	To:

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Cc:

Kevin Culligan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nick Hutson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Bcc:

Subject:

EGU GHG NSPS - Submittal #1

From:

RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US - Tuesday 01/24/2012 04:51 PM

Cortney -

This is the first of several emails I'm going to send over tonight, which contains materials requested and/or discussed in recent phone conversations with OMB.  Please let me/Kevin know if you have any questions.

thanx!

bob

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D.

Leader, Energy Strategies Group

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Mail Code D243-01

RTP, NC  27711

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS> *********************************************************

DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

*********************************************************

Sensitivities to Test Robustness of Assumptions about no Coal in Future Cases:

In follow up to questions from the interagency group, we have run several sensitivities.  We looked at a higher demand case, a higher gas price case (because of less shale gas), a combined higher case.  We did not see coal in any of those cases in 2020.  In the combined case, we did see some coal in 2030.  This did not result in annual costs in either 2020 or 2030 becuase there was no very little difference in the cost of a coal unit or gas unit in that time frame.  It would only be in years past 2030 where there would be any cost.

We did not run a sensitivity looking at cases where there was no concern about CO2 emissions in the future (one of the cases when EIA did see more coal) becuase we do not believe that is a reasonable policy scenario.  Similarly, we saw no substantiation for lower capital cost for coal units.  We have also included a graphic that illustrates the cost of coal with the adder to represent uncertainty about CO2 policy.  You can see, that this shows that a gas price above $9.00 would be needed to support new coal.

Sensitivity Summary NSPS_1-23-12.pptx


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 206 (Monday, October 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65263-65266]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27071]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76200; File No. SR-EDGX-2015-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 19.3 To Allow the Listing of Certain Options Based on
International Indexes

October 20, 2015.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 9, 2015, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to allow the listing of options
overlying portfolio depositary receipts and index fund shares
(collectively, ``ETFs'') that are listed pursuant to generic listing
standards on equities exchanges for series of ETFs based on
international or global indexes under which a comprehensive
surveillance sharing agreement is not required.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 19.3(i) to allow the
Exchange's options platform (``EDGX Options'') to list options
overlying ETFs that are listed pursuant to generic listing standards on
equities exchanges for series of ETFs based on international or global
indexes under which a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement
(``CSSA'') is not required.\5\ This proposal will enable the Exchange
to list and trade options on ETFs without a CSSA provided that the ETF
is listed on an equities exchange pursuant to the generic listing
standards that do not require a CSSA pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) of the
Exchange Act.\6\ Rule 19b-4(e) provides that the listing and trading of
a new derivative securities product by a self-regulatory organization
(``SRO'') shall not be deemed a proposed rule change, pursuant to
paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 19b-4, if the Commission has approved,
pursuant to section 19(b) of the Exchange Act, the SRO's trading rules,
procedures, and listing standards for the product class that would
include the new derivatives securities product and the SRO has a
surveillance program for the product class.\7\ In other words, the
proposal will amend the listing standards to allow the Exchange to list
and trade options on ETFs based on international or global indexes to a
similar degree that they are allowed to be listed on several equities
exchanges.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., EDGX Rule 14.2(b)(3); BATS Exchange Rule
14.11(b)(3)(A)(ii); NYSE MKT Rule 1000 Commentary .03(a)(B); NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) Commentary .01 (a)(B); and NASDAQ Rule
5705(a)(3)(A)(ii).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e).
    \7\ When relying on Rule 19b-4(e), the SRO must submit Form 19b-
4(e) to the Commission within five business days after the SRO
begins trading the new derivative securities products. See Exchange
Act Release No. 40761 (December 8, 1998), 63 FR 70952 (December 22,
1998).
    \8\ See EDGX Rule 14.2(b)(3); BATS Rules 14.11(b)(3)(A)(ii);
NYSE MKT Rule 1000 Commentary .03(a)(B); NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(3) Commentary .01 (a)(B); and NASDAQ Rule 5705(a)(3)(A)(ii).
See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54739 (November 9,
2006), 71 FR 66993 (SR-Amex-2006-78); 55269 (February 9, 2007), 72
FR 7490 (February 15, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-050); 55621 (April 12,
2007), 72 FR 19571 (April 18, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-86)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, EDGX Options rules allow for the listing and trading of
options on Fund Shares. Rule 19.3(i)(1)-(3) provide the listings
standards for options on Fund Shares with non-U.S. component stocks,
such as Fund Shares based on international or global indexes. Rule
19.3(i)(1) requires that any non-U.S. component stocks of an index or
portfolio of stocks on which the Fund Shares are based that are not
subject to a CSSA do not in the aggregate represent more than 50% of
the weight of the index or portfolio. Rule 19.3(i)(2) requires stocks
for which the primary market is in any one country that is not

