[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55623-55625]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21687]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-D-1400]

Use of Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence To Support
Effectiveness of New Animal Drugs; Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is
announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry (GFI) #266
entitled ``Use of Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence to Support
Effectiveness of New Animal Drugs.'' The guidance describes FDA's
current thinking with respect to assisting sponsors in incorporating
real-world data and real-world evidence (including ongoing surveillance
activities, observational studies, and registry data) into proposed
clinical investigation protocols and applications for new animal drugs
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on October 6, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are

solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any
confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be
posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social
Security number, or confidential business information, such as a
manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name,
contact information, or other information that identifies you in the
body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2020-D-1400 for ``Use of Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence to
Support Effectiveness of New Animal Drugs.'' Received comments will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the
Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine,
Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855.
Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
electronic access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Storey, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-131), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In recent years, the Agency has taken steps to leverage modern,
rigorous analyses of real-world data to inform our work. The COVID-19
pandemic has brought an urgency to these efforts and the Agency has
worked quickly to advance collaborations with public and private
partners to collect and analyze a variety of real-world data sources.
We recognize that real-world data sources have the potential to provide
a wealth of rapid, actionable information to support and advance
regulatory decision making for both human and animal drugs.
    In the Federal Register of July 15, 2020 (85 FR 42880), FDA
published the notice of availability for a draft guidance entitled
``Use of Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence to Support
Effectiveness of New Animal Drugs,'' giving interested persons until
October 13, 2020, to comment on the draft guidance. This guidance
describes how the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) intends to
evaluate real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) in
submissions to CVM to demonstrate substantial evidence of effectiveness
for new animal drug applications or a reasonable expectation of
effectiveness for applications for conditional approval of a new animal
drug. It also provides information about how sponsors may obtain
feedback from CVM on technical issues related to the use of RWD and RWE
before the submission of an application.
    FDA received comments on the draft guidance and those comments were
considered as the guidance was finalized. Editorial changes were made
to this final guidance to improve clarity. For example, we added
language to provide context to the use of RWD and RWE from
retrospective studies in addition to RWD and RWE from prospective
studies. We also revised the language of the guidance to clarify that
the term ``animals'' can refer to an individual animal or a flock,
tank, or group depending on the context in which RWD and RWE is
collected. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft
guidance dated July 2020.
    This level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents
the current thinking of FDA on ``Use of Real-World Data and Real-World
Evidence to Support Effectiveness of New Animal Drugs.'' It does not
establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the
public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does
refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not
required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of
information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections
of information in FDA's guidance entitled ``Use of Real-World Data and
Real-World Evidence to Support Effectiveness of New Animal Drugs''

have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0032.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
either https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/guidance-regulations/guidance-industry, https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents, or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: September 29, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-21687 Filed 10-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: February 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 38)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10204-10210]
[DOCID:fr26fe08-21]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, and 271

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0032; FRL-8534-1]
RIN 2050-AG20

Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous
Waste Manifest System

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of additional
information on the electronic manifest (e-Manifest) project.
Specifically, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) has made significant progress on the e-Manifest project since
the publication of the April 18, 2006 public notice, which announced
and requested comment on our intention to develop a centralized web-
based information technology (IT) system that would be hosted on EPA's
IT architecture. However, a few issues raised by commenters in response
to the April 2006 public notice require further analysis on our part,
as we make decisions concerning the e-Manifest system.
    We received strong support in response to the April 2006 public
notice to establish a national web-based system funded through user-
fees. In addition, commenters generally supported our position that use
of e-Manifests should be at the election of the users rather than
mandatory. However, some commenters expressed concern that an optional
system would create dual paper and electronic systems. Furthermore,
industry and state comments in response to our position to allow
confidential business information (CBI) claims for e-Manifests
differed. Therefore, as explained in this notice, we are soliciting
additional comment on EPA's position on these two issues. We remain
committed to finalizing a federal regulation, once the necessary
legislation is enacted, that will authorize the regulated community to
use electronic manifests as the legal equivalent of paper manifests,
and will consider the comments received on this notice, as well as
other comments received from previous actions, before we make a final
decision.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 11, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2001-0032 by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail to: rcra-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0032.
     Fax: Comments may be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0032.
     Mail: Comments may be sent to Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Docket, 5305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-

RCRA-2001-0032. Please include a total of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the
Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-
0032. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. Please include a total of two copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2001-0032. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be captured automatically and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http:// www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the RCRA
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Copies cost $0.15/page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding
specific aspects of this document, contact Richard LaShier, Office of
Solid Waste,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Bryan Groce,
Office of Solid Waste,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mail
inquiries may be directed to the Office of Solid Waste (OSW), (5304W),
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Rule Apply to Me?

    This rule could affect up to 223,000 entities in upwards of 600
industries involved in shipping approximately 12 million tons of RCRA
hazardous wastes annually, using 5.0 million EPA Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manifests (EPA Form 8700-22 and continuation sheets EPA Form
8700-22A). These entities consist of about 15,000 RCRA large quantity
generator (LQG) waste shippers, plus about 146,000 RCRA small quantity
generator (SQG) waste shippers, plus about 350 waste transporters, plus
about 1,500 waste receiving treatment, storage, disposal facilities
(TSDFs), plus 60,000 conditionally-exempt small quantity generators
(CESQGs),\1\ plus 23 state governments known to collect paper manifests
as of 2004.\2\ If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this rule to a particular entity, consult the people listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CESQGs are exempt from Federal RCRA hazardous waste
manifesting regulations, but at least one state (CA) requires RCRA
CESQGs to use the EPA manifest for hazardous waste shipments. We
have included state-regulated CESQGs in the count of possible
affected entities for this notice in order to provide a complete
economic impact estimate, not just a narrower Federal waste impact
estimate, because the operational scope of our planned e-manifest
system will encompass manifest processing for state-regulated waste
shipments, not just Federal-regulated hazardous waste shipments.
    \2\ As surveyed in 2004 with 49 states providing responses, 23
state governments currently collect completed paper manifests
(source: ``Analysis of Site Identification Questionnaire Collected
in June and July of 2004'', August 23, 2004, compiled by Paula
Canter, Ohio EPA Division of Hazardous Waste Management, for the
Association of State & Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials). The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
surveyed state government agencies on this question in January 2007,
but only received 29 responses, so the older but more comprehensive
2004 survey is cited here. EPA estimates that these 23 states
account for 0.74 million (35%) of the 2.14 million Federally-
regulated hazardous waste paper manifests per year, and 0.89 million
(32%) of the 2.82 million state-regulated waste manifests collected
per year, representing a total 1.63 million (33%) of the 4.96
million total paper manifests completed per year (based on
extrapolation from the 2005 Federal hazardous waste shipment tonnage
reported in EPA's 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
the procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    The contents of this notice are listed in the following outline:

