[Federal Register: December 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 233)]
[Notices]
[Page 73679-73681]
[DOCID:fr03de08-42]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59025; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-123]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by New York Stock Exchange LLC To
Establish the Minimum Price Variation of $0.0001 for Orders and
Quotations in Equity Securities That Are Priced Below $1.00 per Share

November 26, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 26, 2008, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 62 (Variations) to
establish the minimum price variation of $0.0001 for orders and
quotations in equity securities that are priced below $1.00 per share,
which will enable the Exchange to accept orders in sub-penny increments
for those securities.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://
www.nyse.com, NYSE's principal office, and the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange seeks to amend Exchange Rule 62 (Variations) to
establish the minimum price variation of $0.0001 for orders and
quotations in equity securities that are priced below $1.00 per share,
which will enable the Exchange to accept orders in sub-penny increments
\3\ for those securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange is currently modifying its systems to enable it
to quote and trade in sub-penny increments and will file a separate
proposal with the Commission at a later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    On August 28, 2000, the Exchange began trading in decimals.\4\ At
that time, the Exchange amended NYSE Rule 62 to provide that bids and
offers in securities traded on the NYSE would be at a minimum price
variation set by the NYSE.\5\ At the initiation of decimal trading, the
NYSE announced that the minimum price variation for all stocks trading
on the Exchange would be one cent ($.01).\6\ Rule 62 was subsequently
amended to establish a minimum price variation of $.10 (ten cents) for
securities trading on the Exchange priced at $100,000 and above.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42914 (June 8,
2000), 65 FR 38010 (June 19, 2000).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43230 (August 30,
2000), 65 54589 (September 8, 2000) (SR-NYSE-00-22).
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49374 (March 8,
2004), 69 FR 11923 (March 12, 2004) (SR-NYSE-2004-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 6, 2005, the SEC adopted Regulation NMS, which is a series
of initiatives designed to modernize and improve the national market
system for trading equity securities. Rule 612 of Regulation NMS \8\
permits markets to accept, rank and display orders priced less than
$1.00 per share in a minimum pricing increment of $0.0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) 17 CFR 242.612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently the Exchange systems do not accept orders in sub-penny
increments for securities priced below $1.00; however, Exchange systems
recognize protected quotations with a sub-penny component in its round-
lot \9\

market and accommodate away market executions in sub-pennies, in
compliance with SEC Rules 611 and 612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange system enhancements that will enable
recognition of sub-penny quotations for pricing of odd-lots in the
odd-lot system are contained in the technology associated with Phase
2 implementation of the New Market Model. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 58845 (October 24, 2008), 73 FR 64379 (October 29,
2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-46). Until the conclusion of the second Phase of
implementation, which is scheduled to be completed no longer than
ten weeks after October 24, 2008, those odd-lot orders that would
receive an execution price based on the NBBO as set forth in NYSE
Rule 124 will be priced at the last NBBO that did not contain a sub-
penny price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendment to NYSE Rule 62
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Rule 62 to conform to the
provisions of SEC Rule 612 by establishing that the minimum price
variation for orders and quotations in equity securities on the
Exchange below a $1.00 will be $0.0001. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to amend .10 under Supplementary Material of Rule 62 to
provide the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Minimum
                 Price of order or interest                      price
                                                               variation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than $1.00.............................................      $.0001
$1.00-99,999.99.............................................       .01
$100,000 and greater........................................       .10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When an order is received on the NYSE that contains a sub-penny
component, the Exchange will round down any bid price down to the next
round penny and round any offer price up to the next round penny. The
order will be sent to NYSE trading systems and the Consolidated
Quotation System \10\ with the rounded price. The Exchange therefore
proposes to replace .20 under Supplementary Material with language to
indicate that for securities whose MPV is $.0001, the Exchange will
round the bid price down to the next whole penny or round the offer
price up to the next whole penny when transmitting the bid or offer to
the Consolidated Quotation System. The rounded price assigned to the
order or quotation is used for all order handling purposes including
routing and execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This practice is currently done on NYSE Arca Exchange.
Commentary .04 NYSE Arca Rule 7.6(a) provides:
    The minimum price variation (``MPV'') for quoting and entry of
orders in equity securities traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace is
$0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than
$1.00 for which the MPV for order entry is $0.0001, provided,
however, that the Corporation shall round the bid down to the next
whole penny or the offer up to the next whole penny and display the
rounded bid or offer in the consolidated quotation system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange intends to initiate the systemic operation related to
the above rule change on November 28, 2008. Commencing operation on
that date will enable the Exchange, on a traditionally moderate trading
day, to ensure the optimal efficiency of its software prior to
resumption of normal trading on December 1, 2008.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
\11\ for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section
6(b)(5) \12\ that an Exchange have rules that are designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change
also is designed to support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) \13\ in
that it seeks to assure economically efficient execution of securities
transactions, make it practicable for brokers to execute investors'
orders in the best market and provide an opportunity for investors'
orders to be executed without the participation of a dealer. The
Exchange believes that the instant proposal is in keeping with these
principles in that it seeks to amend NYSE Rule 62 to conform to the
provisions of SEC Rule 612 by establishing that the minimum price
variation for securities trading on the Exchange below a $1.00 will be
$0.0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. NYSE
has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative
delay, which would make the rule change operative as of November 28,
2008. The Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request and believes
this action is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest.\16\ The Exchange's proposed rule is based on that of
another exchange \17\ and does not appear to raise any novel or
significant issues. Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposed
rule change operative as of November 28, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \17\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2008-123 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-123. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-123 and should be
submitted on or before December 24, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-28662 Filed 12-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15577-15578]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07440]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1336]

Oxford Pharmaceuticals, LLC, et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of 18
Abbreviated New Drug Applications

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is
withdrawing approval of 18 abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs)
from multiple applicants. The holders of the applications notified the
Agency in writing that the drug products were no longer marketed and
requested that the approval of the applications be withdrawn.

