[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53175-53179]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20955]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 30671; File No. 812-14128]

The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, et al.; Notice of
Application Agency: Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'')

August 22, 2013.

ACTION: Notice of application for an order approving the substitution
of certain securities pursuant to Section 26(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940, as amended (the ``1940 Act'' or ``Act'') and an
order of exemption pursuant to Section 17(b) of the Act from Section
17(a) of the Act.

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

Applicants: The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company (the
``Company''), NML Variable Annuity Account A (``VA Account A''), NML
Variable Annuity Account B (``VA Account B'') and NML Variable Annuity
Account C (``VA Account C,'' and together with VA Account A and VA
Account B, the ``Annuity Accounts'') and Northwestern Mutual Variable
Life Account (``VL Account'') and Northwestern Mutual Variable Life
Account II (``VL Account II,'' together with VL Account, the ``Life
Accounts,'' and together with the Annuity Accounts, the ``Separate
Accounts''). The Company and the Separate Accounts are collectively
referred to herein as the ``Substitution Applicants.'' The Substitution
Applicants and Credit Suisse Trust are also collectively referred to as
the ``Section 17 Applicants.''

Summary of the Application: The Substitution Applicants seek an order
pursuant to Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act, approving the substitution
of shares of the Commodity Return Strategy Portfolio (the ``Replacement
Fund''), a series of Credit Suisse Trust, for shares of the Commodities
Return Strategy Portfolio (the ``Replaced Fund''), a series of the
Northwestern Mutual Series Fund, Inc. (the ``Series Fund''), under each
of the variable annuity contracts and variable life insurance policies
issued by the Separate Accounts (collectively, the ``Contracts''). The
Section 17 Applicants seek an order pursuant to Section 17(b) of the
1940 Act exempting them from 17(a) of the Act to the extent necessary
to permit them to engage in certain in-kind transactions in connection
with the substitution (``In-Kind Transactions'').

DATES: Filing Date: The application was filed on March 6, 2013, and the
amended and restated application was filed on July 12, 2013.

Hearing or Notification of a Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders hearing. Interested persons
may request a hearing by writing to the Secretary of the Commission and
serving the 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 September 17, 2013, 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 requester's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues

contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, SEC, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Applicants: Chad E. Fickett, Assistant General Counsel, The
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, 720 East Wisconsin Avenue,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202; Thomas E. Bisset, Esq., Sutherland Asbill &
Brennan LLP, 700 Sixth Street NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20001-
3980; Joanne Doldo, Credit Suisee Asset Management, LLC, One Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Cowan, Senior Counsel, or Michael
L. Kosoff, Branch Chief, Insured Investments Office, Division of
Investment Management, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Company, on its own behalf and on behalf of their respective
separate accounts, proposes to substitute shares of the Replacement
Fund for shares of the Replaced Fund held by the Separate Accounts to
fund the Contracts.
    2. The Company is the depositor and sponsor of the Separate
Accounts.
    3. Each of VA Account A, VA Account B, VA Account C, VL Account and
VL Account II is a ``separate account'' as defined by Rule 0-1(e) under
the Act and each is registered under the Act as a unit investment trust
for the purpose of funding the Contracts. Security interests under the
Contracts have been registered under the Securities Act of 1933. The
application sets forth the registration statement file numbers for the
Contracts and the Separate Accounts.
    4. The variable annuity Contracts are either flexible premium
variable annuity contracts or unallocated group combination variable
annuity contracts. The variable life insurance Contracts are either
variable whole life forms of insurance contracts or variable universal
life insurance contracts. Under each of the Contracts (the proper form
of which is provided to every Contract owner) as well as the prospectus
for each Contract, the Company has the right to substitute shares of
one fund for shares of another fund managed by either the same
investment adviser or by a different investment adviser.
    5. The Replaced Fund is registered as an open-end management
investment company and is a series of the Series Fund (File Number 811-
03990). It offers its shares only to the Company and the Accounts for
purposes of funding the Contracts.
    6. The Replaced Fund has entered into an investment advisory
agreement with Mason Street Advisors, LLC (``MSA''), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company.
    7. The Series Fund has received an exemptive order from the
Commission (``Multi-Manager Order'') that permits the Manager, or any
entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control (within the
meaning of Section 2(a)(9) of the 1940 Act) with the Manager, subject
to certain conditions, to hire and replace unaffiliated subadvisors and
to enter into and amend sub-advisory agreements without shareholder
approval.
    8. MSA has entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Credit Suisse
Asset Management, LLC (``CSAM''). CSAM is part of the asset management
business of Credit Suisse Group AG, a worldwide bank and financial
services provider.
    9. The Replacement Fund is registered as an open-end management
investment company and is a series of the Series Fund (File Number 811-
07261). It offers its shares only to variable annuity and variable life
insurance contracts offered by the separate accounts of certain
insurance companies, to certain tax-qualified pension and retirement
plans and other investment companies.
    10. The Replacement Fund has entered into an investment advisory
agreement with CSAM under which CSAM acts as investment adviser for the
Replaced Fund's portfolio of investments. CSAM does not have the
authority to retain sub-advisers to manage all or a portion of the
Replacement Fund's assets without obtaining shareholder approval. CSAM
voluntarily waives fees and reimburse expenses so that the Replacement
Fund's annual operating expenses will not exceed 1.05% of average daily
net assets.
    11. The Replacement Fund is neither an affiliate nor a second-tier
affiliate of the Company or the Accounts. However, for purposes of
Section 2(a)(3) of the 1940 Act, after the substitution the Replacement
Fund may be deemed an affiliate of the Company and the Accounts, if the
Accounts own 5% or more of the shares of the Replacement Fund. CSAM is
currently a second-tier affiliate of the Accounts by virtue of its role
as investment sub-adviser to the Replaced Fund.
    12. The Substitution Applicants state that the Funds' investment
objectives, principal investment strategies and risks are substantially
the same. A comparison of the investing objectives, strategies and
risks of the Replaced Fund and the Replacement Fund is included in the
application.
    13. The following table compares the fees and expenses of the
Replaced Fund and the Replacement Fund as of the year ended December
31, 2012:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Restated to reflect current fees.
    \2\ Includes fees and expenses incurred indirectly by the
Replaced Fund as a result of its investments in investment companies
and other pooled investment vehicles as well as the expenses of
investing in the NMSF Subsidiary (referred to as ``Acquired Fund
Fees and Expenses'').