I. Background of E-Manifest System
II. Final Rulemaking Efforts
    A. Submission requirements to system for paper manifest copies

    B. Public access to electronic manifests and CBI claims for
manifest data
III. Request for Comments

I. Background of E-Manifest System

    On May 22, 2001, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) that proposed several major revisions to the hazardous waste
manifest system, including proposed revisions aimed at adopting an
electronic manifesting approach that would allow waste shipments to be
tracked electronically, thereby mitigating the burdens and
inefficiencies associated with the use of paper manifest forms (66 FR
28240).
    Although comments generally supported an electronic tracking
scheme, several significant issues were raised that necessitated
further analysis and stakeholder outreach prior to adopting a final e-
Manifest regulation. As a result, EPA held a two-day public meeting on
May 19-20, 2004, to discuss and obtain public input on how best to
proceed with selecting and implementing the future direction of the e-
Manifest. We heard from both the hazardous waste management industry
and state government attendees at the public meeting that there is a
strong consensus (a) in favor of establishing a nationally centralized
e-Manifest system that would consistently and securely generate and
process electronic manifests, and (b) that system users would be
willing to pay reasonable service fees to fund the development and
annual operation of the system. The full proceedings for the May 2004
public meeting have been posted on our EPA Web site at http://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/manifest/e-man.htm.
    On April 18, 2006, we published a Notice of Data Availability
(NODA) to request comment on our preferred approach for electronically
completing and transmitting manifests through a national, centralized
e-Manifest system that would be established and maintained through
user-fees. Comments strongly supported EPA's suggested approach, but
also raised a few issues about which we are seeking further comment.
Specifically, waste management industry commenters questioned whether
the resulting dual paper and centralized e-Manifest system would
generate complexity and burden that would frustrate the transition to
electronic manifests and thus, undermine the paperwork burden cost
savings goal for the e-Manifest. State agency comments indicated that
their support for electronic manifesting was contingent upon there
being a means to ensure that a complete national set of manifest data
would be established, including data from both electronic manifests and
any remaining paper manifests each year. According to these commenters,
a centralized system that did not also contain the data from paper
manifests would not present a complete picture of all RCRA and state
regulated hazardous wastes. Consequently, such a system could result in
some states having to maintain duplicative processes and systems to
collect and track the data from the remaining paper forms. Thus, both
industry and state commenters urged EPA to develop the final rule so as
to lessen the effects of dual paper and electronic manifest systems.
    The April 2006 notice also raised the issue of potential claims of
CBI regarding the manifest data. Some state government commenters
generally did not support CBI claims for manifest data and deemed
manifests to be public records. Further, these commenters also
indicated that their states have state legislation or policies which
bar CBI claims with respect to manifests. On the other hand, comments
from the waste management industry supported claiming manifest data as
CBI. These commenters were especially interested in protecting customer
information from being mined from electronic manifests by competitors.
The industry members are concerned that the availability of this
information electronically will enable competitors to obtain more
immediate and efficient access to their customer information. Public
access to paper manifests is currently limited by a number of factors:
(a) EPA does not collect completed paper manifests, except for export
and import manifests from transboundary waste shipments, so public
access requests to the vast majority of completed paper manifests must
be made to state governments, (b) as of 2004, only 23 state governments
collect completed paper manifests representing only about one-third of
the 5.0 million national manifests annually; and (c) although EPA's
RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report provides national hazardous waste
shipment and waste receipt data which reveals EPA ID numbers, company
names and addresses for waste shippers and waste receivers, the lag-
time for public access to the Biennial Report data is at least one year
\3\ after any given data reporting year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA's published schedule for data reporting and report
implementation milestones for the 2007 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial
Report, is for completion of the 2007 data year report by December
2008, which represents exactly a one-year lag-time between public
access (i.e., data availability over the internet) and the data year
(2007); the 2007 Biennial Report schedule is published at http://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm.
However, the December 2008 scheduled completion of the 2007 Biennial
Report database represents a three-year lag period relative to the
prior biennial data year 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Final Rulemaking Efforts

    We are currently developing the final rule that will authorize the
use of electronic manifests, and will address scope and other policy
issues. However, the promulgation of this rule is contingent upon the
enactment of legislation providing EPA the authority to collect user-
fees to fund the development and operation of the system. Nevertheless,
we continue to move forward with the rulemaking in anticipation of
enactment of the needed legislation.
    Based on the comments received in response to the April 2006 public
notice regarding the merits of an optional electronic manifest approach
and the CBI issue, we are announcing and requesting comment on our
preferred approaches for addressing submissions of paper-based
manifests to the electronic manifest system and for addressing CBI
claims for manifest data. These approaches are discussed below.

A. Submission Requirements to System for Paper Manifest Copies

    EPA agrees with waste management industry and state government
commenters' concern that it would not be efficient to have an
electronic manifest system collecting data only from electronic
manifests, while another paper-based system addresses the data only
from paper manifests. Therefore, we believe that the system being
designed should be a unified system for processing and distributing
data from all manifests, including data from paper manifests. We
considered several options aimed at simplifying the process for
collecting paper forms and at ensuring that the data collected from
both electronic manifests and paper forms could be efficiently
processed so that a comprehensive set of manifest data would be
available to users and regulators. We have identified a preferred
approach that we believe provides the most efficient solution to the
dual paper/electronic systems problem.
    Under our preferred approach, the final destination facility (i.e.,
designated final TSDF), for each hazardous waste shipment involving a
paper manifest, would be required to submit the top copy (i.e., Page 1
of the 6-page set) of the paper manifest form to the e-Manifest system
operator within 30 days of receipt of the waste shipment. While the