DATES: Approval is withdrawn as of May 11, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trang Tran, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 75, Rm. 1671, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The holders of the applications listed in
the table have informed FDA that these drug products are no longer
marketed and have requested that FDA withdraw approval of the
applications under the process in Sec.  314.150(c) (21 CFR 314.150(c)).
The applicants have also, by their requests, waived their opportunity
for a hearing. Withdrawal of approval of an application or abbreviated
application under Sec.  314.150(c) is without prejudice to refiling.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Application No.                Drug                 Applicant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDA 040252..............  Carisoprodol and        Oxford
                            Aspirin Tablets USP,    Pharmaceuticals,
                            200 milligrams (mg)/    LLC, 301 Leaf Lake
                            325 mg.                 Pkwy., Birmingham,
                                                    AL 35211.
ANDA 040283..............  Carisoprodol, Aspirin,  Do.
                            and Codeine Phosphate
                            Tablets USP, 200 mg/
                            325 mg/16 mg.
ANDA 061214..............  Tetracycline            Roxane Laboratories,
                            Hydrochloride (HCl)     Inc., 1809 Wilson
                            Capsules USP, 250 mg    Rd., Columbus, OH
                            and 500 mg.             43228.
ANDA 061682..............  Tetracycline HCl        Mylan Pharmaceuticals
                            Tablets, 500 mg.        Inc., P.O. Box 4293,
                                                    Morgantown, WV
                                                    26505.
ANDA 062212..............  Totacillin (ampicillin/ GlaxoSmithKline, Five
                            ampicillin              Moore Dr., P.O. Box
                            trihydrate) Capsules,   13398, Research
                            Equivalent to (EQ)      Triangle Park, NC
                            250 mg base and EQ      27709.
                            500 mg base.
ANDA 062654..............  Rocephin (ceftriaxone   Hoffman La-Roche,
                            sodium) for             Inc., c/o Genentech,
                            Injection, EQ 500 mg    Inc., 1 DNA Way, MS
                            base/vial, EQ 1 gram    241B, South San
                            (g) base/vial, and EQ   Francisco, CA 94080.
                            2 g base/vial.
ANDA 062680..............  Oxacillin Sodium for    ACS Dobfar S.p.A., c/
                            Injection (Pharmacy     o Interchem Corp.,
                            Bulk Package).          120 Route 17 North,
                                                    Paramus, NJ 07653.
ANDA 065124..............  Cefotaxime for          Lupin Ltd., c/o Lupin
                            Injection USP, EQ 500   Pharmaceuticals,
                            mg base/vial, EQ 1 g    Inc., 111 South
                            base/vial, and EQ 2 g   Calvert St.,
                            base/vial.              Harborplace Tower,
                                                    24th Floor,
                                                    Baltimore, MD 21202.
ANDA 065263..............  Ceftriaxone for         Do.
                            Injection USP, EQ 10
                            g base/vial (Pharmacy
                            Bulk Package).
ANDA 074845..............  Diltiazem HCl Extended- Biovail Corp.
                            Release Capsules USP,   International,
                            60 mg, 90 mg, and 120   Subsidiary of
                            mg.                     Valeant
                                                    Pharmaceuticals
                                                    North America, LLC,
                                                    400 Somerset
                                                    Corporate Blvd.,
                                                    Bridgewater, NJ
                                                    08807.

ANDA 077173..............  Ondansetron Injection   Sun Pharmaceutical
                            USP, EQ 2 mg base/      Industries Ltd., c/o
                            milliliter (mL).        Sun Pharmaceutical
                                                    Industries, Inc., 2
                                                    Independence Way,
                                                    Princeton, NJ 08540.
ANDA 078598..............  Ciprofloxacin           Amring
                            Ophthalmic Solution     Pharmaceuticals,
                            USP, EQ 0.3% base.      Inc., 1235 Westlakes
                                                    Dr., Suite 205,
                                                    Berwyn, PA 19312.
ANDA 078805..............  Irinotecan HCl          Sun Pharma Global
                            Injection, 20 mg/mL.    FZE, c/o Sun
                                                    Pharmaceutical
                                                    Industries, Inc., 2
                                                    Independence Way,
                                                    Princeton, NJ 08540.
ANDA 086024..............  Capital and Codeine     Valeant
                            (acetaminophen and      Pharmaceuticals
                            codeine phosphate)      North America, LLC,
                            Oral Suspension USP,    400 Somerset
                            120 mg/12 mg per 5 mL.  Corporate Blvd.,
                                                    Bridgewater, NJ
                                                    08807.
ANDA 091180..............  Dorzolamide HCl and     Zambon S.p.A., c/o
                            Timolol Maleate         Camargo
                            Ophthalmic Solution,    Pharmaceutical
                            EQ 2% base/EQ 0.5%      Services, LLC, 9825
                            base.                   Kenwood Rd., Suite
                                                    203, Cincinnati, OH
                                                    45242.
ANDA 203176..............  Nevirapine Tablets      Technology Organized,
                            USP, 200 mg.            LLC, 9191 Point
                                                    Replete Dr., Fort
                                                    Belvoir, VA 22060.
ANDA 204900..............  Amlodipine Besylate     Sovereign
                            Tablets USP, EQ 2.5     Pharmaceuticals,
                            mg base, EQ 5 mg        LLC, 7590 Sand St.,
                            base, and EQ 10 mg      Fort Worth, TX
                            base.                   76118.
ANDA 209480..............  Clozapine Tablets USP,  Zydus Pharmaceuticals
                            25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg,   USA, Inc., 73 Route
                            and 200 mg.             31 North,
                                                    Pennington, NJ
                                                    08534.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, approval of the applications listed in the table, and
all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn as of May
11, 2018. Introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of products without approved new drug applications violates
section 301(a) and (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 331(a) and (d)). Drug products that are listed in the table that
are in inventory on May 11, 2018 may continue to be dispensed until the
inventories have been depleted or the drug products have reached their
expiration dates or otherwise become violative, whichever occurs first.