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                The
                                      The replaced fund     replacement
                                          (percent)            fund
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management Fee....................  0.80................            0.50
Distribution and Service (12b-1)    None................            0.25
 Fee.
Other Expenses....................  0.16................            0.59
Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses...  0.07................             N/A
Total Annual Operating Expenses...  \1\ \2\ 1.03........    \1\ \3\ 1.34
Expense Reimbursement and Fee       (0.08)..............             N/A
 Waiver.
Total Annual Operating Expenses     \1\ \4\ 0.95........        \1\ 1.34
 After Expense Reimbursement and
 Waiver.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. The Substitution Applicants state that the reason for the
proposed substitution is in response to a recent rule amendment adopted
by the CFTC that eliminated the Replaced Fund's ability to rely on the
exclusion provided by CFTC Rule 4.5 to avoid regulation as a commodity
pool unless it were to substantially curtail its use of futures,
options, swaps and other financial instruments now regulated by the
CFTC, which would prevent it from pursuing its principal investment
strategies. MSA has informed the Replaced Fund's Board of Directors
that in light of the consequences of these new regulatory requirements,
it has determined to discontinue its services as investment adviser to
the Replaced Fund and that the Replaced Fund be terminated. Given these
circumstances, the Replaced Fund's Board of Directors, at a meeting of
the Board held on February 21, 2013, decided to terminate the Replaced
Fund and liquidate its assets as soon as is reasonably practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Other Expenses'' include expenses of both the Replacement
Fund and the Credit Suisse Subsidiary.
    \4\ MSA has entered into a written expense limitation agreement
under which it has agreed to limit the total expenses of the
Replaced Fund (excluding taxes, brokerage, other investment-related
costs, interest and dividend expenses and charges and extraordinary
expenses) to an annual rate 0.95 of the Replaced Fund's average net
assets. This expense limitation agreement may be terminated by MSA
at any time after April 30, 2014. MSA has entered into an agreement
to waive its management fee in an amount equal to the management fee
paid to it by the NMSF Subsidiary. This waiver will remain in effect
for the life of the Replaced Fund, as long as the Replaced Fund
remains invested in the NMSF Subsidiary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. The Substitution Applicants represent that replacing the
Replaced Fund with the Replacement Fund will provide the best possible
consistency in terms of investment objectives and strategies, risks,
and management, and provides comparable performance. The Replacement
Fund has an identical investment objective and nearly identical
investment strategies to those of the Replaced Fund. The Replacement
Fund also provides the greatest possible continuity of investment
management services because the investment adviser to the Replacement
Fund is the current sub-adviser to the Replaced Fund, and the same
portfolio managers make the day-to-day investment decisions for both
Funds. In addition, the Replacement Fund offers an immediate
opportunity for increased economies of scale resulting from the
infusion of assets currently held by the Replaced Fund, as well as
future opportunity for asset growth due to its availability to other,
unaffiliated separate accounts and pension plans, as well as other
investment companies.
    16. The Replaced Fund's total net assets as of May 1, 2013 were
$135,658,744, compared to total net assets of the Replacement Fund of
$84,596,457. However, unlike the Replaced Fund, the availability of the
Replacement Fund is not restricted to the Accounts, but instead is
available to the variable separate accounts of multiple insurance
companies, pension plans and other investment companies, offering
greater potential for even further asset growth and economies of scale.
    17. The Company also believes that an important consideration for
substituting the Replacement Fund for the Replaced Fund is Contract
owner expectations regarding performance. For the one year period ended
December 31, 2012 investment performance of the Replacement Fund was
0.26% higher than the Replaced Fund's return for the comparable period
(though long-term performance is less subject to comparison given the
relatively recent inception date of the Replaced Fund). Both Funds,
however, share the same Morningstar rankings and categories.
    18. The Substitution Applicants note that the overall expenses of
the Replacement Fund are higher than the overall expenses of the
Replaced Fund. In light of this, and consistent with prior substitution
applications, for twenty-four months following the date of the
substitution and for those Contracts with Contract value invested in
the Replaced Fund on the date of the proposed substitution, on or
around the last day of each fiscal period (not to exceed a fiscal
quarter), the Company will reimburse Contract owners to the extent the
sum of the operating expenses of the Replacement Fund (taking into
account any fee waivers and expense reimbursements) and subaccount
expenses for such period exceeds, on an annualized basis, the sum of
the operating expenses of the Replaced Fund (taking into account any
fee waivers and expense reimbursements) and subaccount expenses for the
fiscal year preceding the date of the proposed substitution.\5\ In
addition, for twenty-four months following the date of the proposed
substitution, the Company will not increase total separate account
charges for Contracts outstanding on the date of the proposed
substitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For purposes of this limitation, Net Total Annual Operating
Expenses of the Replaced Fund are 0.95%. See the fee table
comparison in the ``Fees and Expenses'' section above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legal Analysis and Conditions

    19. By supplements to the Contract prospectuses or by disclosures
in the prospectuses for the Contracts for new Contract owners after May
1, 2013, the Company notified existing Contract owners of its intention
to take the necessary actions, including seeking the order requested by
the Application, to carry out the proposed substitution as described
herein. These disclosures advise Contract owners that the Company has
filed or would file an application to seek approval of the
substitution, and that if the substitution is approved, any Contract
value allocated to the subaccount investing in the Replaced Fund on the
date of substitution will be automatically transferred to the
subaccount investing in the Replacement Fund.
    20. In addition, these disclosures inform Contract owners that any
Contract owner not wanting his or her entire Contract value in the
Replaced Fund to be automatically transferred to the Replacement Fund
on the date of substitution should consider transferring the Contract
value in the Replaced Fund to other investment options available under
the Contract. The disclosures also inform Contract owners that the
Company does not impose charges in connection with the transfer to any
of the investment options available under the Contract, nor does the
Company impose restrictions on transfers (other than short-term trading
restrictions on frequent transfers to prevent market timing
transactions and other restrictions noted in the applicable Contract
prospectus). Finally, the disclosures explain that the Company bears
all expenses related to the substitution, and that there would be no
tax consequences for Contract owners as a result of the substitution.
Additionally, within five days following the date of substitution,
Contract owners affected by the substitution will be notified in
writing that the substitution was carried out. This notice will largely
restate the information set forth in the prospectus and prospectus
supplements described above. The forms of the proposed supplements were
attached as exhibits A-1 and A-2, respectively, to the initial
Application.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See File No. 812-14128, filed March 6, 2013 (SEC accession
number<PHONE_NUMBER>-13-093752).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. The current summary or statutory prospectus for the Replacement
Fund will have been provided to all Contract owners prior to the date
of substitution. The Company currently intends the effective date of
the substitution to be no later than the fourth quarter of 2013,
depending on SEC approval as well as

operational or other factors that may affect the implementation of the
substitution transaction. The effective date of the substitution may be
earlier. All Contract owners will have been given sufficient advance
notice of the date on which the substitution will take effect.
    22. The substitution will not cause the Contract fees and charges
currently being paid by existing Contract owners to be greater after
the substitution than before the substitution. The proposed
substitution will also not be treated as a transfer of Contract value
for purposes of determining the number of transfers permitted under the
Contracts' short-term trading restrictions.
    23. The Company will not exercise any reserved right it may have
under the Contracts to impose additional charges for transfers of
accumulated Contract value for a period of at least 30 calendar days
following the effective date of the substitution. Similarly, after
giving proper notice in advance of the substitution, the Company will
permit Contract owners to make their first transfer of accumulated
Contract value out of the Replaced Fund to another investment option
(or the fixed option in the case of certain Variable Annuity
contracts), without such transfer being treated as a transfer for
purposes of the Contracts' short-term trading restrictions. As
previously noted, the Contracts do not currently impose (although they
reserve the right to impose) any charges or fees for executing
transfers.