e-Manifest system is not yet designed, we envision that the designated
facility could mail a copy to the e-Manifest system operator or could
transmit an image file to the EPA system so that the e-Manifest system
operator could key in the data from the paper copies or image files to
the data system. Alternatively, the designated facility could submit
both the image file and a file presenting the manifest data to the
system in image file and data file formats acceptable to the e-Manifest
system operator and supported by the Central Data Exchange (CDX). For
paper copies mailed to the system by designated facilities, the e-
Manifest system operator would create or obtain an image file of each
such manifest, and store it on the system for retrieval by state or
federal regulators. The e-Manifest system operator also would key in,
electronically scan using an optical character recognition (OCR)
device, or otherwise transfer the federal- and state-regulated waste
data from these paper copies to the e-Manifest system. By having all
manifest data in electronic form, EPA could extract any data regarding
RCRA hazardous wastes for inclusion in its data systems, while the
states could pull off data from the system concerning both federally
regulated RCRA and state-regulated wastes for processing in the states'
own tracking systems.
    We envision that designated facilities would be required to pay a
fee to the system operator for processing the data from these final
copies of the paper forms, and the fee would presumably vary with the
type of submission (mailed copy, image file, or image plus data file),
as these submission types would likely present a different level of
effort insofar as the processing steps required to enter the form data
into the system. It is likely that the fee paid by the designated
facility would be passed on to the generator (i.e., the designated
facility's customer). We estimate that the paperwork burden cost to
TSDFs for submitting a copy of the final manifest could be $1.95 per
paper manifest, for an incremental (i.e., over current baseline) annual
cost to TSDFs of between $1.6 million and $6.5 million per year. In
addition, we estimate the possible fee that EPA's e-Manifest system
operator (or other EPA-designated e-Manifest affiliate) might charge
TSDFs for receiving paper manifests and for transferring (i.e., imaging
and keypunching) paper manifest data to the e-Manifest system, could be
between $0.25 to $0.75 per paper manifest, for an incremental (i.e.,
over current baseline) annual cost to TSDFs of between $0.2 million and
$2.9 million. On a combined basis, we estimate these two components of
paper manifest processing incremental costs to TSDFs could total
between $1.8 million and $9.4 million annually, representing an average
incremental cost to TSDFs of $2.20 to $2.70 per paper manifest. We
invite public comment on our approach and the cost estimates.
    We believe such an approach simplifies manifest copy submissions
for the regulated TSDFs, who in the future would only need to provide
designated facility copies to one location--the national centralized e-
Manifest system--rather than supply copies to the numerous state
agencies that now collect a copy of the final manifest. Further, it
focuses the federal collection effort on a copy of the final paper
manifest forms from the designated facilities, which provide the best
accounting of the quantities and types of hazardous wastes that were
actually received for management. We believe that providing a means to
collect a complete set of hazardous waste receipts data from RCRA TSDFs
(the merged set of paper and electronic manifest data), also may in the
future provide EPA with the means to replace biennial reporting by
TSDFs of waste receipts data with a much simpler approach that relies
upon the designated facility data reported to the e-Manifest system.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA intends to publish a notice and seek comment on
potential changes to the Hazardous Waste Report (i.e., Biennial
Report) before any changes are made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also believe that there are a number of benefits of this
approach to state programs. As states are connected to the e-Manifest
system through EPA's National Environmental Information Exchange
Network, they would be able to pull off the image files and the data
keyed from paper manifests from this central processing service, just
as they would be able to obtain the data and presentations of
electronic manifests from the eXtensible Markup Language (XML) schemas
and stylesheets transmitted on the e-Manifest system. This national
data system also presents a much more efficient approach that can
eliminate the need for discrete state systems designed to capture
manifest data.
    In addition, as the e-Manifest system operator would be able to
assess appropriate fees for the paper processing and data entry
activities necessary to process the data from paper forms and enter
them into the e-Manifest system, the actual costs of providing these
services would be recovered by the system operator from the designated
facility. Since we expect that electronic manifests will be much more
efficient to process than paper forms, the differential fees that are
established for paper and electronic manifest processing likely would
operate as an additional incentive for the transition to electronic
manifests.
    While we intend to clarify in the final rule that the use of the
electronic manifest format would be optional for members of the
regulated community, our preferred approach to collect a copy of the
final paper manifest forms from designated facilities and to process
the data from these paper forms centrally means that these designated
facilities will be required to interact with the e-Manifest system
(i.e., submitting data either electronically or by mail and paying
established fees). Thus, this NODA confirms our intention to have a
single national hazardous waste database.
    Facilities that elect to use the electronic manifest format would
submit their manifest information electronically as a natural
consequence of participating in the e-Manifest system. The e-Manifest
system would be designed for the purpose of distributing electronic
manifest data among the users and regulatory agencies, while the
electronic manifest information is being obtained, processed, and
transmitted electronically via the e-Manifest system. On the other
hand, those facilities and hazardous waste handlers that choose to use
the paper manifest forms or are presented with paper forms rather than
electronic manifest formats, would need to process the paper manifest
forms physically in the conventional manner that has been the norm
since the uniform hazardous waste manifest form was introduced in 1984.
However, in place of sending a copy of the final manifest directly to
the destination state, the final rule would require the designated
facility to send Copy 1 of the paper manifest form to EPA's e-Manifest
system operator. Thus, the designated facilities would be required to
submit a copy of the final manifest to the e-Manifest system, either in
the supported electronic format or as a paper copy, and pay a fee for
this service. In other words, the use of the electronic manifest format
would be voluntary under the final rule, although the submission of
either a completed paper or electronic manifest to the EPA system
operator and payment of an associated fee in every case would be
required of designated facilities. Once this requirement is effective,
and all copies of the final manifest (electronic or paper) from
designated facilities are being submitted directly to EPA's e-Manifest
system

operator, the states would be able to obtain their copies of the final
manifest and data from the e-Manifest system through their computer
systems on the National Environmental Information Exchange Network. It
is EPA's intent that the submission of the final paper manifest copy to
the e-Manifest system would replace the requirement to supply paper
manifests directly to the states. Since the states would have nodes in
place on the Exchange Network for receiving manifest copies from the
system, it would no longer be necessary for the states to require the
direct submission of paper copies to the states. Thus, the paper copy
submission requirement could replace the requirement for facilities to
submit copies of the final manifest to the states. Note that the
facilities that receive paper manifests will still need to retain a
paper manifest copy among their own facility records for the 3-year
record retention period in accordance with current requirements. We
request comment on our recommendation to collect a copy of the final
electronic and paper manifest forms from designated facilities and to
process the data from these forms centrally.