    Dated: April 5, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-07440 Filed 4-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 13 (Friday, January 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2979-2981]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1073]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9620-5]

Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives: Modification to Octamix
Waiver

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On February 1, 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
conditionally granted a waiver requested by the Texas Methanol
Corporation (Texas Methanol) for a gasoline-alcohol fuel, pursuant to
section 211(f) of the Clean Air Act.\1\ A minor correction was made on
May 12, 1988.\2\ A modification to the original conditions was made on
October 21, 1988.\3\ Baker Hughes submitted a request to modify the
waiver. The new request seeks approval on an alternative corrosion
inhibitor, TOLAD\TM\ MFA-10A, to be used within Texas Methanol's
gasoline-alcohol fuel, also known as OCTAMIX. EPA considers this to be
a request for modification of the waiver under 211(f) of the Clean Air
Act (Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 53 FR 3636, February 8, 1988.
    \2\ 53 FR 17977, May 19, 1988.
    \3\ 53 FR 43768, October 28, 1988.

DATES: Comments or a request for a public hearing must be received on
or before February 21, 2012. EPA does not plan to hold a public hearing
on this notice, unless one is requested. If requested by February 6,
2012, a public hearing will be held. If such a hearing is held,
comments must be received within 90 days after the date of such
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
hearing.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0894, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0894, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Headquarters Library, Room 3334, EPA
West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-

2011-0894. EPA's policy is that all comments will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, http://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 email. 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 email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured 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 instructions on submitting
comments, go to Unit 1.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document: 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 Air Docket, EPA
Headquarters Library, Mail Code: 2822T, EPA West Building, 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 holidays.
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and
the facsimile number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding this
proposal contact, Joseph R. Sopata, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 211(f)(1) of the Clean Air Act (``CAA'' or ``the Act'')
makes it unlawful for any manufacturer of any fuel or fuel additive to
first introduce into commerce, or to increase the concentration in use
of, any fuel or fuel additive for use by any person in motor vehicles
manufactured after model year 1974, which is not substantially similar
to any fuel or fuel additive utilized in the certification of any model
year 1975, or subsequent model year, vehicle or engine under section
206 of the Act. The Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the
Agency'') last issued an interpretive rule on the phrase
``substantially similar'' at 73 FR 22281 (April 25, 2008). Generally
speaking, this interpretive rule describes the types of unleaded
gasoline that are likely to be considered ``substantially similar'' to
the unleaded gasoline utilized in EPA's certification program by
placing limits on a gasoline's chemical composition as well as its
physical properties, including the amount of alcohols and ethers
(oxygenates) that may be added to gasoline. Fuels that are found to be
``substantially similar'' to EPA's certification fuels may be
registered and introduced into commerce. The current ``substantially
similar'' interpretive rule for unleaded gasoline allows oxygen content
up to 2.7 weight for certain ethers and alcohols.
    Section 211(f)(4) of the Act provides that upon application of any
fuel or fuel additive manufacturer, the Administrator may waive the
prohibitions of section 211(f)(1) if the Administrator determines that
the applicant has established that the fuel or fuel additive, or a
specified concentration thereof, will not cause or contribute to a
failure of any emission control device or system (over the useful life
of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, nonroad engine or nonroad
vehicle in which such device or system is used) to achieve compliance
by the vehicle or engine with the emission standards to which it has
been certified pursuant to sections 206 and 213(a) of the Act. The
statute requires that the Administrator shall take final action to
grant or deny an application after public notice and comment, within
270 days of receipt of the application.
    The Texas Methanol Corporation received a waiver under CAA section
211(f)(4) for a gasoline-alcohol fuel blend, known as OCTAMIX,\4\
provided that the resultant fuel is composed of a maximum of 3.7
percent by weight fuel oxygen, a maximum of 5 percent by volume
methanol, a minimum of 2.5 percent by volume co-solvents \5\ and 42.7
milligrams per liter (mg/l) of Petrolite TOLAD MFA-10 corrosion
inhibitor.\6\ In the OCTAMIX waiver, the Agency invited other corrosion
inhibitor manufacturers to submit test data to establish, on a case-by-
case basis, whether their fuel additive formulations are acceptable as
alternatives to TOLAD\TM\ MFA-10.\7\ The physical properties of
TOLAD\TM\ MFA-10A are shown in EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0894-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ OCTAMIX decision, 53 FR 3636 (February 8, 1988).
    \5\ The co-solvents are any one or a mixture of ethanol,
propanols, butanols, pentanols, hexanols, heptanols and octanols
with the following constraints; the ethanol, propanols and butanols
or mixtures thereof must compose a minimum of 60 percent by weight
of the co-solvent mixture; a maximum limit of 40 percent by weight
of the co-solvents mixture is placed on the pentanols, hexanols,
heptanols and octanols; and the heptanols and octanols are limited
to 5 percent by weight of the co-solvent mixture.
    \6\ Additional conditions were the final fuel must meet ASTM
volatility specifications contained in ASTM D439-85a, as well as
phase separation conditions specified in ASTM D-2 Proposal P-176 and
Texas Methanol alcohol purity specifications.
    \7\ 53 FR at 3637.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Today's Announcement