Section 26(c) Relief

    24. The Substitution Applicants request that the Commission issue
an order pursuant to Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act approving the
substitution by the Company of shares of the Replacement Fund for
shares of the Replaced Fund. Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act requires the
depositor of a registered unit investment trust holding securities of a
single issuer to receive Commission approval before substituting the
securities held by the trust.
    25. The Substitution Applicants assert that the proposed
substitution is not the type of substitution that Section 26(c) was
designed to prevent. Unlike traditional unit investment trusts where a
depositor could only substitute an investment security in a manner
which permanently affected all the investors in the trust, the
Contracts provide each Contract owner with the right to exercise his or
her own judgment and transfer Contract values into other subaccounts
and a fixed option as applicable. Moreover, as is or will be described
in appropriate supplements and elsewhere, the Contracts will offer
Contract owners the opportunity to make a one-time transfer out of the
affected subaccount into any of the remaining subaccounts without any
cost or limitation other than those disclosed in the applicable
prospectuses previously provided to Contract owners. Contract owners
always have the right to change their allocations at any time without
restrictions or charges of any sort beyond those already noted. The
proposed substitution, therefore, will not result in the type of costly
forced redemption that Section 26(c) was designed to prevent.
    26. The Substitution Applicants submit that the proposed
substitution meets the standards set forth in Section 26(c) and that,
if implemented, the substitution would not raise any of the
aforementioned concerns that Congress intended to address when the 1940
Act was amended to include this provision. In addition, the
Substitution Applicants submit that the proposed substitution meets the
standards that the Commission and its Staff have applied to
substitutions that have been approved in the past.

Section 17(b) Relief

    27. The Section 17 Applicants also request an order of the
Commission under Section 17(b) exempting them from the provisions of
Section 17(a) to the extent necessary to permit the Company to carry
out the In-Kind Transactions.
    28. Section 17(a)(1) of the 1940 Act, in relevant part, prohibits
any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any
affiliated person of such person (``first tier affiliates'' and
``second tier affiliates'', respectively), acting as principal, from
knowingly selling any security or other property to that investment
company. Section 17(a)(2) of the 1940 Act generally prohibits such
persons acting as principals from knowingly purchasing any security or
other property from the registered investment company.
    29. Pursuant to Section 17(a) of the 1940 Act, the Section 17
Applicants may be considered affiliates of one or more of the Funds
involved in the proposed substitution, based upon the definition of
``affiliated person'' under Section 2(a)(3) of the 1940 Act. Section
2(a)(3) defines an ``affiliated person'' of another person, in relevant
part, as ``(A) any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling,
or holding with power to vote, 5 per centum or more of the outstanding
voting securities of such other person; (B) any person 5 per centum or
more of whose outstanding voting securities are directly or indirectly
owned, controlled, or held with power to vote, by such other person; .
. . (E) if such other person is an investment company, any investment
adviser thereof . . . .''
    30. Shares held by an insurance company separate account are
legally owned by the insurance company. The Company does not currently
own any part of the Replacement Fund. Therefore, the Replacement Fund
is not currently an affiliate (or an affiliate of an affiliate) of the
Company's Accounts or the Company despite the fact that the Replaced
Fund and the Replacement Fund share an investment adviser, CSAM. It is
anticipated, however, that after the substitution transaction one or
more of the Company's Accounts would own more than 5% of the
Replacement Fund. Under these circumstances, because the proposed
substitution may be effected, in whole or in part, by means of in-kind
redemptions and subsequent purchases of shares, the proposed
substitution may be deemed to involve one or more purchases or sales of
securities or property between affiliated persons.
    31. Accordingly, as the Company and the Replacement Fund could be
viewed as affiliated persons of one another, it is conceivable that
this aspect of the proposed substitution could be viewed as being
prohibited by Section 17(a). Therefore, the Section 17 Applicants have
determined that, out of an abundance of caution, it is prudent to seek
relief from Section 17(a) in the context of this Amended Application
for the in-kind purchases and sales of the Replacement Fund's shares.
    32. The Section 17 Applicants submit that the terms of the proposed
in-kind purchases of shares of the Replacement Fund, including the
consideration to be paid and received, as described in this Amended
Application, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on
the part of any persons concerned. The Section 17 Applicants also
submit that the proposed in-kind purchases will be consistent with the
investment policies of the Replaced Fund and the Replacement Fund, as
recited in the current registration statements and reports filed by
them under the 1940 Act. Finally, the Section 17 Applicants submit that
the proposed substitution is consistent with the general purposes of
the 1940 Act.
    33. The Section 17 Applicants assert that, to the extent that the
in-kind purchases are deemed to involve principal transactions among
affiliated persons, the procedures described below should be sufficient
to assure that the terms of the proposed transactions

are reasonable and fair to all Contract owners. The Section 17
Applicants maintain that the terms of the proposed in-kind purchase
transactions, including the consideration to be paid and received by
each Fund, are reasonable, fair and do not involve overreaching on the
part of any person principally because the transactions will conform
with all but one of the conditions enumerated in Rule 17a-7. The
proposed transactions will take place at relative net asset values as
of the date of substitution in conformity with the requirements of
Section 22(c) of the 1940 Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder with no change
in the amount of any Contract owner's Contract value or death benefit
or in the dollar value of his or her investment in any of the Accounts.
Contract owners will not suffer any adverse tax consequences as a
result of the substitution. The fees and charges under the Contracts
will not increase because of the substitution.
    34. Even though the Section 17 Applicants may not rely on Rule 17a-
7, the Section 17 Applicants believe that the Rule's conditions outline
the type of safeguards that result in transactions that are fair and
reasonable to registered investment company participants and preclude
overreaching in connection with an investment company by its affiliated
persons. The board of the Replacement Fund has adopted procedures, as
required by paragraph (e)(1) of Rule 17a-7, pursuant to which a series
may purchase and sell securities to and from their affiliates. The
Section 17 Applicants will carry out the proposed in-kind purchases in
conformity with all of the conditions of Rule 17a-7 and the Replacement
Fund's procedures adopted thereunder, except that the consideration
paid for the securities being purchased or sold may not be entirely
cash. The investment adviser for the Replacement Fund will examine any
securities received from an in-kind redemption, and accept any
securities that they would otherwise have purchased for cash for the
Replacement Fund to hold. The circumstances surrounding the proposed
substitution will be such as to offer the Replacement Fund the same
degree of protection from overreaching that Rule 17a-7 provides the
Replacement Fund generally in connection with the purchase and sale of
securities under that Rule in the ordinary course of its business. In
particular, the proposed transactions will not be effected at a price
that is disadvantageous to the Replacement Fund.
    35. Although the transactions may not be entirely for cash, each
will be effected based upon (1) the independent market price of the
portfolio securities valued as specified in paragraph (b) of Rule 17a-
7, and (2) the net asset value per share of each Fund involved valued
in accordance with the procedures disclosed in its registration
statement and as required by Rule 22c-1 under the 1940 Act. Moreover,
consistent with Rule 17a-7(d), no brokerage commissions, fees, or other
costs or remuneration will be paid in connection with the proposed
transactions, except for any brokerage commissions paid in connection
with the liquidation of the securities that are not distributed as part
of the in-kind redemption, which brokerage costs will be borne by the
Company or its affiliates and not by Contract owners.
    36. Consistent with Section 17(b) and Rule 17a-7(c), any in-kind
redemptions and purchases for purposes of the proposed substitution
will be transacted in a manner consistent with the investment
objectives and policies of the Funds, as recited in their registration
statements. Any in-kind redemption will be effected on a pro-rata
basis, where the Replacement Fund will receive an approximate
proportionate share of every security position in the Replaced Fund's
portfolio in accordance with the Signature Letter, as supplemented by
the SEC in subsequent no-action letters. CSAM, the adviser to the
Replacement Fund, will examine the securities being transferred to the
Replacement Fund to ensure they are consistent with the Replacement
Fund's investment objective and policies and will retain only those
securities that it would have acquired for the Replacement Fund in a
cash transaction. In addition, the redeeming and purchasing values of
such securities will be the same.
    37. The Section 17 Applicants submit that the in-kind redemptions
and purchases described above are consistent with the general purposes
of the 1940 Act as stated in the Findings and Declaration of Policy in
Section 1 of the 1940 Act and that the proposed transactions do not
present any of the conditions or abuses that the 1940 Act was designed
to prevent. The Commission has previously granted relief to others
based on similar facts. The Section 17 Applicants represent that the
proposed in-kind purchases meet all the requirements of Section 17(b)
of the 1940 Act and request that the Commission issue an order pursuant
to Section 17(b) of the 1940 Act exempting them from the provisions of
Section 17(a) to the extent necessary to permit the Company, on behalf
of the Accounts, to carry out in-kind the proposed substitution by
redeeming shares of the Replaced Fund in-kind and using securities
distributed as redemption proceeds to purchase shares of the
Replacement Fund.