B. Public Access to Electronic Manifests and CBI Claims for Manifest
Data

    1. Individual Manifest Records and Commercial Confidentiality
Concerns. With the exception of export and import manifests from
transboundary waste shipments, EPA previously has not generally
collected hazardous waste manifests. While data from export or import
manifests have been claimed as CBI in the past, since the adoption of
the new hazardous waste manifest form (EPA Form 8700-22) and
continuation sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A) (70 FR 10776 (March 4, 2005); 71
FR 19842, 19847 (April 18, 2006)), our records indicate that no CBI
claims have been made at this time regarding any of the data contained
in these manifests. Thus, until now, the Agency has not had a need to
determine any national policy with respect to the eligibility of
manifest data for CBI claims. Based on the information now available to
EPA on this question, EPA has concluded that information contained in
individual hazardous waste manifest records, including any individual
electronic manifests that may be submitted and collected electronically
through the e-Manifest system, is essentially public information and
therefore is not eligible under federal law for treatment as CBI. The
effect of this decision is that EPA would be making a categorical
determination that it will not accept any CBI claims that might be
asserted in the future in connection with processing, using, or
retaining individual paper or electronic manifests. This decision, we
believe, should apply prospectively from the effective date of the e-
Manifest final rule because the Agency has not previously announced
this position and thus it would be unfair or inappropriate for the
Agency to release such information, particularly for those companies
that have previously made such a claim. Thus, it would not impact any
CBI claims or any determinations made in the past by EPA in resolving
manifest-related CBI claims. Our rationale is explained in the
following paragraphs.
    First, we believe that any CBI claim that might be asserted with
respect to individual manifest records would be extremely difficult to
sustain under the substantive CBI criteria. 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B,
and 40 CFR 260.2. As manifests are shared with several commercial
entities while they are being processed and used, a business concerned
with protecting its commercial information would find it exceedingly
difficult to protect its individual manifest records from disclosure by
all the other persons who come into contact with its manifests. For
example, a business desiring to protect commercial information in the
manifest context would need to enter into and enforce non-disclosure
agreements or similar legal mechanisms with all its customers and other
third parties and affected interests who might also be named as waste
handlers on its manifests or who otherwise might be expected to come
into contact with its manifests. Moreover, as many states now require
the submission of generator and/or TSDF copies of manifests, and the
data from these manifests are often made publicly available or reported
in federal and state information systems, it seems apparent to EPA that
much of the information that might be claimed now by industry
commenters to be CBI is already available from a number of government
and other legitimate sources. We have little information on whether
states have withheld manifest or aggregate data, as the State surveys
did not disclose any pattern of states withholding data. We do know,
however, that California must withhold information in summary reports
that links a customer and a transporter.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Hazardous waste transporters that are authorized by CA to
use CA's consolidated manifesting procedures must submit quarterly
reports to the CA EPA Department of Toxic and Substances Control
(DTSC). The consolidated manifesting procedures apply to non-RCRA/CA
hazardous waste or to RCRA hazardous waste that is not subject to
the federal manifest requirements. The CA Health and Safety Code
Sec.  25160(d) prohibits the disclosure of the association between
any specific transporter and specific generator. The list of
generators served by a transporter is deemed to be trade secret and
confidential business information for purposes of Section 25173 and
Section 66260.2 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we are aware that some state programs have denied CBI
treatment to data contained in manifest records.\6\ Some states
disclose manifest records freely, and this has been the general
practice among those states for more than 20 years. As far as EPA
knows, free disclosure has been the common practice for dealing with
data from manifest records among some states, and there have not been
significant objections raised by members of industry to those states'
disclosure practices. EPA is not persuaded that it should reverse this
long-standing policy among those states by adopting a Federal policy
that conflicts with the prevailing state laws and policies on this
issue. We seek comment on other states' CBI treatment of manifest
records and the data contained in them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In January of 2007, the MI state representative on EPA's E-
Manifest Final Rule Work Group disseminated a survey on behalf of
ASTSWMO, through the Hazardous Waste Program Operations Task Force,
to interested states in order to request information about their
state manifest requirements, including the requirements for public
access/CBI to manifest records. Eight states responded on how they
currently treat or might treat manifest data as CBI. Responses from
the eight states are as follows: One state (NY) denies CBI treatment
to manifest records; One state (OH) allows TSDFs to claim CBI on
their annual waste report; Four states (ID, OR, SC, CT) do not give
CBI treatment to manifest data reported on quarterly or annual
reports; and Two states (FL, MI) indicate that they would not give
manifest data CBI treatment. In addition, three states (MD, NJ, PA)
that participated on the work group, but were not included in the
survey indicated that their state would not treat manifest data as
CBI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, we believe that individual manifest records and
data contained in them should not be subject to CBI claims since they
are not entitled to protection as CBI in some states. This policy will
apply to electronic and paper manifests, and to domestic and
transboundary shipment manifests. While we intend to clarify in the
final rule that individual manifest records would not be entitled to
CBI protection, we also are considering limiting access to the
preliminary/draft manifest data. Access would only be limited while the
data are being collected and verified, as manifest data are processed
and received by waste handlers, and exceptions or discrepancies are
being resolved, in the system and before the manifest information is
complete.
    Specifically, the preparation and processing of a manifest is an
iterative process that begins when the generator