subject to a CSSA do not represent 20% or more of the weight of the
index. Rule 19.3(i)(3) requires that stocks for which the primary
market is in any two countries that are not subject to a CSSA do not
represent 33% or more of the weight of the index.
    The Exchange notes that the Commission has previously approved
generic listing standards pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) of the Exchange Act
for ETFs based on indexes that consist of stocks listed on U.S.
exchanges.\9\ In general, the criteria for the underlying component
stocks in the international and global indexes are similar to those for
the domestic indexes, but with modifications as appropriate for the
issues and risks associated with non-U.S. stocks. In addition, the
Commission has previously approved the listing and trading of ETFs
based on international indexes--those based on non-U.S. component
stocks--as well as global indexes--those based on non-U.S. and U.S.
component stocks.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Commentary .03 to Amex Rule 1000 and Commentary .02 to
Amex Rule 1000A. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42787
(May 15, 2000), 65 FR 33598 (May 24, 2000).
    \10\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 50189
(August 12, 2004), 69 FR 51723 (August 20, 2004) (approving the
listing and trading of certain Vanguard International Equity Index
Funds); 44700 (August 14, 2001), 66 FR 43927 (August 21, 2001)
(approving the listing and trading of series of the iShares Trust
based on certain S&P global indexes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving ETFs for equities exchange trading, the Commission
thoroughly considered the structure of the ETFs, their usefulness to
investors and to the markets, and SRO rules that govern their trading.
The Exchange believes that allowing the listing of options overlying
ETFs that are listed pursuant to the generic listing standards on
equities exchanges for ETFs based on international and global indexes
and applying Rule 19b-4(e) should fulfill the intended objective of
that Rule by allowing options on those ETFs that have satisfied the
generic listing standards to commence trading, without the need for the
public comment period and Commission approval. The proposed rule has
the potential to reduce the time frame for bringing options on ETFs to
market, thereby reducing the burdens on issuers and other market
participants. The failure of a particular ETF to comply with the
generic listing standards under Rule 19b-4(e) would not, however,
preclude the Exchange from submitting a separate filing pursuant to
section 19(b)(2),\11\ requesting Commission approval to list and trade
options on a particular ETF. Options on ETFs listed pursuant to these
generic standards for international and global indexes would be traded,
in all other respects, under the Exchange's existing trading rules and
procedures that apply to options on ETFs and would be covered under the
Exchange's surveillance program for options on ETFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the proposed rule, the Exchange may list and trade
options on an ETF without a CSSA provided that the ETF is listed
pursuant to generic listing standards for series of ETFs based on
international or global indexes under which a comprehensive
surveillance agreement is not required. The Exchange believes that
these generic listing standards are intended to ensure that stocks with
substantial market capitalization and trading volume account for a
substantial portion of the weight of an index or portfolio.
    The Exchange believes that this proposed listing standard for
options on ETFs is reasonable for international and global indexes,
and, when applied in conjunction with the other listing
requirements,\12\ will result in options overlying ETFs that are
sufficiently broad-based in scope and not readily susceptible to
manipulation. The Exchange also believes that allowing the Exchange to
list options overlying ETFs that are listed on equities exchanges
pursuant to generic standards for series of portfolio depositary
receipts or index fund shares \13\ based on international or global
indexes under which a CSSA is not required, will result in options
overlying ETFs that are adequately diversified in weighting for any
single security or small group of securities to significantly reduce
concerns that trading in options overlying ETFs based on international
or global indexes could become a surrogate for trading in unregistered
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ All of the other listing criteria under the Exchange's
rules will continue to apply to any options listed pursuant to the
proposed rule change.
    \13\ The Exchange notes that the proposed rule text differs
slightly from that of other exchanges in order to make clear that
the rule applies to ETFs that have been listed on equities exchanges
pursuant to generic listing standards for series of ``portfolio
depositary receipts or index fund shares'' rather than ``portfolio
depositary receipts and index fund shares.'' Such difference does
not represent a substantive difference from the rules of other
Exchanges. See infra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that ETFs based on international and global
indexes that have been listed pursuant to the generic standards are
sufficiently broad-based enough as to make options overlying such ETFs
not susceptible instruments for manipulation. The Exchange believes
that the threat of manipulation is sufficiently mitigated for
underlying ETFs that have been listed on equities exchanges pursuant to
generic listing standards for series of portfolio depositary receipts
or index fund shares based on international or global indexes under
which a comprehensive surveillance agreement is not required and for
the overlying options, that the Exchange does not see the need for CSSA
to be in place before listing and trading options on such ETFs. The
Exchange notes that its proposal does not replace the need for a CSSA
as provided in the current rule. The provisions of the current rule,
including the need for a CSSA, remain materially unchanged in the
proposed rule and will continue to apply to options on ETFs that are
not listed on an equities exchange pursuant to generic listing
standards for series of portfolio depositary receipts or index fund
shares based on international or global indexes under which a
comprehensive surveillance agreement is not required. Instead, the
proposed rule adds an additional listing mechanism for certain
qualifying options on ETFs to be listed on the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange is also proposing to make several non-
substantive changes to the rule text in order to make it easier to read
and understand. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to move
paragraph (4) to become paragraph (1), to renumber each of paragraphs
(1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) to (B), (C), (D), (E), and (F),
respectively, and to make clear that each of the proposed newly
numbered paragraphs (B), (C), (D), (E), and (F) apply to the series of
Fund Shares that do not meet the criteria proposed in proposed new
paragraph (A).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act.\14\ In particular,
the proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act \15\ because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, 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. In
particular, the proposed rules have the potential to