    On October 14, 2011, Baker Hughes requested EPA allow the use of
its alternative corrosion inhibitor, TOLAD\TM\ MFA-10A, in the OCTAMIX
gasoline-alcohol fuel blend which otherwise would not be allowed under
the waiver.\8\ TOLAD\TM\ MFA-10A is a fuel additive formulation
consisting of a corrosion inhibitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0894-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the major areas of concern to EPA in reviewing any waiver
request is the problem of materials compatibility. Materials
compatibility data could show a potential failure of fuel systems,
emissions related parts and emission control parts from use of the fuel
or fuel additive. Any failure could result in greater emissions that
would cause or contribute to the engines or vehicles exceeding their
emissions standards. Initially, Texas Methanol requested the use of
TOLAD MFA-10 or an appropriate concentration of any other corrosion
inhibitor such that the fuel will pass the National Association of
Corrosion Engineer's TM-01-72 (NACE RUST TEST). However, EPA concluded
that compliance with the NACE Rust Test alone was not adequate in
determining suitability of a corrosion inhibitor for use under the
OCTAMIX

waiver.\9\ The Agency decided, therefore, to look at corrosion
inhibitors on a case-by-case basis to establish whether each
formulation would be acceptable as an alternative to the formulation of
the original corrosion inhibitor used in the OCTAMIX waiver.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 53 FR at 3637
    \10\ 53 FR at 3637.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, pursuant to section 211(f)(4), EPA will examine the data
submitted by Baker Hughes, along with all comments received from
interested parties, to determine whether use of the corrosion
inhibitor, TOLAD\TM\ MFA-10A, in place of the original corrosion
inhibitor TOLAD MFA-10, would cause or contribute to vehicles or
engines failing to meet their emissions standards when using OCTAMIX.
If use of TXCeed does not cause or contribute to such failures, EPA
will modify the OCTAMIX waiver to allow the use of TOLAD\TM\ MFA-10A as
an alternative corrosion inhibitor to TOLAD MFA-10.

    Dated: January 13, 2012.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2012-1073 Filed 1-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44873-44875]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18129]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 31189; File No. 812-14196]

Altegris Advisors L.L.C. and Northern Lights Fund Trust; Notice
of Application

July 28, 2014.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a) of
the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain
disclosure requirements.

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

Summary of Application:  Applicants request an order that would permit
them to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements without
shareholder approval and would grant relief from certain disclosure
requirements. The order would supersede a prior order.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Altegris Advisors, L.L.C. et al., Investment Company Act
Rel. Nos. 29689 (June 1, 2011) (notice) and 29710 (June 28, 2011)
(order).

Applicants: Altegris Advisors L.L.C. (the ``Adviser'') and Northern
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lights Fund Trust (the ``Trust'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed on August 5, 2013 and amended
on March 17, 2014, April 17, 2014, and July 11, 2014.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on August 21, 2014, and should be accompanied by proof of service
on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Adviser, 1200
Prospect Street, Suite 400, La Jolla CA 92037; Trust: 17065 Wright
Street, Suite 2, Omaha, NE 68130.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce R. MacNeil, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6817 or Daniele Marchesani, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