fills out and signs the generator portion of the manifest; continues as
transporters review and correct the generator-supplied information,
fill in any additional transporter data fields, and then sign to
acknowledge receipt of the shipment; and concludes when the receiving
facility enters facility data, signs to acknowledge waste receipts,
rejections, or discrepancies, and then verifies the final status of the
shipment to the generator (and to many authorized states) by sending
the generator and states the final verified copy.
    EPA believes that it typically will take up to 60 days from the
start of a shipment for all the iterative manifest processing and
verification steps to be completed. As part of this process, the
designated facility must report waste receipts to the generator of that
waste within 30 days of receipt of the waste. 40 CFR 264.71(a)(2)(iv).
Any significant discrepancies must be reported to the EPA Regional
Administrator or the authorized state if the discrepancy is not
resolved between the generator and designated facility within 15 days
from the designated facility's receipt of the waste. 40 CFR
264.71(b)(4) and 264.72(c). In addition, the existing regulations
provide that exceptions must be reported by generators to EPA or
authorized states if 45 days have passed since delivery of the
hazardous waste to the initial transporter, and the generator still has
not received a copy of the final manifest signed by the designated
facility. 40 CFR 262.42.
    Therefore, during the time that waste shipments are en route to the
receiving facilities, and during the period of time after delivery of
the waste when manifest exceptions and discrepancies may be reported,
we intend to limit access to incomplete and unverified manifest data to
only the entities involved with a shipment (and to regulators and
emergency responders). These are the entities that have a need to know
about the manifest data being entered on an electronic manifest, while
the shipment is en route, or while the manifest data is subject to
review and correction--that is, during the time for verifying and
reporting waste receipts, exceptions or discrepancies, and resolving
the exceptions or discrepancies.
    However, after this 60-day period has passed, such that the
electronic manifests are considered complete and final for regulatory
purposes, EPA intends to make all manifest records available upon
request in accordance with the Federal Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. We emphasize that this suggested limited
restriction on access during the manifest creation process is intended
to protect the integrity and security of the manifest data during the
period of time that the electronic manifest is being processed and
verified by the waste handlers that are involved with the management of
the waste shipment.
    EPA requests comment on our decision to categorically and
prospectively exclude manifests from eligibility for CBI claims. In
addition, the Agency believes that the FOIA exemption for personal
privacy does not exempt from production the names of company employees
or independent contractors that appear in the manifests. EPA requests
public comment on this position. The Agency also requests comment on
its proposed policy of limiting access to incomplete and unverified
manifest information to the waste handlers named on particular
manifests (as well as regulators and emergency responders), and
allowing full disclosure of manifest information that has been
completed and verified by the receiving facilities. As we discussed
above, EPA believes that the period of limited access to preliminary
manifest data should extend no longer than 60 days after the start of
the waste shipment. However, we request comment on whether 60 days is
appropriate, or whether commenters believe that another period of time
is more appropriate.
    2. Release of Aggregate Data and Competitive Harm Concerns. EPA
understands that the waste management industry may be concerned that
the aggregation of manifest records and data contained in them in one
national electronic system may enable competitors to obtain more
immediate and efficient access to their customer information, thus
potentially creating competitive consequences not experienced under the
current paper system.
    Because EPA has not previously collected manifest records
electronically, we have no quantifiable evidence at this time to
suggest that the manifest data that would be stored in EPA's national
system would somehow create or cause competitive harm to persons or
companies that would submit data to the e-Manifest system, if that data
were released in aggregated form upon a FOIA request. Since the
individual manifest records would not be eligible for CBI treatment for
the reasons discussed above, it is a novel issue for EPA whether
requests under FOIA for data aggregated from multiple manifests would
require special handling by EPA under the FOIA exemption for
confidential business information.
    Therefore, EPA is seeking public comment on how, if at all, the e-
Manifest system should address any future FOIA requests for aggregate
manifest data. First, EPA needs information on how substantial the harm
would be to a company's competitive position (particularly since we
intend to defer the release of electronic manifest data to the general
public for 60 days) if aggregate data from multiple manifests could be
obtained from EPA under a FOIA request. How would this situation differ
quantifiably from the current situation where a FOIA request can be
made for multiple manifests and the requester must then aggregate the
relevant data in each of these manifests for himself or herself? How
different would the situation be from that which occurs now with paper
manifests given that a member of the public may generally obtain any
number of paper manifests from states under the states' current
manifest collection and tracking programs? Also, even if EPA could
offer additional protection to aggregate e-Manifest data, what would be
the benefit since requesters can instead direct their requests for
electronic manifest records to the states? The states will routinely
receive electronic manifest records from the e-Manifest system in their
capacity as RCRA regulators. However, these states would not be
required to follow EPA's determinations under the exemption for CBI of
the Federal FOIA and could instead choose or be required to release all
electronic manifest data as public information under their state laws
and procedures. Given our uncertainty about the adverse effects or
competitive harm to waste management businesses that would submit
manifests to the national e-Manifest system, we seek comment on whether
the release of aggregated data would adversely impact waste management
businesses. In particular, we ask that the waste management industry
substantiate their concerns, if any, that the aggregation of manifest
data and the subsequent disclosure of that data would somehow release
their company's confidential business information and thus cause
substantial competitive harm to them. We also request information on
how the waste management industry protects their confidential business
information recorded on manifests in states that currently make
manifest data publicly available.
    If EPA were to determine that the waste management industry
concerns for the disclosure of aggregate

information are legitimate and that they are not sufficiently addressed
by the approach described above in this NODA, then we could develop
another approach to mitigate the ability to efficiently create customer
lists from aggregated data. For instance, we could design the e-
Manifest system to provide the aggregated data in a redacted form,
protecting either the identity of the generator, transporter, or TSDF
so that anyone who requests aggregated data could not generate customer
business information from it. We therefore request comment on how EPA
should design and implement an approach to protect the disclosure of
aggregate data of competitive value, if such an approach were
appropriate. For example, what are the indicators of aggregated
requests (e.g., requests of 50 or more manifests involving a single
transporter or TSDF) that would justify our handling aggregated data
differently from individual manifests for FOIA disclosure purposes?
What information should be redacted from the data that are released to
mitigate any competitive harm from the data disclosure? How can this
process be automated so that it can be effectively implemented in an
electronic manifest system that must address potentially millions of
manifest records annually, and their related FOIA requests, without
significant human intervention?

III. Request for Comments

    EPA requests comments on the policy issues discussed in this notice
regarding our preferred approach that final copies of paper manifest
records be submitted by designated facilities to EPA's e-Manifest
system operator for data processing, and our categorical determination
that individual or aggregate manifest data may not be claimed as CBI.
The Agency also requests comment on various aspects of our proposed
policy of limiting access to incomplete and unverified manifest
information to the waste handlers named on particular manifests (as
well as regulators and emergency responders).
    EPA will consider the comments received pursuant to this notice,
along with comments on the April 18, 2006 public notice, on the e-
Manifest proposal in the May 2001 proposed rule, and the May 2004
Stakeholder meeting, as it prepares a final rule on the e-Manifest
system.