reduce the time frame for bringing options on ETFs to market, thereby
reducing the burdens on issuers and other market participants. The
Exchange also believes that enabling the listing and trading of options
on ETFs pursuant to this new listing standard will benefit investors by
providing them with valuable risk management tools. The Exchange notes
that its proposal does not replace the need for a CSSA as provided in
the current rule. The provisions of the current rule, including the
need for a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement, remain
materially unchanged in the proposed rule and will continue to apply to
options on ETFs that are not listed on an equities exchange pursuant to
generic listing standards for series of portfolio depositary receipts
or index fund shares based on international or global indexes under
which a comprehensive surveillance agreement is not required. Instead,
the proposed rule adds an additional listing mechanism for certain
qualifying options on ETFs to be listed on the Exchange in a manner
that is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed non-substantive
organizational changes are reasonable, fair, and equitable because they
are designed to make the rule easier to comprehend. As noted above, the
proposed non-substantive changes do not change the need for a CSSA as
provided in the current rule. The provisions of the current rule,
including the need for a CSSA, remain materially unchanged in the
proposed rule and will continue to apply to options on ETFs that are
not listed on an equities exchange pursuant to generic listing
standards for series of portfolio depositary receipts or index fund
shares based on international or global indexes under which a
comprehensive surveillance agreement is not required. These non-
substantive changes to the rules are intended to make the rules clearer
and less confusing for participants and investors and to eliminate
potential confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, protecting investors and the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the
proposed rule change is a competitive change that is substantially
similar to recent rule changes by other options exchanges, such as MIAX
Options Exchange (``MIAX''), NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC (``Phlx''), and
International Stock Exchange LLC (``ISE'').\16\ The Exchange notes that
the Exchange's affiliate, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') also filed a
similar rule change earlier this year.\17\ Furthermore, the Exchange
believes this proposed rule change will benefit investors by providing
additional methods to trade options on ETFs, and by providing them with
valuable risk management tools. Specifically, the Exchange believes
that market participants on the Exchange would benefit from the
introduction and availability of options on ETFs in a manner that is
similar to equities exchanges and will provide investors with a venue
on which to trade options on these products. For all the reasons stated
above, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes
will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, and believes the proposed
change will enhance competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74509
(March 13, 2015), 80 FR 14425 (March 19, 2015) (SR-MIAX-2015-04);
74553 (March 20, 2015), 80 FR 16072 (March 26, 2015) (SR-Phlx-2015-
27); and 74832 (April 29, 2015), 80 FR 25738 (May 5, 2015) (SR-ISE-
2015-16).
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75166 (June 12,
2015), 80 FR 34946 (June 18, 2015) (SR-BATS-2015-43).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \18\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\20\
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), however, permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest.\21\ The Exchange has asked the
Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may
become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange has stated that
waiver of the operative delay will permit the Exchange to list and
trade certain ETF options on the same basis as other options
markets.\22\ The Commission believes the waiver of the operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposal operative upon filing.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ See supra notes 16 and 17.
    \23\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule change should be approved or 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2015-48 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2015-48. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-EDGX-2015-48, and should be
submitted on or before November 16, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-27071 Filed 10-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 216)]
[Notices]
[Page 65552-65554]
[DOCID:fr08no06-124]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 27544; 812-13266]

Fidelity Management & Research Company, et al.; Notice of
Application

November 2, 2006.
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 section 15(a)
of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as certain disclosure
requirements.

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

    Summary of Application: Applicants request an order that would
permit them to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements
without shareholder approval and would grant relief from certain
disclosure requirements.
    Applicants: Fidelity Management & Research Company (``FMR''),
Strategic Advisers, Inc. (``Strategic''), Fidelity Rutland Square Trust
II (``Rutland II''), Fidelity Rutland Square Trust III (``Rutland
III''), Fidelity Rutland Square Trust IV (``Rutland IV''), and Fidelity
Commonwealth Trust II (``Commonwealth,'' collectively with Rutland II,
Rutland III, and Rutland IV, the ``Trusts'').
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on March 6, 2006, and
amended on June 1, 2006, and October 9, 2006.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the
application 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 November 27, 2006, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers,
a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of
the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons may request notification of a hearing by writing to
the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, 82 Devonshire Street,
Boston MA 02109.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Y. Greenlees, Senior
Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Janet M. Grossnickle, Branch Chief, at
(202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment
Company Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the
Commission's Public Reference Desk, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-0102 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. Each Trust is a Delaware statutory trust and, prior to relying
on the requested order, will be registered under the Act as an open-end
management investment company. Each Trust will consist of one or more
Portfolios (as defined below).\1\ Strategic and FMR are investment
advisers registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the
``Advisers Act''). Any other Manager relying on the requested order
will be an investment adviser registered under the Advisers Act.
Strategic and FMR are wholly-owned direct subsidiaries of FMR Corp., a
Delaware corporation. It is currently anticipated that Strategic will
serve as the Manager to each Portfolio.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants also request relief with respect to any
investment adviser controlling, controlled by or under common
control with FMR (individually or collectively, the ``Manager'') and
any current or future series of the Trusts that: (a) is advised by
the Manager; (b) uses the manager of managers structure described in
the application; and (c) complies with the terms and conditions of
the application (each such series, a ``Portfolio''). All existing
Trusts that currently intend to rely on the requested order are
named as applicants. If the name of any Portfolio contains the name
of a Sub-Adviser (as defined below), the name of the Manager will
precede the name of the Sub-Adviser.
    \2\ Applicants request that the requested order apply to the
Trusts' and any Portfolio's successors in interest. A successor in
interest is limited to entities that result from a reorganization
into another jurisdiction or a change in the type of business
organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Manager will serve as investment adviser to each Portfolio
pursuant to an investment management agreement between the Manager and
the Trust, on behalf of the Portfolio (the ``Advisory Agreement''). The
Advisory Agreement will be approved by the shareholders of the
Portfolio and by the applicable board of trustees or directors (the
``Board''), including a majority of the trustees who are not
``interested persons,'' as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of
the Trust, the Portfolio or the Manager (the ``Disinterested
Trustees'').
    3. Under the terms of the Advisory Agreement, the Manager will be
responsible for providing a program of continuous investment management
to each Portfolio in accordance with the investment objective, policies
and limitations of the Portfolio. The Advisory Agreement also
authorizes the Manager, subject to Board approval, to enter into
investment sub-advisory agreements (``Sub-Advisory Agreements'') with
one or more sub-advisers (``Sub-Advisers''). Each Sub-Adviser will be
registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. The Manager
will monitor and evaluate the Sub-Advisers and recommend to the Board
their hiring, retention or termination. Sub-Advisers recommended to the
Board by the Manager will be selected and approved by the Board,
including a majority of the Disinterested Trustees. Each Sub-Adviser
will have discretionary authority to invest all or a portion of the
assets of the Portfolio it serves. The Manager will compensate each
Sub-Adviser out of the fees paid to the