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

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Trust, a Delaware statutory trust, is registered under the
Act as an open-end management investment company and is comprised of
multiple series, each with its own investment, objectives and
policies.\2\ The Adviser is a Delaware limited liability company
registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940 (``Advisers Act'') and serves as the investment adviser to the
Funds pursuant to investment advisory agreements (``Advisory
Agreements'') with the Trust. The Advisory Agreements were approved by
the Trust's board of trustees (together with the board of directors or
trustees of any other Fund, the ``Board''),\3\ including a majority of
the trustees who are not ``interested persons,'' as defined in section
2(a)(19) of the Act, of the Trust or the Adviser (``Independent
Trustees'') and by the shareholders of the relevant Fund in the manner
required by sections 15(a) and 15(c) of the Act and rule 18f-2
thereunder. Applicants are not seeking any exemptions from the
provisions of the Act with respect to any Advisory Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Altegris Managed Futures Strategy Fund (the ``MF Fund''),
Altegris Macro Strategy Fund (the ``MS Fund''), Altegris Futures
Evolution Fund (the ``FE Fund''), Altegris Equity Long Short Fund
(the ``ELS Fund''), Altegris Fixed Income Long Short Fund (the
``FILS Fund''), Altegris Multi-Strategy Alternative Fund (the ``MSA
Fund''), and the Altegris/AACA Real Estate Long Short Fund (the
``RELS'' Fund'') are the only Funds (defined below) that currently
intend to rely on the requested order. Applicants request relief
with respect to existing and future series of the Trust and any
other existing or future registered open-end management investment
company or series thereof that: (a) Is advised by the Adviser; (b)
uses the manager of managers structure (``Manager of Managers
Structure'') described in the application; and (c) complies with the
terms and conditions of the application (together with the MF Fund,
the MS Fund, FE Fund, ELS Fund, the FILS Fund, the MSA Fund, and the
RELS Fund, the ``Funds'' and each, individually, a ``Fund.''). If
the name of any Fund contains the name of a Sub-Adviser, the name of
the Adviser will precede the name of the Sub-Adviser.
    \3\ The term ``Board'' also includes the board of trustees of a
future Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Under the terms of the Advisory Agreements, each Adviser,
subject to the oversight of the applicable Board, is

responsible for the overall management of the Funds' business affairs
and selecting the Funds' investments according to the Funds' investment
objectives, policies, and restrictions. For the investment advisory
services that they provide to the Funds, the Advisers receive a fee
from the Funds as specified in the Advisory Agreements. The Advisory
Agreements also authorize the Advisers to retain one or more
unaffiliated investment subadvisers (each, a ``Sub-Adviser''), to be
compensated by the Advisers for the purpose of managing the investment
of the assets of the Funds. The Advisers have entered into subadvisory
agreements (``Sub-Advisory Agreements'') with various Sub-Advisers to
provide investment advisory services to certain Funds.\4\ Each Sub-
Adviser is, and each future Sub-Adviser will be, an ``investment
adviser,'' as defined in section 2(a)(20)(B) of the Act, and registered
as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act, or not subject to such
registration. The Advisers will evaluate, allocate assets to, and
oversee the Sub-Advisers, and make recommendations about their hiring,
termination, and replacement to the applicable Board, at all times
subject to the authority of that Board. The Adviser compensates each
Sub-Adviser out of the fee paid by a Fund to the Adviser under the
Advisory Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All Sub-Advisory Agreements comply with sections 15(a) and
(c) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Applicants request an order to permit the Advisers, subject to
Board approval, to engage Sub-Advisers to manage all or a portion of
the assets of a Fund pursuant to a Sub-Advisory Agreement and
materially amend Sub-Advisory Agreements without obtaining shareholder
approval. The requested relief will not extend to any Sub-Adviser that
is an ``affiliated person,'' as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act,
of a Fund or the Adviser, other than by reason of serving as Sub-
Adviser to a Fund (``Affiliated Sub-Adviser'').
    4. Applicants also request an order exempting each Fund from
certain disclosure provisions described below that may require the
Funds to disclose fees paid by the Advisers to each Sub-Adviser.
Applicants seek an order to permit each Fund to disclose (as both a
dollar amount and as a percentage of a Fund's net assets) only: (a) The
aggregate fees paid to its Adviser and any Affiliated Sub-Advisers; and
(b) the aggregate fees paid to Sub-Advisers other than Affiliated Sub-
Advisers (collectively, the ``Aggregate Fee Disclosure''). A Fund that
employs an Affiliated Sub-Adviser will provide separate disclosure of
any fees paid to the Affiliated Sub-Adviser.
    5. The Funds will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new Sub-
Adviser pursuant to the following procedures (``Modified Notice and
Access Procedures''): (a) Within 90 days after a new Sub-Adviser is
hired for any Fund, that Fund will send its shareholders either a
Multi-Manager Notice or a Multi-Manager Notice and Multi-Manager
Information Statement; \5\ and (b) the Fund will make the Multi-Manager
Information Statement available on the Web site identified in the
Multi-Manager Notice no later than when the Multi-Manager Notice (or
Multi-Manager Notice and Multi-Manager Information Statement) is first
sent to shareholders, and will maintain it on that Web site for at
least 90 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``Multi-Manager Notice'' will be modeled on a Notice of
Internet Availability as defined in rule 14a-16 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''), and specifically will,
among other things: (a) Summarize the relevant information regarding
the new Sub-Adviser; (b) inform shareholders that the Multi-Manager
Information Statement is available on a Web site; (c) provide the
Web site address; (d) state the time period during which the Multi-
Manager Information Statement will remain available on that Web
site; (e) provide instructions for accessing and printing the Multi-
Manager Information Statement; and (f) instruct the shareholder that
a paper or email copy of the Multi-Manager Information Statement may
be obtained, without charge, by contacting the Funds. A ``Multi-
Manager Information Statement'' will meet the requirements of
Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C and Item 22 of Schedule 14A under the
Exchange Act for an information statement, except as modified by the
requested order to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure. Multi-Manager
Information Statements will be filed electronically with the
Commission via the EDGAR system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that it is
unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered
investment company except pursuant to a written contract that has been
approved by the vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting
securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class
of stock in a series investment company affected by a matter must
approve that matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
    2. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end
investment companies. Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A requires disclosure of
the method and amount of the investment adviser's compensation.
    3. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect
to a registered investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under
the Exchange Act. Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and
22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together, require a proxy statement for
a shareholder meeting at which the advisory contract will be voted upon
to include the ``rate of compensation of the investment adviser,'' the
``aggregate amount of the investment adviser's fees,'' a description of
the ``terms of the contract to be acted upon,'' and, if a change in the
advisory fee is proposed, the existing and proposed fees and the
difference between the two fees.
    4. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial
statements required to be included as part of a registered investment
company's registration statement and shareholder reports filed with the
Commission. Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation S-X require
a registered investment company to include in its financial statement
information about the investment advisory fees.
    5. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provision of the Act, or
from any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors
and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the
Act. Applicants state that the requested relief meets this standard for
the reasons discussed below.
    6. Applicants assert that the shareholders expect each Fund's
Adviser, subject to the review and approval of the Board, to select the
Sub-Advisers who are best suited to achieve the Fund's investment
objective. Applicants assert that, from the perspective of the
shareholder, the role of the Sub-Adviser is substantially equivalent to
the role of the individual portfolio managers employed by traditional
investment company advisory firms. Applicants state that requiring
shareholder approval of each Sub-Advisory Agreement would impose
unnecessary delays and expenses on the Funds, and may preclude a Fund
from acting promptly when the applicable Board and Adviser believe that
a change would benefit the Fund and its shareholders. Applicants note
that the Advisory Agreements and any Sub-Advisory Agreement with an
Affiliated Sub-Adviser (if any) will continue to be subject to the
shareholder approval requirements of section 15(a) of the Act and rule
18f-2 under the Act.
    7. Applicants assert that the requested disclosure relief would
benefit shareholders of the Funds because it would improve the
Advisers' ability to negotiate the fees paid to Sub-Advisers.