Conclusion

    For the reasons and upon the facts set forth above and in the
application, the Substitution Applicants and the Section 17 Applicants
believe that the requested orders meet the standards set forth in
Section 26(c) of the Act and Section 17(b) of the Act, respectively,
and should therefore, be granted.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-20955 Filed 8-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 119 (Thursday, June 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40796-40799]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13207]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-200-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, Northern Natural Gas
Company; Notice of Scoping Period Requesting Comments on Environmental
Issues for the Proposed Pelto Area Abandonment Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental document, that will discuss
the environmental impacts of the Pelto Area Abandonment Project
(Project), involving the abandonment of facilities operated by
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) and Northern
Natural Gas Company (Northern) (the Companies), in Louisiana state
waters offshore of Terrebonne Parish and within the Pelto and Ship
Shoal Blocks of federal offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The
Commission will use this environmental document in its decision-making
process to determine whether the Project is in the public convenience
and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies regarding the Project. As part of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account
concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental
impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the
issuance of an authorizing Order. This gathering of public input is
referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to
focus the analysis in the environmental document on the important
environmental issues. Additional information about the Commission's
NEPA process is described below in the NEPA Process and Environmental
Document section of this notice.
    By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the
scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure
that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your
comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 14, 2023. Further details on how
to submit comments are provided in the Public Participation section of
this notice.
    Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects,
reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what
issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission
staff will consider all written comments during the preparation of the
environmental document.
    If you submitted comments on this Project to the Commission before
the opening of this docket on April 20, 2023, you will need to file
those comments in Docket No. CP23-200-000 to ensure they are considered
as part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this Project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

Public Participation

    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your
comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or [email protected].
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. Using eComment is an easy method for
submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment
on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP23-
200-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and
submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These
instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification
and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of
time you spend researching proceedings. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

Summary of the Proposed Project

    The Companies seek to abandon six pipeline segments with different
ownership interests that total about 32.1 miles. These segments are
listed below.
    Pipeline Facilities Owned by Transco
     Pipeline Segment Numbers (PSN) 1536 and PSN1534, 8-inch-
diameter pipelines located from Valve LE 2739 to the PL-11 Platform.
PSN 1536 and PSN 1534 total approximately 18.2 miles in length.
Approximately 12.6 miles of these segments are within federal waters
and 5.6 miles are within state waters.
     PSN 4778, a 12-inch-diameter pipeline totaling 0.9-mile in
length and located from Valve LE 1593 and Valve LE 1597 to Valve LE
195, entirely within federal waters.
     PSN 5136, a 16-inch-diameter pipeline totaling 0.9 mile in
length and located from the PL-10 Platform to Valve LE 1694, entirely
within federal waters.
    Pipeline Facilities Owned by Transco and Northern \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A third company, Kinetica Midstream Energy, LLC (Kinetica),
owns the remaining 6.98 percent of both PSN 5135 and PSN 5137.
Kinetica has previously abandoned services to these assets and, as
such, is not a party listed as an applicant to this application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     PSN 5135, a 12-inch-diameter pipeline totaling 1.3 miles
in length and located from the Ship Shoal 70 Platform (SS-70 Platform)
to Valve LE 1596,

entirely within federal waters. Transco owns 82.94 percent, and
Northern owns 10.08 percent of this segment.
     PSN 5137, a 20-inch-diameter pipeline totaling 10.8 miles
in length and located from the SS-70 Platform to Valve LE 1694,
entirely within federal waters. Transco owns 82.94 percent and Northern
owns 10.08 percent of this segment.
    Additionally, Transco proposes to abandon risers in place from the
PL-10 and PL-11 Platforms, abandon risers by removal from the SS-70
Platform, and remove metering and associated equipment from the PL-10,
PL-11, and SS-91 Platforms in federal waters.
    Project pipelines in federal waters are within a Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management (BOEM) identified Significant Sediment Resource Area
and are required by BOEM to be removed upon abandonment. Similarly, the
Louisiana Office of State Lands requires removal of abandoned pipelines
within state waters. Therefore, all Project pipelines would be
abandoned by removal, with the exception of 40- to 80-foot-long
sections located at 27 active foreign pipeline crossings (resulting in
approximately 0.2 to 0.4 mile of pipeline abandoned in place).
    The general location of the Project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary''. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice. At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY
(202) 502-8659.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Abandonment

    A total of about 1,156.1 acres would be temporarily impacted by the
Project. Following the completion of Project activities, all temporary
workspaces within federal and state waters would be restored to
approximate pre-construction contours through normal tidal and wave
action.

NEPA Process and the Environmental Document

    Any environmental document issued by the Commission will discuss
impacts that could occur as a result of the abandonment activities,
under the relevant general resource areas:
     geology and sediments;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     environmental justice;
     air quality and noise; and
     reliability and safety.
    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed Project or portions of the Project and make recommendations on
how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your
comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues
that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially
eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental
document.
    Following this scoping period, Commission staff will determine
whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present Commission
staff's independent analysis of the issues. If Commission staff
prepares an EA, a Notice of Schedule for the Preparation of an
Environmental Assessment will be issued. The EA may be issued for an
allotted public comment period. The Commission would consider timely
comments on the EA before making its decision regarding the proposed
project. If Commission staff prepares an EIS, a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an EIS/Notice of Schedule will be issued, which will open up an
additional comment period. Staff will then prepare a draft EIS which
will be issued for public comment. Commission staff will consider all
timely comments received during the comment period on the draft EIS and
revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any EA
or draft and final EIS will be available in electronic format in the
public record through eLibrary \3\ and the Commission's natural gas
environmental documents web page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). If eSubscribed, you
will receive instant email notification when the environmental document
is issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the environmental document.\4\ Agencies that would like
to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for
filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, section 1501.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office, and
to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential
effects on historic properties.\5\ The environmental document for this
project will document findings on the impacts on historic properties
and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list federal, state, and local government
representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and
public interest groups; and other interested parties. Commission staff
will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to
ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are
sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities
interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
    If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of
the following steps:
    (1) Send an email to [email protected] stating your
request. You must include the docket number CP23-200-000 in your
request. If you are requesting a change to your address, please be sure
to include your name and the correct address. If you are requesting to
delete your address from the mailing list, please include your name and
address as it appeared on this notice. This email address is unable to
accept comments.
    OR
    (2) Return the attached ``Mailing List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the

eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search''
and enter the docket number in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you
have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access
to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as
orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events along with
other related information.