Manager under the Advisory Agreement.
    4. Applicants request an order to permit the Manager, subject to
Board approval, to enter into and materially amend Sub-Advisory
Agreements without obtaining shareholder approval. The requested relief
will not extend to any Sub-Adviser that is an affiliated person, as
defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Trust, the Portfolios or
the Manager, other than by reason of serving as a Sub-Adviser to one or
more Portfolios (``Affiliated Subadviser'').
    5. Applicants also request an exemption from the various disclosure
provisions described below that may require a Portfolio to disclose
fees paid by the Manager to each Sub-Adviser. An exemption is requested
to permit the Trust to disclose for each Portfolio (as both a dollar
amount and as a percentage of the Portfolio's net assets): (a) The
aggregate fees paid to the Manager and any Affiliated Sub-Advisers; and
(b) the aggregate fees paid to Sub-Advisers other than Affiliated Sub-
Advisers (collectively, ``Aggregate Fee Disclosure''). If the Manager
employs an Affiliated Sub-Adviser on behalf of a Portfolio, the Trust
will provide separate disclosure of any fees paid to the Affiliated
Sub-Adviser.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that it is
unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered
investment company except under a written contract that has been
approved by the vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting
securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class
of stock in a series company affected by a matter must approve such
matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
    2. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end
investment companies. Item 14(a)(3) of Form N-1A requires disclosure of
the method and amount of the investment adviser's compensation.
    3. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect
to an investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``1934 Act''). Items 22(c)(1)(ii),
22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together,
require a proxy statement for a shareholder meeting at which the
advisory contract will be voted upon to include the ``rate of
compensation of the investment adviser,'' the ``aggregate amount of the
investment adviser's fees,'' a description of the ``terms of the
contract to be acted upon,'' and, if a change in the advisory fee is
proposed, the existing and proposed fees and the difference between the
two fees.
    4. Form N-SAR is the semi-annual report filed with the Commission
by registered investment companies. Item 48 of Form N-SAR requires
investment companies to disclose the rate schedule for fees paid to
their investment advisers, including the Subadvisers.
    5. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial
statements required to be included as part of investment company
registration statements and shareholder reports filed with the
Commission. Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X require
that investment companies include in their financial statements
information about investment advisory fees.
    6. 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 provisions of the Act, or
from any rule thereunder, if 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 state that their requested relief meets this standard
for the reasons discussed below.
    7. Applicants assert that the shareholders are relying on the
Manager's experience to select one or more Sub-Advisers well suited to
achieve a Portfolio's investment objectives. Applicants assert that,
from the perspective of the investor, the role of the Sub-Advisers is
comparable to that of the individual portfolio managers employed by
traditional investment company advisory firms. Applicants state that
requiring shareholder approval of each Sub-Advisory Agreement would
impose costs and unnecessary delays on the Portfolio, and may preclude
the Manager from acting promptly in a manner considered advisable by
the Board. Applicants note that the Advisory Agreement and any Sub-
Advisory Agreement with an Affiliated Sub-Adviser will remain subject
to section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.
    8. Applicants assert that some Sub-Advisers use a ``posted'' rate
schedule to set their fees. Applicants state that while Sub-Advisers
are willing to negotiate fees that are lower than those posted on the
schedule, they are reluctant to do so where the fees are disclosed to
other prospective and existing customers. Applicants submit that the
requested relief will allow the Manager to negotiate more effectively
with each Sub-Adviser.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Before a Portfolio may rely on the order, the operation of the
Portfolio in the manner described in the application will be approved
by a majority of the Portfolio's outstanding voting securities, as
defined in the Act, or, in the case of a Portfolio whose public
shareholders purchase shares on the basis of a prospectus containing
the disclosure contemplated by condition 2 below, by the sole initial
shareholder before offering the Portfolio's shares to the public.
    2. The prospectus for the Portfolio will disclose the existence,
substance, and effect of any order granted pursuant to the application.
The Portfolio will hold itself out to the public as employing the
manager of managers structure described in the application. The
prospectus will prominently disclose that the Manager has ultimate
responsibility (subject to oversight by the Board) to oversee the Sub-
Advisers and recommend their hiring, termination, and replacement.
    3. Within 90 days of the hiring of a new Sub-Adviser, the affected
Portfolio's shareholders will be furnished all information about the
new Sub-Adviser that would be included in a proxy statement, except as
modified to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure. This information will
include Aggregate Fee Disclosure and any change in such disclosure
caused by the addition of the new Sub-Adviser. To meet this obligation,
the Portfolio will provide shareholders within 90 days of the hiring of
a new Sub-Adviser with an information statement meeting the
requirements of Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C, and Item 22 of Schedule
14A under the 1934 Act, except as modified by the order to permit
Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
    4. The Manager will not enter into a Sub-Advisory Agreement with
any Affiliated Sub-Adviser without that agreement, including the
compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders
of the applicable Portfolio.
    5. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be
Disinterested Trustees, and the nomination of new or additional
Disinterested Trustees will be placed within the discretion of the
then-existing Disinterested Trustees.
    6. When a Sub-Adviser change is proposed for a Portfolio with an
Affiliated Sub-Adviser, the Board,