Applicants state that the Advisers may be able to negotiate rates that
are below a Sub-Adviser's ``posted'' amounts, if the Adviser is not
required to disclose the Sub-Advisers' fees to the public. Applicants
submit that the requested relief will encourage Sub-Advisers to
negotiate lower subadvisory fees with the Advisers if the lower fees
are not required to be made public.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Before a Fund may rely on the order, the operation of the Fund
in the manner described in the application will be approved by a
majority of the Fund's outstanding voting securities as defined in the
1940 Act, or, in the case of a Fund whose public shareholders purchased
shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure
contemplated by condition 2 below, by the initial shareholder before
such Fund's shares are offered to the public.
    2. The prospectus for each Fund will disclose the existence,
substance, and effect of any order granted pursuant to the application.
In addition, each Fund will hold itself out to the public as employing
the Manager of Managers Structure. The prospectus will prominently
disclose that the Adviser has the ultimate responsibility, subject to
oversight by the Board, to oversee the Sub-Advisers and recommend their
hiring, termination, and replacement.
    3. Funds will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new Sub-
Adviser within 90 days after the hiring of the new Sub-Adviser pursuant
to the Modified Notice and Access Procedures.
    4. The Adviser will not enter into a Sub-Advisory Agreement with
any Affiliated Sub-Adviser without that agreement, including the
compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders
of the applicable Fund.
    5. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be
Independent Trustees, and the nomination of new or additional
Independent Trustees will be placed within the discretion of the then-
existing Independent Trustees.
    6. Independent Legal Counsel, as defined in Rule 0-1(a)(6) under
the 1940 Act, will be engaged to represent the Independent Trustees.
The selection of such counsel will be within the discretion of the
then-existing Independent Trustees.
    7. Whenever a Sub-Adviser change is proposed for a Fund with an
Affiliated Sub-Adviser, the Board, including a majority of the
Independent Trustees, will make a separate finding, reflected in the
Trust's board minutes, that the change is in the best interests of the
Fund and its shareholders and does not involve a conflict of interest
from which the Adviser or the Affiliated Sub-Adviser derives an
inappropriate advantage.
    8. Whenever a Sub-Adviser is hired or terminated, the Adviser will
provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on the
profitability of the Adviser.
    9. The Adviser will provide the Board, no less frequently than
quarterly, with information about the profitability of the Adviser on a
per Fund basis. The information will reflect the impact on
profitability of the hiring or termination of any Sub-Adviser during
the applicable quarter.
    10. The Adviser will provide general management services to each
Fund, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general
management and investment of the Fund's assets, and, subject to review
and approval by the Board, will: (a) Set the Fund's overall investment
strategies; (b) evaluate, select and recommend Sub-Advisers to manage
all or a part of the Fund's assets; (c) when appropriate, allocate and
reallocate the Fund's assets among Sub-Advisers; (d) monitor and
evaluate the investment performance of Sub-Advisers; and (e) implement
procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the Sub-Advisers comply
with the Fund's investment objectives, policies, and restrictions.
    11. No Trustee or officer of the Trust or of a Fund or director or
officer of the Adviser will own directly or indirectly (other than
through a pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled by such
person) any interest in a Sub-Adviser except for: (a) Ownership of
interests in the Adviser or any entity that controls, is controlled by,
or is under common control with the Adviser; or (b) ownership of less
than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or debt of
a publicly traded company that is either a Sub-Adviser or an entity
that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a Sub-
Adviser.
    12. Each Fund will disclose in its registration statement the
Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
    13. In the event that the Commission adopts a rule under the 1940
Act providing substantially similar relief to that in the order
requested in the application, the requested order will expire on the
effective date of that rule.
    14. Any new Sub-Advisory Agreement or any amendments to a Fund's
existing Advisory Agreement or Sub-Advisory Agreement that directly or
indirectly results in an increase in the aggregate advisory fee rate
payable by the Fund will be submitted to the Fund's shareholders for
approval.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18129 Filed 7-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78425-78428]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25104]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98881; File No. SR-NSCC-2023-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Schedule of Haircuts for Eligible Clearing Fund Securities

November 8, 2023.