    Dated: June 14, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Appendix 1

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22JN23.000

Appendix 2
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22JN23.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22JN23.002

[FR Doc. 2023-13207 Filed 6-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-C


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14625-14626]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05535]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0093; FRL-10017-83]

Pesticides; Final Guidance for Waiving Acute Dermal Toxicity
Tests for Pesticide Technical Chemicals and Supporting Retrospective
Analysis; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the
availability of the final guidance document entitled ``Guidance for
Waiving Acute Dermal Toxicity Tests for Pesticide Technical Chemicals &
Supporting Retrospective Analysis.'' Guidance documents are issued by
the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) to inform pesticide registrants
and other interested persons about important policies, procedures, and
registration related decisions, and serve to provide guidance to
pesticide registrants and OPP personnel. This final guidance document
provides information to pesticide registrants concerning the Agency's
decision to expand the potential for data waivers for acute dermal
studies to single technical active ingredients (technical AIs) used to
formulate end use products.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara Flint, Antimicrobial Division
(7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 347-0398; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who are or may be
required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also
be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the
specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

A. Authority

    This guidance is provided under the authority of FIFRA (7 U.S.C.
136 et seq.) and addresses the utility of the acute dermal toxicity
study for single technical chemicals in pesticide labelling, such as
the signal word and precautionary statements as described in 40 CFR
156.64 and 40 CFR 156.70.

B. Background

    EPA's OPP regularly receives acute lethality studies for oral,
dermal and inhalation routes along with eye irritation, skin
irritation, and skin sensitization--these data are required for both
the registration of new and reregistration of existing pesticidal
products.
    In 2016, OPP published the ``Guidance for Waiving Acute Dermal
Toxicity Tests for Pesticide Formulations & Supporting Retrospective
Analysis'' to support the Agency's goal to reduce unnecessary animal
testing. The retrospective analysis supports the conclusion that the
dermal acute toxicity study for formulations provides little to no
added value in regulatory decision making.
    In 2017 Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) released
their Acute Dermal Toxicity Waiver. This policy includes both end use
products and technical active ingredients. Stakeholders have requested
that EPA expand its waiver guidance for technical active ingredients to
support North American harmonization.
    In 2019 EPA Administrator Wheeler directed Agency leadership to
prioritize animal testing reduction efforts.
    In 2020, the Agency published the draft guidance for public comment
on October 8, 2020 (85 FR 63548), and received supportive comments from
stakeholders. Therefore, the Agency is

finalizing the draft guidance as proposed.
    This final guidance document expands the potential for data waivers
for acute dermal studies to single active ingredient technical
chemicals (technical chemicals) used to formulate end use products. The
reasoning and analysis in this dermal waiver guidance for technical
chemicals is similar to what was presented in the 2016 guidance for
end-use products. While more acute toxicity studies are submitted to
OPP annually for formulated pesticide products than for technical
chemicals, there is still the potential for animal and resource savings
from waivers for technical chemical acute toxicity studies. Further,
this guidance will allow EPA to harmonize with the PMRA.

III. Do guidance documents contain binding requirements?

    As guidance, this document is not binding on the Agency or any
outside parties, and the Agency may depart from it where circumstances
warrant and without prior notice. While EPA has made every effort to
ensure the accuracy of the discussion in the guidance, the obligations
of EPA and the regulated community are determined by statutes,
regulations, or other legally binding documents. In the event of a
conflict between the discussion in the guidance document and any
statute, regulation, or other legally binding document, the guidance
document will not be controlling.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. This unit addresses those requirements that apply to
a guidance document.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993). The guidance was not, therefore, submitted to
OMB for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This guidance document does not create any new information
collection burden that require additional approval by OMB under the
PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The
information collection activities associated with pesticide
registration are already approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 2070-
0060.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval
under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in Title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register, are listed in 40 CFR, part 9, and included on the related
collection instrument, or form, as applicable.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: March 10, 2021.
Michal Freedhoff,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2021-05535 Filed 3-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 31, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48812-48814]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18766]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0117; Notice 2]

General Motors, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: General Motors, LLC (GM) has determined that certain model
year (MY) 2016-2017 Cadillac CT6 motor vehicles do not fully comply
with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps,
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. GM filed a noncompliance
report dated October 26, 2016. GM also petitioned NHTSA on November 18,
2016, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile (202)
366-5930.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: GM has determined that certain MY 2016-2017 Cadillac
CT6 motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S7.8.13 of FMVSS
No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR
571.108). GM filed a noncompliance report dated October 26, 2016,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. GM subsequently petitioned NHTSA on November 18, 2016,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published on April 11, 2017,
in the Federal Register (82 FR 17518), with a 30-day public comment
period. One comment was received. To view the petition, all supporting
documents, and any comments, log onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) website at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the
online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2016-0117.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 12,475 MY 2016-2017 Cadillac
CT6 motor vehicles manufactured between September 4, 2015 and October
18, 2016 (the subject vehicles) are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: GM explains that the noncompliance is that the
software in the subject vehicles' parking lamp's electronic control
unit (ECU) was programmed incorrectly, causing the ECU to misinterpret
the signals from the vehicle's body control module (BCM). This results
in a higher than expected light output that may exceed the maximum
values permitted in paragraph S7.8.13 of FMVSS No. 108. Specifically,
the nine failed test points exceeded the maximum allowed value by 2.3%
to 74.8%. Eight of the nine failed test points exceeded the maximum
allowed value by 25% or more.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S7.8.13 of FMVSS No. 108, titled
``Photometry'' includes the requirements relevant to this petition:
Each parking lamp must be designed to conform to the photometry
requirements of Table XIV of paragraph S7.8.13, when tested according
to the procedure of paragraph S14.2.1. Table XIV specifies various
minimum and maximum photometric intensity requirements for parking
lamps at specified test points.
    V. Summary of GM's Petition:
    GM describes the subject noncompliance and contends that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, GM offers the following reasoning:
    (a) The subject vehicles' parking lamp-headlamp combination does
not exceed the maximum permitted glare values for headlamps specified
in FMVSS No. 108:
    GM states that NHTSA's August 2014 denial of Mercedes-Benz USA's
petition for parking lamps that exceeded maximum photometric values,
focused on a concern that the parking lamps could cause glare to
oncoming drivers (79 FR 50733).
    The subject vehicles will expose oncoming drivers to the combined
photometric output of the parking lamps and headlamps. GM claims that,
when considering glare in real-world application, the critical issue is
not the photometric output value of the parking lamp alone, but the
performance of the parking lamp in conjunction with the headlamps. GM
asserts that most appropriate way to assess this combined effect is to
measure the parking lamp-headlamp combination at the traditional
headlamp glare points (points above the horizon in the photometric beam
pattern that limit light output in the path of oncoming drivers).
    GM states that when two samples of the subject vehicles' parking
lamp-headlamp combinations were evaluated in the laboratory against
recognized glare points, the output fell below, or within, the
acceptable value of headlamp glare points specified in FMVSS No. 108.
    According to GM, it is possible for a vehicle to incorporate
parking lamps and headlamps whose outputs are near, or at the maximum
allowed values while remaining compliant. For headlamps, that output
would be at or near the maximum specified photometric values, and for
parking lamps that output would be at or near 125 candela (cd) at all
test points above the horizon. According to GM, a parking lamp with
this output value in close proximity to the headlamp at or near maximum
output could create combined output with a glare value exceeding the
maximum allowable headlamp photometric glare values by 125 cd. GM
asserts that the combination would still be compliant, because the
headlamp's glare measurement falls within the permitted values for the
headlamp alone, and the parking lamp values correspond to the permitted
values for parking lamps.
    However, GM states that the parking lamp-headlamp combination in
the subject vehicles are below the prescribed glare values for a
compliant headlamp and well below the value of the theoretical combined
parking lamp-headlamp output.
    GM argues that the photometric output of the subject vehicles'
parking lamps will not cause a glare that presents an unreasonable risk
to the safety of oncoming drivers.
    (b) GM's claim that the noncompliance has no impact on turn signal
performance: GM recognizes previous statements by NHTSA that a parking
lamp that exceeds the maximum permitted photometric values could mask
the turn signal and thereby impair the turn signal performance (See 79
FR 50733). GM argues that because the parking lamps in the subject
vehicles are optically combined with