including a majority of the Disinterested Trustees, will make a
separate finding, reflected in the applicable Board minutes, that such
change is in the best interests of the Portfolio and its shareholders,
and does not involve a conflict of interest from which the Manager or
the Affiliated Sub-Adviser derives an inappropriate advantage.
    7. Independent legal counsel, as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under
the Act, will be engaged to represent the Disinterested Trustees. The
selection of such counsel will be within the discretion of the then-
existing Disinterested Trustees.
    8. The Manager will provide the Board, no less frequently than
quarterly, with information about the profitability of the Manager on a
per-Portfolio basis. The information will reflect the impact on
profitability of the hiring or termination of any Sub-Adviser during
the applicable quarter.
    9. Whenever a Sub-Adviser is hired or terminated, the Manager will
provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on the
profitability of the Manager.
    10. The Manager will provide general management services to each
Portfolio, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general
management and investment of the Portfolio's assets, and, subject to
review and approval of the Board, will: (a) Set the Portfolio's overall
investment strategies; (b) evaluate, select and recommend Sub-Advisers
to manage all or a part of the Portfolio's assets; (c) when
appropriate, allocate and reallocate the Portfolio's assets among
multiple Sub-Advisers; (d) monitor and evaluate the performance of Sub-
Advisers; and (e) implement procedures reasonably designed to ensure
that the Sub-Advisers comply with the Portfolio's investment objective,
policies and restrictions.
    11. No trustee or officer of a Portfolio, or director or officer of
the Manager, will own, directly or indirectly (other than through a
pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled by such person), any
interest in a Sub-Adviser, except for: (a) Ownership of interests in
the Manager or any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under
common control with the Manager, or (b) ownership of less than 1% of
the outstanding securities of any class of equity or debt of any
publicly traded company that is either a Sub-Adviser or an entity that
controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a Sub-
Adviser.
    12. Each Portfolio will disclose in its registration statement the
Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
    13. The requested order will expire on the effective date of rule
15a-5 under the Act, if adopted.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-18890 Filed 11-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


guidelines in the Final Rule. We noted that while the implementation of
long-term transmission rights would present difficult issues and
require significant effort to prepare proposals within 180 days,
Congress had directed in section 1233(b) of EPAct 2005 that the
Commission act within one year of the legislation's passage, evidencing
its intent that long-term transmission rights be made available as soon
as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on
August 1, 2006, making compliance proposals due on January 29, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rehearing Requests
    108. NYISO objects to the 180-day compliance deadline set forth in
the Final Rule, arguing that this amount of time is insufficient for
transmission organizations to collaborate with their stakeholders and
prepare tariff revisions addressing the issues raised by the Final
Rule. According to NYISO, unlike other transmission organizations, it
must make major changes to its existing systems for allocating and
auctioning transmission rights, making its compliance burden more
significant than the Commission anticipates. NYISO argues that the
Commission based its 180-day compliance deadline on an expectation that
``most'' transmission organizations would not require major changes in
their financial transmission rights systems.\92\ NYISO is different
from the transmission organizations the Commission apparently had in
mind, it asserts, for several reasons, including the fact that it does
not have an ARR allocation system, does not currently have rules
awarding incremental long-term firm transmission rights for upgrades
paid for by a market participant, does not have