    Dated: February 19, 2008.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
 [FR Doc. E8-3615 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 154 (Thursday, August 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49628-49631]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17224]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95437; File No. SR-NSCC-2022-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Enhance National Securities Clearing Corporation
Automated Customer Account Transfer Service

August 5, 2022.
    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 July 26, 2022, National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'' or
``Corporation'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the clearing agency.
NSCC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) thereunder.\4\ 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)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of amendments to NSCC's Rules &
Procedures (``Rules'') in order to enhance NSCC's Automated Customer
Account Transfer Service (``ACATS''), as described in greater detail
below.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Terms not defined herein are defined in the Rules, available
at http://dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/
nscc_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included
statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule
change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule
change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places
specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change consists of modifications to NSCC's Rules
to expand the ``receiver delete'' functionality in ACATS to additional
products.
(i) Background
    ACATS is a non-guaranteed service provided by NSCC that enables
Members to effect transfers of customer accounts among themselves.
ACATS complements Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'')
Rule 11870 (``FINRA Rule 11870'') regarding customer account transfers,
which requires FINRA members to use automated clearing agency customer
account transfer services and to effect customer account transfers
within specified time frames.\6\ ACATS automates and standardizes
procedures for the transfer of assets in a customer account, allowing
Members to efficiently and automatically enter, review, and generate
instructions to settle customer account transfers. The timing and
procedures with respect to customer account transfers are intended to
be consistent with the timing and processes set forth in FINRA Rule
11870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See FINRA Rule 11870, available at https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/rulebooks/finra-rules/11870. NSCC also permits
Qualified Securities Depositories (i.e., The Depository Trust
Company (``DTC'')) to utilize ACATS on behalf of their participants
(e.g., DTC member banks) on a voluntary basis. See Section 1 of Rule
50, id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to NSCC Rule 50, an NSCC Member to whom a customer's
account will be transferred (the ``Receiving Member'') initiates the
transfer by submitting a transfer initiation request to NSCC, which
contains the customer detail information that the NSCC Member who
currently has the account (the ``Delivering Member'') requires to
transfer the account.\7\ The Delivering Member must either reject the
customer account transfer request or submit detailed customer account
asset data to NSCC. NSCC then provides a report detailing the customer
account asset data to the Receiving Member,\8\ who has one Business Day
after receipt of the report to review the account and: (i) accept all
assets; (ii) reject (or ``delete'') one or more assets, to the extent
such a rejection is permitted by the Receiving Member's Designated
Examining Authority (``DEA'') (i.e., FINRA),\9\ and allow the transfer
of the remaining assets; (iii) request the Delivering Member to make
adjustments to the customer account asset list; or (iv) reject the
account, to extent such a rejection is permitted by NSCC or the
Receiving Member's DEA.\10\ Once a customer account has been accepted
by the Receiving Member, ACATS facilitates the settlements associated
with the account transfer at the appropriate asset settling location
(e.g., through the Continuous Net Settlement system (``CNS'') for CNS-
eligible securities, DTC for securities otherwise eligible for DTC
settlement services, Fund/SERV for eligible mutual fund products, the
Insurance Processing Service (``IPS'') for annuities, or The Options
Clearing Corporation for listed options).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Section 2 of Rule 50, supra note 5.
    \8\ See Section 7 of Rule 50, supra note 5.
    \9\ As discussed in further detail below, NSCC Rule 50 currently
limits the type of assets that a Receiving Member may delete from
the customer account asset data list in ACATS to MF/I&RS Products.
NSCC proposes to expand this functionality to other assets that may
be deemed ``nontransferable assets'' under FINRA Rule 11870.
    \10\ See Section 8 of Rule 50, supra note 5. Pursuant to FINRA
Rule 11870(d)(8), a Receiving Member may reject a transfer of
account assets in whole if the account is not in compliance with the
Receiving Member's credit policies or minimum asset requirements.
See supra note 6.
    \11\ See Section 14 of Rule 50, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA Rule 11870 acknowledges that some customer assets may not be
transferred within the specified time frames to the extent that those
assets are not readily transferable (a ``nontransferable asset''). For
purposes