the turn signals (i.e., when the turn signal is activated, the parking
lamp is extinguished on the side of the active turn signal), the
parking lamp does not bear on and cannot impair the performance of an
activated turn signal.
    (c) GM's belief that the noncompliance will be addressed in the
subject vehicles with a service update bulletin: GM stated it its
petition that it will issue Service Update Bulletin 16078 to address
the noncompliance condition in each of the subject vehicles at their
next dealership visit or service appointment. Cadillac CT6 owners are
provided, free of charge, Cadillac Premium Care Service for three years
or 36,000 miles covering routine maintenance including: Oil changes,
tire rotation, air filter replacement and multi-point vehicle
inspection. The subject vehicles will also invariably enter dealerships
for other reasons. GM argues that most of the subject vehicles will be
corrected during their regular warranty period. The Service Update
Bulletin will be issued to dealers once sufficient service parts become
available.
    GM concludes by again contending that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    In a letter dated February 13, 2017, subsequent to receipt of GM's
petition, GM provided the following additional information pertaining
to photometric testing of the subject parking lamps:

    (a) GM states that the photometric testing of the subject park
function was conducted by HELLA KGaA Hueck & Co., the supplier of
the lamp, at the Hella lab. The parking lamp and headlamp were
mounted in design position relative to each other on a goniometer.
The park function and the lower beam were energized
simultaneously.\1\ (In GM's letter, it provided a table evaluating
the headlamp glare values in CT6 headlamp-parking lamp
combinations.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To energize the park function on the Cadillac CT6, power and
ground are required along with an input signal that duplicates the
signal from the vehicle instructing the lamp to illuminate at the
Park lamp intensity. This is a Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) signal
with a certain frequency and duty cycle. In the Hella lab, that PWM
signal was duplicated using a specially built signal generator
consisting of a standard PWM Signal Generator and a 47 nF capacitor.
The park lamp was energized, using the PWM simulator, to duplicate
the subject condition photometry. To energize the lower beam
function on the Cadillac CT6, only power and ground is required at
its design voltage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) To verify that the results of the Hella testing correlate to
on-vehicle performance, GM tested the CT6 parking lamps in GM's full
vehicle dark room. In this test, GM mounted a photometer 10 meters
from each headlamp on approximately the optical axis (the optical
center of the beam pattern, where the horizontal and vertical axes
of the beam pattern cross). All other lamps were covered except the
parking lamp on one side of the vehicle. The vehicle was started,
and the parking lamps were energized. The lux output of the lamp was
measured and then converted into candela. This process was repeated
for the parking lamp on the other side of the vehicle. The values
were similar and verified a correlation with the Hella lab data on
the goniometer.

    The full petition and all supporting documents submitted by GM can
be viewed by logging onto the FDMS website at https://www.regulations.gov/ and following the online search instructions to
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2016-0117.''
    VI. Public Comments: One comment was received by an anonymous
source, which stated the following: ``This letter is written in
resistance to the General Motors petition for inconsequential
noncompliance that appeared in the Federal Register on April 11. It was
Docket NHTSA-2016-0117; Notice 1. You need to consider this request to
be moot. In their request, General Motors admits to another
noncompliance that must be corrected on the cars affected by the park
lamp brightness. General Motors admits that the park lamp is turned off
when the turn signal lamp is used. This is a noncompliance because the
parking lamp is required to be on and steady burning when the
headlights are on. They can fix the park lamp brightness problem when
they do the recall to make sure the park lamps stay on when the turn
signal lamps are on.''
    VII. NHTSA's Analysis: The burden of establishing the
inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a performance
requirement in a standard--as opposed to a labeling requirement with no
performance implications--is more substantial and difficult to meet.
Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such noncompliances
inconsequential.\2\ Potential performance failures of safety-critical
equipment, like seat belts or air bags, are rarely deemed
inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event
against which the recall would otherwise protect.\3\ In general, NHTSA
does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries as evidence
that the issue is inconsequential to safety. The absence of complaints
does not mean vehicle occupants have not experienced a safety issue,
nor does it mean that there will not be safety issues in the future.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013)
(finding noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it
had no effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification
system and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania
Prods. Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
    \4\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr.
12, 2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d
754, 759 (DC Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk
when it ``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden
engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such
hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in
the future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment are affected also do not justify granting of an
inconsequentiality petition.\5\ Similarly, mere assertions that only a
small percentage of vehicles or items of equipment are likely to
actually exhibit a noncompliance are unpersuasive. The percentage of
potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a noncompliance
is not relevant to whether the noncompliance poses an inconsequential
risk to safety. Rather, NHTSA focuses on the consequence to an occupant
who is exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23,
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663,
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
    \6\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14,
2004); Cosco Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has reviewed GM's petition, all supplemental information, and
the anonymous comment; and has made the decision to deny GM's petition
for the following reasons:

    GM argues that the noncompliance is inconsequential because the
subject vehicles' parking lamp-headlamp combination does not exceed the
maximum permitted glare values for headlamps specified in FMVSS No.
108. While NHTSA agrees that the parking lamp-headlamp combination does
not appear to exceed test points representing the vicinity of an
oncoming driver's eyellipse (e.g., 1U--1.5L-L; 0.5U--1.5L-L; 1.5U--1R-
R; 0.5 U--1R-3R; 0.5 U--1R-3R), it is noteworthy that glare points are
not distinctly defined in FMVSS No. 108. Based on the data provided by
GM, 8 out of 19 test points for the subject parking lamp exceeded the
FMVSS No. 108 maximum allowed value of 125 cd, seven of which exceeded
the maximum allowed values by 38% to 113%. As such, these lamps will be
noticeably brighter than a compliant lamp and can potentially be
distracting to other drivers.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ GM argues in its petition that glare from the parking lamp
does not present an unreasonable risk to the safety of oncoming
drivers however that it not the standard by which NHTSA makes
determinations of inconsequential noncompliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, it does not appear that a comprehensive set of data was
provided by GM. While GM provided data for combined lower beam and
parking lamp photometry, GM provided no data pertaining exclusively to
the lower beam or the turn signal photometry. In addition, GM only
provided select test points for lower beam photometry combined with the
parking lamps.
    It is important to note that paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 108
specifies the ratio requirements between the front turn signal lamps
and the parking lamps/clearance lamps. This establishes the requirement
that turn signal lamps have three to five times (dependent on the test
point) the luminous intensity of the parking lamps when turn signal
lamps are combined with parking lamps. If the turn signal lamps are not
sufficiently bright enough to be discernable from the parking lamp,
then other drivers may not be able to clearly identify the vehicles
intent to turn, which poses an increased risk to motor vehicle safety.
    While GM argues that extinguishing the parking lamp on the side of
the vehicle with the active turn signal prevents impairment of the
performance of the activated turn signal, NHTSA does not find this
compelling because extinguishing the parking lamp violates the steady
burning requirement of FMVSS No. 108. See 49 CFR 571.108, Table 1-a
(requiring that the parking lamp ``be activated when the headlamps are
activated in a steady burning state''). In the event that the turn
signal lamp fails to activate and the parking lamp is still
extinguished, this will reduce the visibility of the vehicle, thus,
increasing the risk to motor vehicle safety.
    Per the activation requirements for parking lamps, as specified in
Table 1-a of FMVSS No. 108, NHTSA agrees with the public comment
submitted which states that the parking lamp is required to be on, be
steady burning when the headlights are activated, and should not be
deactivated when the turn signal lamp is used.
    GM has offered to issue a service bulletin directing dealers to
remedy the noncompliance when the vehicles are brought in for service.
NHTSA notes that a manufacturer's decision to conduct a service
campaign is not a substitute for conducting a recall since consumers
will neither be notified of the noncompliance nor informed to return to
the dealership for a free remedy.
    NHTSA's Decision: As indicated in the analysis of GM's petition
provided above, NHTSA finds that GM has not demonstrated that the
noncompliance of the subject vehicles with FMVSS No. 108 is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, NHTSA hereby
denies GM's petition and GM is consequently obligated to provide
notification of, and a free remedy for, that noncompliance pursuant to
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Joseph Kolly,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2021-18766 Filed 8-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> 	<title>EPA | Envirofacts | PCS | Customized Query Engine</title> 	<meta name="DC.title" content=""> 	<meta name="DC.description" content=""> 	<meta name="keywords" content=""> 	<meta name="DC.Subject" content=""> 	<meta name="DC.type" content=""> 	 	<meta name="DC.date.modified" content=""> 	<meta name="DC.date.created" content=""> 	<meta name="DC.date.reviewed" content="">

	<meta name="DC.language" content="en"> 	<meta name="DC.creator" content="">

	<link rel="schema.DC" href="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"> 	<link rel="meta" href="http://www.epa.gov/labels.rdf" type="application/rdf+xml" title="ICRA labels"> 	<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">

	 	 	<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="print" href="./US EPA 2010a_files/print.css"> 	 	 <link rel="stylesheet" media="screen" type="text/css" href="./US EPA 2010a_files/foresee-dhtml.css">
Jump to main content.

Water Discharge Permits (PCS)

	 	<form id="EPAsearch" method="get" action="http://nlquery.epa.gov/epasearch/epasearch">
Recent Additions | Contact Us 			Search: 			<input name="typeofsearch" id="EPAall" type="radio" value="epa">All EPA 			<input name="typeofsearch" id="Areaall" type="radio" value="area" checked="checked">This Area 			<input name="querytext" id="searchbox" value=""> 			<input name="submit" id="searchbutton" type="submit" value="Go"> 			<input type="hidden" name="fld" value="envirofw"> 			<input type="hidden" name="areaname" value="Envirofacts Data Warehouse"> 			<input type="hidden" name="areacontacts" value="/enviro/html/ef_feedback.html"> 			 			<input type="hidden" name="areasearchurl" value=""> 			 			<input type="hidden" name="result_template" value="epafiles_default.xsl"> 			<input type="hidden" name="filter" value="samplefilt.hts">
 </form>

You are here: EPA Home

Envirofacts

PCS

Customized Query Engine

      Customized Query Engine

This query engine allows you select any data element in PCS to build a

tabular report or a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file for downloading.

There are four steps to using this query engine:

Select one or more of the subjects listed below, one at a time.

Select your tables of interest from the subjects selected.

Select columns (data elements or fields) from the selected tables.

Enter your search criteria to target specific records from the database.

 The  Customized Query Engine User's Guide  will provide you with detailed

information on how to use the Query Engine.

WARNING:  Many PCS tables contain over 1 million rows.  Output results greater than 500K (500 thousand bytes) may cause your browser to fail.  Please limit your query through specific selection criteria.  Note:  Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser handles large (greater than 500K) output results better than Netscape's Navigator browser.

  Pending migration to a new system, the data for the Permit Compliance System (PCS) will remain frozen in Envirofacts for the following states and territories as of the below listed dates:
           Frozen as of June 6th, 2006: MA,NH,RI,VI,PR,DC,MD,IN,NM,UT,HI,AK,ID
          Frozen as of August, 2006: AS,AT,CT,CZ,FM,GA,GB,GU,JA,MH,MP,MT,MW,NE,NI,NN,NV,NY,PA,PW,SD,SR,TT,UM
          Frozen as of April 24th, 2008: IL
          Frozen as of August 26th, 2008: AR,CA,CO,OK,TN,WI
          Frozen as of June 17th, 2009: TX, LA, GM, AL
 Please refer to the ECHO Clean Water Act Query Screen to retrieve updated data for the states frozen in Envirofacts.

Step 1: Start by selecting one subject to be the primary focus of your query by clicking on one of the underlined subject names listed below.

Facility

Information

Address and other location information about the facility.

Single Event Violation

A table of violations that are characterized as one-time events that occurred on a fixed date, and are associated with one permitted facility.

Pipe Schedule -- Outfalls

Tables of information about particular discharge points at a permit facility that are governed

 by effluent limitations and monitoring and submission requirements.

Effluent Limits--Allowable Discharges

Tables containing restrictions imposed on quantities, discharge rates, and concentrations of pollutants by the permit.

Effluent Measurements/Violations

A table of measurements of effluents reported on the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR).

The violations are detected by comparing the measurement values against the corresponding effluent limit.

Permit Event

A table of events that track the life-cycle of a permit from issuance to expiration.

Evidentiary Hearing Event

A table of evidentiary hearing events for a facility with a NPDES permit.

Pretreatment Assessment Summary

A table of pretreatment assessment reports for a facility with a NPDES permit.

Compliance Schedules

Activities and associated milestones pertaining to the permit.

Compliance Schedule Violation

A table of violations that reflect the non-achievement of a given compliance schedule event

including the type of violation and type of resolution.

Inspection

Tables of recorded official visits to a permit facility.

Reference

A table providing text descriptions that explain the code meanings for each type and each possible code value

 contained on PCS tables.

Local Navigation

Overview

Query

Customized Query

Model

Law

Data Source

Office of Ground Water  and Drinking Water

Contact Us

EF Home

EPA Home

Privacy and Security Notice

Contact Us

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/adhoc.html

Print As-Is

Last updated on Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Share

Del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

StumbleUpon

What is this?

Jump to main content.