rules for mandatory re-assignments of transmission rights, and has
substantial grandfathered transmission rights in place. NYISO also
argues that it must take care to ensure that its long-term firm
transmission rights design does not harm New York's successful retail
access program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Request for Rehearing of NYISO at 16 (citing Final Rule at
P 18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    109. NYISO further contends that nothing in section 217 of the FPA
requires the Commission to impose such an aggressive compliance
timeline. If anything, NYISO asserts, section 217's references to
financial transmission rights and explicit protection of existing
transmission organization auction rules suggests that Congress did not
believe there was a pressing need for change. Moreover, NYISO compares
the Commission's interpretation of the necessary compliance
requirements here with new section 215 of the FPA (concerning bulk
electric system reliability and certification of an Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO)); it argues that the Commission did not
interpret that statute's requirement that an ERO be certified within
180 days as imposing deadlines on the ERO's compliance with future
Commission regulations.
    110. Accordingly, NYISO states that the Commission is under no
legal obligation to set a uniform compliance deadline, and should allow
each transmission organization to propose an individual compliance
deadline that reflects what it must do to comply with the Final
Rule.\93\ This approach better comports with the Commission's flexible
approach, NYISO contends. If nothing else, it argues that the
Commission should delay the start of the 180-day period for compliance
filings until after it issues its order on rehearing. There is likely
to be a large number of rehearing requests, some of which may seek
significant revisions to the Final Rule. As a result, NYISO states, the
order on rehearing may not issue until halfway through the compliance
period (if not later), which would waste the effort of stakeholders if
changes are required. Granting this request would not substantially
affect the actual effective date of the tariff revisions filed in
compliance with the Final Rule and would not delay technical
implementation work, NYISO argues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Specifically, NYISO states that each transmission
organization should be required to submit a detailed compliance plan
within 90 days (after consultation with stakeholders), including
timetables for developing and filing tariff revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Conclusion
    111. We deny this rehearing request, and maintain the requirement
in the Final Rule that transmission organizations file compliance
proposals by January 29, 2007 (180 days from the date of publication in
the Federal Register). While we appreciate that NYISO will need to work
through many issues during this time period, perhaps even more than
some other transmission organizations, we believe that it is necessary
to implement Congress's mandate regarding provision of long-term
transmission rights in an expeditious manner. The implementation of
section 217(b)(4) and the availability of long-term firm transmission
rights in transmission organizations with organized electricity markets
is a directive from Congress in EPAct 2005. As we stated in the Final
Rule, if implementing the rule requires NYISO or another transmission
organization to reorder its market design initiatives, it should do so,
seeking approval from the Commission to reset deadlines as
necessary.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Final Rule at P 491.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    112. Despite NYISO's observation that an expeditious implementation
schedule is not explicitly required by section 217 of the FPA and
section 1233(b) of EPAct 2005, we believe that Congress would not have
specifically directed in section 1233(b) that the Commission act within
one year to implement section 217(b)(4) within transmission
organizations with organized electricity markets unless Congress
believed that this directive would ensure presence of long-term firm
transmission rights shortly thereafter. The references to financial
transmission rights in section 217 only suggest that such rights, if
offered on a long-term basis to support long-term power supply
arrangements, can satisfy the requirements of that section, not that no
change is required. NYISO's reference to the Commission's
implementation of section 215 of the FPA (concerning mandatory
reliability standards and certification of the ERO) is not relevant to
our implementation of section 217(b)(4) of the FPA. Section 1233(b) of
EPAct 2005 expressly directed that long-term firm transmission rights
be implemented within one year of its passage. The Commission has
already granted as much flexibility as we believe the statute allows in
providing a six month period after the one-year deadline to file tariff
sheets making long-term firm transmission rights available to market
participants.
    113. Accordingly, we decline to modify the Final Rule to allow
transmission organizations to propose individual implementation
schedules. We remind NYISO and the other transmission organizations,
however, that they must file compliance proposals within 180 days, and
may propose an individual effective date in that filing that takes into
account existing allocation schedules for transmission rights or the
need to make software or procedural changes to implement long-term
rights.\95\ The Commission will consider effective date proposals in
light of Congress's intent that long-term firm transmission rights be
implemented as soon as possible and demonstrated constraints faced by
the transmission organization in implementing long-term rights.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Id. at P 493.
    \96\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    114. We also decline to begin the 180-day compliance period from
the date of this order on rehearing. We are not changing the Final
Rule, so the work transmission organizations and their stakeholders
have accomplished to date will not be wasted.
13. Implementation Date
    115. In the Final Rule, the Commission declined to prescribe
effective dates for the tariff sheets to be filed 180 days after
issuance of the Final Rule. We recognized that transmission
organizations may need to synchronize the availability of long-term
firm transmission rights with their existing allocation schedules, and
take additional steps, such as making necessary software or procedural
changes, to implement their long-term firm transmission rights
proposals. Consequently, we concluded that we would evaluate effective
dates on a case-by-case basis, and in light of Congress's intent that
long-term firm transmission rights be implemented as soon as possible.
    116. In addition, we explicitly required CAISO, along with all
existing transmission organizations, to make proposals to comply with
the Final Rule according to the 180-day timetable. While we were
sympathetic to CAISO's concerns regarding its pending market redesign,
we determined that we could not address in a rulemaking of general
applicability any possible plans for phase-in or delayed implementation
of long-term firm transmission rights. We further noted in the Final
Rule that CAISO had not provided any timetable in its comments for
implementing long-term firm transmission rights as required by EPAct
2005. Accordingly, we directed CAISO to work with its stakeholders to
develop and submit a compliance filing within the timetable prescribed
in the Final Rule. We also