I. Introduction

    On September 22, 2023, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2023-009 to modify the
schedule of haircuts for Eligible Clearing Fund Securities, and to
remove it and the related concentration limits from Procedure XV of the
NSCC Rules (``Procedure XV''), and make other clarifying changes
(``Proposed Rule Change''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ The Proposed Rule Change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on October 4, 2023.\3\ The Commission has received
no comments on the Proposed Rule Change. For the reasons discussed
below, the Commission is approving the Proposed Rule Change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98589 (Sept. 28,
2023), 88 FR 68777 (Oct. 4, 2023) (File No. SR-NSCC-2023-009)
(``Notice of Filing'').
    \4\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the NSCC
Rulebook (``NSCC Rules''), available at https://www.dtcc.com/~/
media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/nscc_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    NSCC is a central counterparty (``CCP''), which means it interposes
itself as the buyer to every seller and seller to every buyer for the
financial transactions it clears. As such, NSCC is exposed to the risk
that one or more of its members may fail to make a payment or to
deliver securities.
    A key tool that NSCC uses to manage its credit exposures to its
members is the daily collection of margin (referred to as ``Required
Fund Deposit'' in the NSCC Rules) from each member.\5\ The aggregated
amount of all NSCC members' margin constitutes the Clearing Fund. The
objective of the Clearing Fund is to mitigate potential losses to NSCC
associated with liquidating a member's portfolio in the event NSCC
ceases to act for that member (hereinafter referred to as a
``default'').\6\ NSCC would be able to access the Clearing Fund should
a defaulting member's own margin be insufficient to satisfy losses to
NSCC caused by the liquidation of that member's portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NSCC Rule 4, supra note 4 (requiring members to make
Required Fund Deposits to the Clearing Fund with the amount of each
member's deposit being determined by NSCC in accordance with these
rules).
    \6\ The NSCC Rules identify when NSCC may cease to act for a
member and the types of actions NSCC may take. For example, NSCC may
suspend a firm's membership with NSCC or prohibit or limit a
member's access to NSCC's services in the event that member defaults
on a financial or other obligation to NSCC. See NSCC Rule 46
(Restrictions on Access to Services), supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A member may provide its required margin in the form of cash or an
open account indebtedness secured by Eligible Clearing Fund
Securities.\7\ Eligible Clearing Fund Securities are defined to include
certain agency, mortgage-backed, and Treasury securities.\8\ These
securities are valued based on the prior Business Day's closing market
price, less a haircut, and may be subject to a concentration limit.\9\
NSCC states that haircuts are used to protect NSCC and its members from
price fluctuations, i.e., if NSCC is required to liquidate collateral
of an insolvent member and such collateral is worth less at the time of
liquidation than when it is pledged to NSCC.\10\ NSCC also states that
concentration limits are intended to reduce NSCC's risk by limiting the
percentage of certain types of Eligible Clearing Fund Securities
pledged by members to secure the Clearing Fund deposits, because when a
member's portfolio contains large net unsettled positions in a
particular group of securities with a similar risk profile or in a
particular asset type, such securities could present additional risk to
NSCC.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NSCC Rule 4, Section 1 (Required Fund Deposits), supra
note 4.
    \8\ See NSCC Rule 1 (defining what constitutes Eligible Clearing
Fund Securities and the components thereof, which are Eligible
Clearing Fund Agency Securities, Eligible Clearing Fund Mortgage-
Backed Securities, and Eligible Clearing Fund Treasury Securities),
supra note 4.
    \9\ See Section II.(A)1. of Procedure XV, supra note 4.
    \10\ Notice of Filing, supra note 3, 88 FR at 68777.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, collateral haircuts applicable to relevant security
types and remaining maturity terms are specified as fixed percentages
in Section III.(A) of Procedure XV (``Section III.(A)'').\12\ According
to NSCC and set forth in its internal risk management procedures, the
sufficiency of collateral haircuts is evaluated through use of back-
tests, stress-tests and market observations.\13\ Specifically, NSCC
conducts daily backtesting analysis by comparing the collateral haircut
for each member in simulated liquidations with the member's actual
collateral held on deposit at NSCC.\14\ NSCC escalates any exceptions
that it observes to assess the root cause and determine whether further
analysis and/or review would be appropriate, taking into account
whether a particular security may present inherent volatility and/or
liquidity risks that could likely result in an erosion in the value of
the security exceeding the applicable collateral haircut.\15\ On a
quarterly basis, NSCC reviews the composition of the Eligible Clearing
Fund Securities that members have pledged to secure their Required Fund
Deposits in order to assess the sufficiency of the collateral haircuts
applied and whether any haircut changes would be needed, taking into
account backtesting results, any