[Federal Register: March 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 58)]
[Notices]
[Page 15819-15821]
[DOCID:fr25mr08-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57523; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Rule 15 (Pre-Opening Indications)

 March 18, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 11, 2008, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') 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 substantially by NYSE. NYSE
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 15 (Pre-Opening
Indications) to: (1) Utilize the previous day's closing price on the
NYSE in arranging opening transactions; (2) utilize the relevant price
of the underlying security traded on its primary foreign market when
arranging opening transactions for American Depositary Receipts
(``ADRs''); \5\ and (3) revise the price change parameters. The text of
the proposed rule change is available at http://www.nyse.com, the
Exchange, and the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See the NYSE glossary, which defines an ADR as ``[a] receipt
that is issued by a U.S. depository bank which represents shares of
a foreign corporation held by the bank. * * * ADRs are quoted in
U.S. dollars and trade just like any other stock. * * *''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NYSE 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. NYSE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects 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 proposes to amend Exchange Rule 15 to: (1) Utilize the
previous day's closing price on the NYSE in arranging opening
transactions; (2) utilize the relevant price of the underlying security
traded on its primary foreign market when arranging opening
transactions for ADRs; and (3) revise the price change parameters.
Background
    NYSE Rule 15 was last amended on December 20, 2007 to re-establish
procedures for the publication of pre-opening price information,
according to the framework established by the national market system
plan (``Linkage Plan'').\6\ The Exchange sought to amend Rule 15 in
response to customer and market participant requests for the pre-
opening price information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57003 (December 20,
2007), 72 FR 73949 (December 28, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-112). The
Linkage Plan became effective on October 1, 2006 and terminated on
June 30, 2007. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54551
(September 29, 2006), 71 FR 59148 (October 6, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the re-establishment of the procedures for the publication of
pre-opening price information, the Exchange has reviewed the
implementation of the rule and conferred with customers and market
participants to assess the sufficiency and utility of the pre-opening
price information currently being published. The Exchange seeks to
amend NYSE Rule 15 to enable specialists to provide pre-opening
information that is more accurate and indicative of the current state
of the NYSE market.
Use of NYSE Closing Price
    Currently, Rule 15 requires the specialist to publish a pre-opening
price indication whenever the specialist, in arranging an opening
transaction in any security, anticipates that the price of the opening
transaction will be at a price which is different from the previous
day's consolidated closing price by more than the ``applicable price
change.'' The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 15 to use the NYSE
closing price instead of the closing price of the Consolidated Tape.\6\
Since the pre-opening indications of Rule 15 no longer provide
intermarket indications, but are published solely as a means of
providing information about trading on the NYSE, the Exchange believes
it is more appropriate to use the NYSE closing price for the pre-
opening indications to more precisely reflect the market conditions on
the NYSE. Additionally, this proposed rule change is consistent with
NYSE Rule 123D (Openings and Halts in Trading), which utilizes the NYSE
previous closing price in determining the need for a mandatory
indication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the NYSE glossary, which defines the Consolidated Tape
as ``A high-speed system that continuously provides the last sale
price and volume of any securities transaction in listed stocks to
the public. All trades in NYSE-listed securities, regardless of the
market center on which such trades occur, are reported to and
disseminated on the ticker system.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modifications of Price Groupings
    When the procedures for the publication of pre-opening price
information were reinstated, the current price groupings and
corresponding price change parameters were broadened to more accurately
address the volatility of today's markets. However, the Exchange
believes that the recent amendment to the rule did not go far enough to
distinguish the trading characteristics of the differently priced
securities. The NYSE proposes to create five separate price groupings
and related price change parameters. The Exchange believes that these
smaller groupings and price change parameters better reflect the
differences in price movement that occur based on the trading
characteristics of the differently priced securities. The proposed five
price groupings and their related applicable price change parameters
are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Applicable
                                                                price
                   Exchange closing price                       change
                                                             (more than)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under $20.00...............................................        $0.50
$20-$49.99.................................................        $1.00
$50-$99.99.................................................        $2.00
$100-$500..................................................        $5.00
Above $500.................................................         1.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pre-Opening Price Indications, ADRs
    The Exchange further believes that it is necessary to have a
different procedure for pre-opening indications of ADRs. Where the
trading day of the underlying security in its primary foreign market
for an ADR concludes after trading on the NYSE for the previous day but
before trading on the

NYSE has opened the next day, use of the closing price for the
underlying security in the primary foreign market is a better indicator
of the current value of the underlying security when arranging the
opening transaction of an ADR on the NYSE. Similarly, in instances
where the underlying security of an ADR is still trading on its primary
foreign market at the time the specialist is arranging the opening of
such ADR on the NYSE, use of the NYSE previous day's closing price may
result in the specialist issuing a pre-opening indication that does not
adequately reflect the current price of the underlying security.
    For example, assume the NYSE previous day's closing price of ADR
XYZ was $28.00. On the following day the specialist is arranging the
opening of the ADR XYZ on the NYSE. The primary foreign market for the
underlying security XYZ is still open and the last sale price of the
underlying security is equivalent to $30.00. If the specialist
anticipates the opening price of ADR XYZ to be $28.49, according to
Rule 15 as it exists today, the applicable price change that would
require an indication is $.50; thus no indication would be required.
However, this information is not reflective of the trading in the
primary foreign market because the anticipated opening price is not on
parity with underlying security XYZ trading on the primary foreign
market.
    Pursuant to this proposed rule change, however, a specialist will
look at the last sale price of the underlying security in the primary
foreign market and issue a pre-opening indication if the anticipated
opening price of the ADR is not on parity with the last sale price of
the underlying security. The pre-opening indication will be based on
the change in parity between the anticipated opening price of the ADR
and the last sale price of the underlying security on the primary
foreign market. Thus, using the prior example, since the last sale
price of the underlying security XYZ is equivalent to $30.00, there is
a difference in parity of $1.51; thus, the specialist would issue a
pre-opening indication based on the change in parity.
    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 15 to provide that
in the case of an ADR, where the trading day of the underlying security
in the primary foreign market concludes after trading on the NYSE for
the previous day has ended, the specialists, when arranging an opening
transaction on the NYSE, shall use the closing price of the primary
foreign market of the underlying security to determine whether such
opening transaction represents a change of more than the ``applicable
price change.'' Where the primary foreign market on which the
underlying security trades is open at the time of the opening on the
Exchange, the specialist shall issue pre-opening indications based on a
change from parity with the last sale price of the underlying security.
    The Exchange believes this proposed rule change will enable
specialists to provide more accurate and timely market information to
all Exchange customers and market participants. Additionally, this
proposed rule change will further consistency of Exchange rules by
aligning Rule 15 with how specialists determine the need for
indications pursuant to other Exchange Rules.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that it is 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.
This proposed rule change to Exchange Rule 15 supports the system of a
free and open market and serves to protect investors and the public
interest by ensuring that specialists disseminate more accurate
information based on the most currently available pricing information
when arranging opening transactions on the NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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, if
consistent with the protection of investors and public interest, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Normally, a proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay set forth in Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act.\12\ The Commission believes that the
earlier operative date is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest because the proposed rule change permits the
Exchange to immediately implement changes to its pre-opening that
should enable the specialists to disseminate more accurate pre-opening
information that is indicative of the current state of the NYSE market.
For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposal to be
operative upon filing with the Commission.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Commission notes that NYSE has satisfied the five-
day pre-filing notice requirement.
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2008-16 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-16. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of NYSE. 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-NYSE-2008-16 and should be
submitted on or before April 15, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-5916 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P