of FINRA Rule 11870, a nontransferable asset is any asset that is
incapable of being transferred because it is: (i) an asset that is a
proprietary product of the carrying member; \12\ (ii) an asset that is
a product of a third party (e.g., mutual fund/money market fund) with
which the receiving \13\ member does not maintain the relationship or
arrangement necessary to receive/carry the asset for the customer's
account; (iii) an asset that may not be received due to regulatory
limitations on the scope of the receiving member's business; (iv) an
asset that is a bankrupt issue for which the carrying member does not
possess (which shall be deemed to include possession at a securities
depository for the carrying member's account) the proper denominations
or quantity of shares necessary to effect delivery and no transfer
agent is available to re-register the shares; (v) an asset that is an
issue for which the proper denominations cannot be obtained pursuant to
governmental regulation or the issuance terms of the product (e.g.,
foreign securities, baby bonds, etc.); or (vi) limited partnership
interests in retail accounts.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes of Rule 50, a carrying member would be the
Delivering Member.
    \13\ See Section 5 of Rule 50, supra note 5.
    \14\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC Rule 50 currently limits the type of assets that a Receiving
Member may delete from the customer account asset data list in ACATS
(the ``receiver delete functionality'') to ``MF/I&RS Products,'' \15\
which are comprised of Fund/SERV Eligible Fund assets \16\ and/or I&RS
Eligible Products.\17\ As a result, certain customer assets that may
also be deemed ``nontransferable assets'' under FINRA Rule 11870 are
not currently included in the receiver delete functionality in ACATS
and must be handled by a manual process outside of the automated ACATS
system. For example, nontransferable alternative investment products
that are the product of a third party, such as hedge funds, fund of
funds, private equity, non-traded real estate investment trusts, and
business development companies, may be submitted by the Delivering
Member in the customer account asset list but cannot be removed using
the receiver delete functionality in ACATS even though those products
cannot be settled on an automated basis at one of the asset settling
locations due to a lack of arrangements between the issuer of the
product and the Receiving Member, which prevents such products from
being held by at the Receiving Member. Instead, nontransferable
alternative investment products included in an ACATS transfer generate
a Receive and Deliver (``R&D'') ticket instructing firms to complete
the transfer outside of the ACATS process. This generally involves the
Delivering Member generating physical transfer paperwork and sending it
to the Receiving Member, often via the Envelope Settlement Service
(``ESS''),\18\ to deliver the asset. Some of these assets end up
getting rejected by the Receiving Member because, for example, the
necessary contracts are not in place with the issuer, or the asset is
otherwise ineligible to be held in the receiving account. Depending on
the operational structure of the firm, the manual process to return
paperwork to the Delivering Member may involve multiple touchpoints and
paperwork handoffs, resulting in processing delays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Section 8 of Rule 50, supra note 5.
    \16\ Rule 1 defines the term ``Fund/SERV Eligible Fund'' to mean
a fund or other pooled investment entity included in the list for
which provision is made in Section 1.(c) of Rule 3, supra note 5.
    \17\ Rule 1 defines the term ``I&RS Eligible Product'' to mean
an insurance product or a retirement or other benefit plan or
program included in the list for which provision is made in Section
1.(d) of Rule 3, supra note 5.
    \18\ ESS is a non-guaranteed service of NSCC that facilitates
the processing and settlement of physical security deliveries and
associated charges through the use of envelope deliveries. Under
this service, physical certificates may be processed for delivery at
specified NSCC locations through the use of sealed envelopes
accompanied by appropriate documentation (which, among other items,
identifies the security, the receiving Member and the money value
(if any) associated with the delivery). See Rule 9, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Proposed Rule Change
    NSCC proposes to modify Rule 50 to allow ACATS to process deletions
for any customer assets that are (i) deemed to be nontransferable
assets under FINRA Rule 11870 and (ii) permitted by NSCC. Specifically,
NSCC would effectuate the proposed change by revising two statements in
Section 8 of Rule 50 concerning the deletion process to replace
references to ``MF/I&RS Products'' with the phrase ``nontransferable
assets as defined by the Receiving Member's DEA and as permitted by the
Corporation.'' NSCC would also make non-substantive revisions to
improve the clarity of Section 8 of Rule 50. Section 8 of Rule 50
currently provides, in part, that ``[d]uring the one (1) Business Day
time period, only the Delivering Member will be able to add, delete or
change an item, provided that the Receiving Member did not accelerate
the transfer . . . other than with respect to MF/I&RS Products, which
can also be deleted by the Receiving Member'' (emphasis added). NSCC
proposes to delete the word ``only'' because, as noted in the current
and proposed rule, the Receiving Member may also utilize the receiver
delete functionality for certain products within this one Business Day
time period. NSCC would also replace the phrase ``other than with
respect to MF/I&RS Products, which can also be deleted by the Receiving
Member'' with ``however, the Receiving Member may delete
nontransferable assets as defined by the Receiving Member's DEA and as
permitted by the Corporation during the one (1) Business Day time
period.'' NSCC believes these proposed changes would improve the
clarity and readability of the Rule.
    NSCC would initially extend the receiver delete functionality to
certain nontransferable alternative investment products that are the
product of a third party, as discussed above. The proposed change would
immediately address the need to delete alternative investment products
directly within ACATS and provide necessary flexibility within NSCC's
Rules to apply the receiver delete functionality to other
nontransferable assets beyond MF/I&RS Products in the future.\19\ NSCC
would maintain a list of nontransferable assets for which the receiver
delete functionality is permitted and make the list available to its
Members.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NSCC would issue an Important Notice to inform Members of
any new products eligible for the receiver delete functionality in
ACATS.
    \20\ NSCC would initially maintain this list in the ACATS User
Guide, which is available through the DTCC Learning Center. See
https://dtcclearning.com/products-and-services/equities-clearing/acats/acats-users.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the ACATS service is intended to compliment
FINRA Rule 11870 and provide timing and procedures for customer account
transfers that are consistent with the timing and processes set forth
in FINRA Rule 11870. NSCC Rule 50 currently limits the scope of assets
that may be deleted from the customer account asset data list in ACATS
to MF/I&RS Products, which prevents Members from processing the
deletion of other nontransferable assets within the automated system.
In the case of alternative investment products, this results in the
need for manual and more lengthy processing of such assets through the
R&D ticket process, which often involves generating physical transfer
paperwork, the physical transmission of assets through ESS, and the
ultimate rejection of nontransferable assets. Expanding the receiver
delete functionality to additional nontransferable assets would reduce
the cases in which transfer paperwork is mailed unnecessarily and
enable the account owner to more immediately

ascertain the transfer status of such assets. The proposed rule change
would therefore eliminate the manual burdens and delays associated with
transfers and rejections under the current R&D ticket process and would
generally result in the same outcome (i.e., rejection) for those
assets. Moreover, the proposed rule change would allow NSCC to apply
the receiver delete functionality to any future assets determined by
FINRA to be nontransferable under FINRA Rule 11870. NSCC therefore
believes that the proposed rule change is designed to further the goals
of standardizing customer account transfer procedures, reducing
operating costs, and accelerating the timing for transaction
settlements in the customer account transfer process.
2. Statutory Basis
    NSCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a registered clearing agency. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \21\ requires, in part, that the rules of a clearing agency be
designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions. The proposed rule change would provide
necessary flexibility within NSCC's Rules to expand the receiver delete
functionality in ACATS to nontransferable assets beyond MF/I&RS
Products. The proposed change would reduce the burdens and delays
associated with nontransferable assets that fall within the current
manual R&D ticket process and bring greater efficiency and expediency
to the account transfer process for those products as set forth above.
NSCC therefore believes the proposed rule change would promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, consistent with the requirements of the Act, in
particular Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed changes
would bring greater efficiency to the account transfer process by
allowing ACATS participants to process deletions of additional
nontransferable assets in an automated and expedited fashion. Allowing
ACATS participants to process account transfers in a more efficient
manner would result in client assets being transferred to the
appropriate Members and DTC participants more quickly. NSCC does not
believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact on
competition or materially affect the rights or obligations of NSCC
Members because they would apply to all ACATS participants equally and
effectively result in the same outcome as under the current manual
process performed today.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    NSCC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to
this proposal. If any written comments are received, they will be
publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-
4 and the General Instructions thereto.
    Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to
Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General
Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should
submit only information that they wish to make available publicly,
including their name, email address, and any other identifying
information.
    All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's
instructions on how to submit comments, available at https://www.sec.gov/regulatory-actions/how-to-submit-comments. General
questions regarding the rule filing process or logistical questions
regarding this filing should be directed to the Main Office of the
Commission's Division of Trading and Markets at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    NSCC reserves the right not to respond to any comments received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change, and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \23\ of the Act and paragraph (f) \24\ of Rule 19b-4
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NSCC-2022-011 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2022-011. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on DTCC's website
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2022-011 and should be submitted on
or before September 1, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-17224 Filed 8-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15230-15231]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05583]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1060-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Notice of Withdrawal of February 15, 2022 Petition for
Temporary Tariff Waiver, Shortened Comment Period, and Expedited Action
of ISO-New England, Inc.
    Filed Date: 3/9/22.
    Accession Number: 20220309-5196.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1236-000.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: EKPC PENN Construction In
Aid Of Construction Agreement to be effective 5/10/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220310-5031.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/22

