of

the Act to assure the safeguarding of

securities and funds which are in OCC’s

custody or for which it is responsible

because it allows OCC to avoid exposure

to unnecessary financial and operational

risks in a nondiscriminatory fashion.

III. Conclusion

On the basis of the foregoing, the

Commission finds that the proposed

rule change is consistent with the

requirements of the Act and in

particular Section 17A of the Act and

the rules and regulations thereunder.

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the

proposed rule change (File No. SR–

OCC–2001–05) be and hereby is

approved.

For the Commission by the Division

of Market Regulation, pursuant to

delegated authority.15

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–15624 Filed 6–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Applicant No. 99000418]

Bluestem Capital Partners III Limited

Partnership; Notice Seeking

Exemption Under Section 312 of the

Small Business Investment Act,

Conflicts of Interest

Notice is hereby given that Bluestem

Capital Partners III Limited Partnership

( ‘‘Bluestem III’’ ), 122 S Phillips Ave.,

Suite 300, Sioux Falls, South Dakota,

57104, an applicant for a Federal

License under the Small Business

Investment Act of 1958, as amended

(‘‘the Act’’), in connection with the

financing of a small concern, has sought

an exemption under section 312 of the

Act and Section 107.730, Financings

which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of

the Small Business Administration

(‘‘SBA’’) rules and regulations (13 CFR

107.730 (2000)). Bluestem III proposes

to provide equity financing to Hat

World Corporation, 8142 Woodland

Drive, Indianapolis, IN 46078. The

financing is contemplated for the

purpose of providing capital to Hat

World Corporation to fund the

acquisition of various assets from the

Lids’ bankruptcy trustee.

The financing is brought within the

purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the SBA

Regulations because Bluestem Capital

Partners I, LLC and Bluestem Capital

Partners II Limited Partnership, both

Associates of Bluestem III, each

currently own greater than 10 percent of

Hat World Corporation, and therefore,

Hat World Corporation is considered an

Associate of Bluestem III as defined in

§ 107.50 of the SBA Regulations.

Notice is hereby given that any

interested person may submit written

comments on the transaction to the

Associate Administrator for Investment,

U.S. Small Business Administration,

409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC

20416.

Dated: June 12, 2001.

Harry Haskins,

Acting Associate Administrator for

Investment.

[FR Doc. 01–15643 Filed 6–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 01/01–0339]

Chestnut Venture Partners, L.P.;

Notice Seeking Exemption Under

Section 312 of the Small Business

Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

Notice is hereby given that Chestnut

Venture Partners, L.P., 75 State Street,

Suite 2500, Boston, Massachusetts

02109, a Federal Licensee under the

Small Business Investment Act of 1958,

as amended (‘‘the Act’’), in connection

with the financing of a small concern,

has sought an exemption under section

312 of the Act and § 107.730, Financings

which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of

the Small Business Administration

(‘‘SBA’’) rules and regulations (13 CFR

107.730 (2001)). Chestnut Venture

Partners, L.P., proposes to make an

equity investment in Florida Digital

Network, Inc. The financing is

contemplated to implement a new

business plan which involves a

substantial change in size, scope and

nature of Florida Digital Network, Inc.’s

operations and service offerings.

This financing is brought within the

purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the

Regulations because Media/

Communications Partners III, L.P. and

M/C Investors, LLC, Associates of

Chestnut Venture Partners, L.P.,

presently own greater than 10 percent of

Florida Digital Network, Inc., and

therefore, Florida Digital Network, Inc.,

is considered an Associate of Chestnut

Venture Partners, L.P., as defined in

§ 107.50 of the regulations.

Notice is hereby given that any

interested person may submit written

comments on the transaction to the

Acting Associate Administrator for

Investment, U.S. Small Business

Administration, 409 Third Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20416.

Dated: June 13, 2001.

Harry Haskins,

Acting Associate Administrator for

Investment.

[FR Doc. 01–15642 Filed 6–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3705]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported

for Exhibition Determinations:

‘‘Exploring the Holy Land: David

Roberts and Beyond’’

AGENCY: United States Department of

State.

ACTION: Notice.