concluded that we would consider any issues specific to CAISO in its
compliance filing for implementing long-term firm transmission rights
in CAISO.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Final Rule at P 495.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rehearing Requests
    117. SMUD states that the Commission properly concluded that
Congress intended transmission organizations to implement long-term
firm service offerings ``as soon as possible.'' \98\ Nevertheless, SMUD
asserts that, given CAISO's prior unwillingness to offer a timetable
for implementation, the Commission erred in two ways. First, according
to SMUD, the Commission reached a conclusion inconsistent with its
factual findings in concluding that the details of CAISO's
implementation plans could be addressed when CAISO made a compliance
filing.\99\ SMUD asks the Commission to clarify that: (1) compliance
filings must propose a timetable for implementation and include a
timely implementation date; and (2) the implementation of long-term
firm transmission rights must take priority over the implementation of
new market designs, if implementation of new market designs would delay
availability of long-term service include a timely implementation date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ SMUD Rehearing Request at 2 (citing Final Rule at P 495).
    \99\ Id. at 2 (citing Burlington Truck Lines v. United States,
371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    118. Second, SMUD asserts that the Commission acted arbitrarily in
failing to address SMUD's comment that transmission providers/
organizations unable to develop financial rights-based long-term firm
service within a short time after the date for the compliance filing
should be required to offer interim plans, such as the use of physical
rights service, until a financial rights service can be
implemented.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ Id. at 2 (citing Noram Gas Transmission Co v. FERC, 148
F.3d 1158, 1165 (D.C. Cir. 1990)); see also id. at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    119. SMUD explains that CAISO's market redesign and technological
upgrade (MRTU) will not be implemented until at least November 2007, so
that even if CAISO's proposed ``priority renewal provisions'' for
congestion revenue rights (CRRs) \101\ offered a reasonable interim
bridge, delaying implementation to coincide with implementation of a
new market design will not meet the Congressional and Commission
directives that long-term service be available ``as soon as possible.''
\102\ SMUD expresses concern, based on its contact with CAISO and
CAISO's track record on this issue, that CAISO may not implement long-
term firm transmission rights before its MRTU implementation date or
even by that date should its MRTU implementation schedule slip. SMUD
asserts that CAISO's promise to make a timely compliance filing,
without a corresponding commitment to propose any implementation date,
much less a date ``as soon as possible'' after the filing, could lead
to further disputes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ ``FTRs'' are called ``CRRs'' under California's new market
design, MRTU.
    \102\ SMUD Rehearing Request at 8 (citing Final Rule at P 495).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    120. Santa Clara also requests clarification, or, in the
alternative, rehearing concerning CAISO's obligation to comply with the
Final Rule. Citing the NOPR and the Final Rule, Santa Clara argues that
the Commission has found CAISO to be an organized electricity market
that is required to submit a compliance filing within the 180-day time
frame.\103\ Santa Clara asks the Commission to clarify or grant
rehearing and find that CAISO is a transmission organization with
organized electricity markets, and is currently subject to the
requirements of the Final Rule. Santa Clara states that the Final Rule
makes clear that it applies to organized electricity markets that
include ``auction-based day ahead and real time wholesale market[s],''
that do not offer financial transmission instruments with terms longer
than one year.\104\ Asserting that CAISO ``clearly operates an auction
based single price day-ahead and real-time market'' and does not offer
long-term rights with longer than annual terms, Santa Clara asks the
Commission to confirm its prior ruling that CAISO must comply with the
Final Rule. Santa Clara explains that confusion has arisen, ostensibly
based on the Commission's statement that organized electricity markets
do not include ``Day 1'' markets.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Request for Clarification/Rehearing of Santa Clara at 5.
    \104\ See id. (quoting Final Rule at P 30).
    \105\ Id. (citing Final Rule at P 31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Conclusion
    121. First, we grant SMUD's requested clarification that compliance
filings must include implementation timetables. As we emphasized in the
Final Rule, Congress intended the swift introduction of long-term firm
transmission rights. In the Final Rule, we declined to prescribe an
effective date for tariff sheets implementing long-term firm
transmission rights, so as to provide flexibility to the various
transmission organizations to effectuate the Final Rule. Nevertheless,
we find it reasonable to require all transmission organizations,
including CAISO, to include and justify in their compliance proposals a
timetable for implementation of long-term firm transmission rights.
    122. Next, we deny SMUD's request for a blanket clarification that
the implementation of long-term firm transmission rights must take
priority over the implementation of new market designs, if
implementation of new market designs would delay availability of long-
term service. Instead, we find it reasonable to evaluate market design
priorities, including implementation of long-term firm rights, on a
case-by-case basis. As in the Final Rule, and as discussed above, see
supra P 107, we urge transmission organizations to find ways to reorder
their priorities to ensure timely implementation of long-term firm
transmission rights.
    123. With respect to CAISO in particular, SMUD's requested
clarification assumes CAISO cannot concomitantly accomplish its market
redesign on schedule and devise and timely implement long-term firm
transmission rights. We decline to make that assumption. As we recently
concluded, California's market redesign and technology upgrade (MRTU)
is needed to prevent recurrence of the California and Western power
crisis of 2000-2001. As the Commission explained in its acceptance of
the tariff CAISO filed to implement MRTU, MRTU will fix a flawed market
design, enhance reliability of the CAISO-controlled grid, and improve
market power mitigation.\106\ These improvements over the current
market design will help protect California, and the rest of the West,
from a repeat of that crisis.\107\ Long-term firm transmission rights
are also a critical feature of MRTU's improved congestion management
system, in part because these rights will help shield load serving
entities from exposure to potentially volatile congestion costs.\108\
The Final Rule directed CAISO to work with its stakeholders to develop
and submit a compliance filing within the timetable prescribed in the
Final Rule.\109\ The MRTU Order similarly required CAISO to comply with
the Final Rule concerning timely implementation of long-term firm
transmission rights.\110\ We understand SMUD's concerns, given CAISO's
lackluster history of delay with respect