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1237-000.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: KU Concurrence EKPC Rice
CIAC RS No. 523 to be effective 5/10/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220310-5032.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1238-000.
    Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: KU Concurrence EKPC Penn
CIAC RS No. 522 to be effective 5/10/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220310-5033.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1239-000.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: EKPC RICE Contribution In
Aid Of Construction Agreement to be effective 5/10/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220310-5037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1241-000.
    Applicants: REV Energy Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization.
    Filed Date: 3/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220310-5051.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1242-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Schedule 2 Tariff Revision
to be effective 3/11/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220310-5055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1243-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: Avista Corp MBR Tariff No 9
Compliance Filing for EIM Participation to be effective 3/11/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220310-5068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1245-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Alabama Power Company
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Oglethorpe (Effingham) IA
Amendment Filing to be effective 2/28/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220310-5085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1246-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2022-03-10 Intertie
Constraint Penalty Price Tariff Amendment to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 3/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220310-5089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1248-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA and ICSA,
Service Agreement Nos. 6372 and 6373; Queue No. AC1-189 to be effective
2/10/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220310-5098.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1249-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2022-
03-10_SA 2767 ATC-Manitowoc Public Utilities 2nd Rev CFA to be
effective 5/10/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220310-5115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1250-000.
    Applicants: Arrow Canyon Solar, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Initial Market-Based Rate
Petition of Arrow Canyon Solar to be effective 4/30/2022.

    Filed Date: 3/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220310-5131.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1251-000.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Cancellation of OATT Service
Agreements 490 and 491 to be effective 1/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220310-5138.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/22.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number. Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any
of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214
of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to
the proceeding. eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information
relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and
qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866)
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 10, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-05583 Filed 3-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40203-40205]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15927]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC21-107-000.
    Applicants: Lincoln Land Wind, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act of Lincoln Land Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/20/21.
    Accession Number: 20210720-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/21.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG21-198-000.
    Applicants: Glacier Sands Wind Power, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale

Generators Status of Glacier Sands Wind Power, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210721-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2108-005.
    Applicants: Great Bay Solar II, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing (ER20-2108-000,
et al) to be effective 8/19/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210721-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-40-000.
    Applicants: ConocoPhillips Company.
    Description: Supplement to Cost Justification Filing of
ConocoPhillips Company.
    Filed Date: 7/19/21.
    Accession Number: 20210719-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-42-000.
    Applicants: Tenaska Power Services Co.
    Description: Tenaska Power Services Co. submits Supplement to
October 7, 2020 Cost Justification Filing.
    Filed Date: 7/19/21.
    Accession Number: 20210719-5222.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-47-000.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.
    Description: Tucson Electric Power Company submits Supplement to
October 7, 2020 Cost Justification Filing.
    Filed Date: 7/19/21.
    Accession Number: 20210719-5213.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-52-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Public Service Company of New Mexico submits
Supplement to October 7, 2020 Cost Justification Filing.
    Filed Date: 7/19/21.
    Accession Number: 20210719-5216.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-56-000.
    Applicants: Guzman Energy, LLC.
    Description: Guzman Energy LLC submits Supplement to October 7,
2020 Cost Justification Filing.
    Filed Date: 7/16/21.
    Accession Number: 20210716-5192.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-58-000.
    Applicants: TransAlta Energy Marketing (U.S.) Inc.
    Description: TransAlta Energy Marketing (U.S.) Inc. submits
Supplement to October 7, 2020 Notice and Justification for Spot Sales
above Soft Cap.
    Filed Date: 7/19/21.
    Accession Number: 20210719-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-60-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits Supplement to October 7, 2020 Cost
Justification Filing.
    Filed Date: 7/19/21.
    Accession Number: 20210719-5219.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-62-000.
    Applicants: Uniper Global Commodities North America LLC.
    Description: Uniper Global Commodities North America LLC submits
Supplement to October 7, 2020 Cost Justification Filing.
    Filed Date: 7/19/21.
    Accession Number: 20210719-5214.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-65-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association,
Inc. submits Amended and Restated Soft Price Cap Report for August
2020.
    Filed Date: 7/19/21.
    Accession Number: 20210719-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-135-000.
    Applicants: EDF Trading North America, LLC.
    Description: EDF Trading North America, LLC submits Supplement to
October 16, 2020 Cost Justification Filing.
    Filed Date: 7/19/21.
    Accession Number: 20210719-5223.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-434-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Nevada Power Company submits Supplement to November
18, 2020 Cost Justification Filing.
    Filed Date: 7/19/21.
    Accession Number: 20210719-5217.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1994-001.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Service Agreement No. 353, LGIA with
National Grid Renewables to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 7/20/21.
    Accession Number: 20210720-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2466-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of the Operation and
Maintenance Agreement (Service Agreement No. 259) of Northern States
Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Filed Date: 7/20/21.
    Accession Number: 20210720-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2468-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp, Nevada Power Company, Sierra Pacific Power
Company.
    Description: Joint Petition for Limited Waiver of PacifiCorp, et
al.
    Filed Date: 7/19/21.
    Accession Number: 20210719-5221.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/26/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2469-000.
    Applicants: Renewable World Energies, LLC.
    Description: Request for Limited Waiver, et al. of Renewable World
Energies.
    Filed Date: 7/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210721-5024.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2470-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX-OCI Sunray System
Upgrade Agreement to be effective 7/7/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210721-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2471-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX-House Mountain
Generation Interconnection Agreement to be effective 7/7/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210721-5037.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2472-000.
    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Mid-Atlantic Interstate
Transmission submits Revised IA SA No. 4577 to be effective 9/21/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210721-5039.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2473-000.
    Applicants: Liberty Utilities (Granite State Electric) Corp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Borderline Sales Rate Sheet
Update Revised per PUC Order July 2021 to be effective 7/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210721-5048.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2474-000.
    Applicants: Pleinmont Solar 2, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Reactive Power Compensation
Filing to be effective 7/23/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210721-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2475-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA, Service
Agreement No. 6033; Queue No. AG1-337 to be effective 6/21/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210721-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2476-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA, Service
Agreement No. 6118; Queue No. AG1-330 to be effective 6/21/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210721-5092.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2477-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule FERC No. 328
between Tri-State and Mountain View to be effective 7/22/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210721-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2478-000.
    Applicants: Milford Power Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Administrative Cancellations
and Revisions to Tariffs to be effective 9/20/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210721-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2479-000.
    Applicants: Illinois Power Marketing Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Administrative Cancellations and
Revisions to Tariffs to be effective 9/20/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210721-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH21-14-000.
    Applicants: NextEra Energy, Inc.
    Description: NextEra Energy, Inc. submits FERC-65B Notice of Non-
Material Change in Fact to Waiver Notification.
    Filed Date: 7/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210721-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 21, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15927 Filed 7-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P