to providing long-term firm transmission rights.\111\ However, now that
Congress has weighed in on the issue, we remain optimistic that CAISO
will develop a plan, tariff sheets and implementation timetable to
allow provision of long-term transmission rights at the inception of
MRTU, without delaying MRTU's target November 2007 implementation date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ MRTU Order at P 3.
    \107\ Id.
    \108\ Id. at P 9.
    \109\ Final Rule at P 493.
    \110\ MRTU Order at P 890 and 892.
    \111\ See id. at P 891 (recounting CAISO's history of
procrastination concerning long-term rights development).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    124. We also deny SMUD's request that, if implementation of
financial long-term firm transmission rights cannot be accomplished
within a short time after the date for the compliance filing, the
affected transmission organizations should develop interim plans, such
as the use of physical rights service, until a financial rights service
can be implemented. We expect that, apprised of the importance of this
matter to Congress, transmission organizations will make compliance
proposals that fully comply with the Final Rule in a timely manner. It
is premature and inappropriate to consider in this generic proceeding
whether interim plans, such as the provision of physical rights, are
needed. Similarly, we will not address in this rehearing of a
rulemaking of general applicability SMUD's assertion that the CAISO's
proposed priority nomination process, or PNP, is discriminatory. As we
explained in the Final Rule, we will address the specifics of
individual transmission organizations' implementation of the Final Rule
in our orders on compliance proposals.\112\ The compliance proposal
process provides transmission organizations with the opportunity to
offer for comment the proposals they have created after vetting issues
through their stakeholder process, and the comment process ensures the
opportunity for thorough and fair discussion of the proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ Id. at P 495.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    125. Finally, with respect to Santa Clara's requested
clarification/rehearing concerning CAISO's obligation to comply with
the Final Rule, section 1233(b) of EPAct 2005 requires the Commission
to implement the FPA's new statutory provision, section 217, concerning
long-term firm transmission rights in transmission organizations with
organized electricity markets. Significantly, as we pointed out in the
NOPR, neither EPAct 2005 nor section 217 of the FPA defines ``organized
electricity market.'' \113\ In the NOPR, we proposed to define
``organized electricity market'' as ``an auction-based market where a
single entity receives offers to sell and bids to buy electric energy
and/or ancillary services from multiple sellers and buyers and
determines which sales and purchases are completed and at what prices,
based on formal rules contained in Commission-approved tariffs, and
where the prices are used by a transmission organization for
establishing transmission usage charges.'' \114\ In the Final Rule,
however, we modified the first clause of the definition to state that
organized electricity market ``means an auction based day ahead and
real time wholesale market. * * * '' \115\ We explained that the
purpose of this modification was:

    \113\ See NOPR at P 8.
    \114\ See id.
    \115\ See Final Rule at P 30 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    to clarify the application of the Final Rule and ensure that the
definition captures the transmission organizations with organized
electricity markets using LMP and FTRs to which Congress directed
the Commission to apply this Final Rule in section 1233(b) of EPAct
2005.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ Id.

    126. CAISO does not currently operate a day-ahead wholesale energy
market, although it will upon the inception of MRTU, scheduled to take
place in November 2007. While CAISO currently has FTRs, their
characteristics will change dramatically upon implementation of MRTU--
e.g., they will be point-to-point and available to load serving
entities without participation in an auction, two features of long-term
firm transmission rights required by our guidelines. Given that the
nature of FTRs in CAISO is in transition, implementing long-term FTRs
under the current market design would be problematic. Nevertheless, we
clarify that CAISO must submit a compliance filing on January 29, 2007.
This will enable the Commission (and its staff) to monitor CAISO's
progress and ensure availability of long-term firm transmission rights
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
when MRTU goes into effect.

    By the Commission.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-19999 Filed 11-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 48 (Monday, March 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 14333]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05260]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0182]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0093

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0093,
Facilities Transferring Oil or Hazardous Materials in Bulk--Letter of
Intent and Operations Manual; without change. Our ICR describes the
information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this
ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 14, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2021-0182] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, STOP 7710,
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not
to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider
all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2021-0182], and
must be received by May 14, 2021.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Facilities Transferring Oil or Hazardous Materials in Bulk--
Letter of Intent and Operations Manual.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0093.
    Summary: A Letter of Intent is a notice to the Coast Guard Captain
of the Port that an operator intends to operate a facility that will
transfer bulk oil or hazardous materials to or from vessels. An
Operations Manual (OM) is also required for this type of facility. The
OM establishes procedures to follow when conducting transfers and in
the event of a spill.
    Need: Under 33 U.S.C. 1321 and Executive Order 12777 the Coast
Guard is authorized to prescribe regulations to prevent the discharge
of oil and hazardous substances from facilities and to contain such
discharges. The Letter of Intent regulation is contained in 33 CFR
154.110 and the OM regulations are contained in 33 CFR part 154 subpart
B.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Operators of facilities that transfer oil or hazardous
materials in bulk.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from
21,803 hours to 37,609 hours a year, due to an increase in the
estimated annual number of responses.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: March 9, 2021.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2021-05260 Filed 3-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P