instances where the simulated losses from available historical stress
testing scenario dates have exceeded the collateral haircut values, and
market conditions.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Section III.(A) of Procedure XV, supra note 4. Section
III.(A) was last modified in 2011 in order to conform the haircuts
to requirements of NSCC's lenders under its credit facilities. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64487 (May 13, 2011), 76 FR
29019 (May 19, 2011) (SR-NSCC-2011-02).
    \13\ Notice of Filing, supra note 3, 88 FR at 68777. NSCC also
filed excerpts from its internal market risk management procedures
as Confidential Exhibit 3b to its filing.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id. at 68778.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to collateral haircuts, NSCC applies concentration
limits to certain Eligible Clearing Fund Securities set forth in the
NSCC Rules. Under these limits, no more than 20 percent of a member's
Required Fund Deposit may be in the form of Eligible Clearing Fund
Agency Securities that are of a single issuer and no member may post as
eligible collateral Eligible Clearing Fund Agency Securities of which
it is the issuer.\17\ In addition, any deposits of Eligible Clearing
Fund Agency Securities or Eligible Clearing Fund Mortgage-Backed
Securities in excess of 25 percent of a member's Required Fund Deposit
will be subject to a haircut that is twice the amount of the percentage
noted in Section III.(A), and a member may deposit Eligible Clearing
Fund Mortgage-Backed Securities of which it is the issuer, however such
securities will be subject to a premium haircut, with the initial
haircut being 14 percent, and if a member also exceeds the 25 percent
concentration limit, the haircut shall be 21 percent.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Section II.(A)1. of Procedure XV, supra note 4.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes to the collateral haircuts and concentration limits are
subject to NSCC's internal governance process.\19\ According to NSCC
and based on its internal risk management procedures, if NSCC
determines that, based on the analyses that it performs, there is
insufficient/excessive collateral haircut/concentration due to an
identifiable cause that affected multiple members and such cause would
likely persist based on NSCC's assessment of market conditions, such
outcome or result could cause NSCC to amend the haircuts/concentration
limits in the haircut schedule.\20\ If NSCC determines that a change to
the haircut schedule is warranted, it would document the recommendation
and rationale for the change at the time of such determination and
obtain approval from an executive director or above with a notice to
the risk management committee.\21\ Before making adjustments to the
haircut schedule, NSCC measures the potential impact of such
adjustments to ensure any impact is both necessary and appropriate.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Notice of Filing, supra note 3, 88 FR at 68778; see also
note 13 supra.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    In the Notice of Filing, NSCC states that it has observed that
under volatile market conditions with elevated frequency and magnitude
of securities price movements, the collateral value of Eligible
Clearing Fund Securities may shift in a relatively short period of time
and the current haircuts may not sufficiently account for the change in
value.\23\ When the erosion in the value of the Eligible Clearing Fund
Securities exceeds the relevant haircuts, NSCC is exposed to increased
risk of potential losses associated with liquidating a member's
portfolio in the event of a member default when the defaulting member's
own margin is insufficient to satisfy losses to NSCC caused by the
liquidation of that member's portfolio.\24\ Similarly, when a member's
portfolio contains large net unsettled positions in a particular group
of securities with a similar risk profile or in a particular asset
type, such securities could present additional risk to NSCC.\25\ The
additional risk exposures associated with liquidating a member's
portfolio in the event of a member default could lead to an increase in
the likelihood that NSCC would need to mutualize losses among non-
defaulting members during the liquidation process.\26\ However, any
changes to the haircuts and/or concentration limits currently requires
a proposed rule change to be filed with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, to provide NSCC with more flexibility in adjusting the
haircuts and concentration limits so NSCC can respond to changing
market conditions more promptly in order to mitigate the additional
risk exposure, NSCC is proposing to remove Section III.(A) and
concentration limits from the Rules, and to publish the haircuts and
concentration limits in a haircut schedule on NSCC's website.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Specifically, NSCC is proposing to delete subsections (a)
and (b) of Section II.(A)1. of Procedure XV (Special Provisions
Related to Eligible Clearing Fund Securities), and delete Section
III of Procedure XV (Collateral Value of Eligible Clearing Fund
Securities) to remove all haircuts and concentration limits from the
Rules. NSCC is also proposing to (i) remove references to Section
III of Procedure XV in two places in Rule 4, and replace them with a
reference to Section II.(A) of Procedure XV; (ii) remove references
to subsections 1(a) and (b) of Section II.(A) of Procedure XV and
references to Section III of Procedure XV in Rule 56; and (iii)
remove a reference to Section III of Procedure XV in Section II.(A)
of Procedure XV, and replace it with a reference to the proposed
haircut schedule, to reflect the proposed changes described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, NSCC is proposing to add language in Section II.(A)1.
that makes it clear that all Eligible Clearing Fund Securities pledged
to secure Clearing Fund deposits shall, for collateral valuation
purposes, be subject to a haircut and may be subject to a concentration
limit. The proposed language would provide that NSCC shall determine
the applicable haircuts and any concentration limits from time to time
in accordance with its internal policy and governance process, based on
factors determined to be relevant by NSCC, which may include, for
example, backtesting results and NSCC's assessment of market
conditions, in order to set appropriately conservative haircuts and/or
concentration limits for the Eligible Clearing Fund Securities and
minimize backtesting deficiency occurrences. The proposed language
would also provide that the haircuts and any concentration limits
prescribed by NSCC shall be set forth in a haircut schedule that is
published on NSCC's website. The proposed language would also state
that it shall be the member's responsibility to retrieve the haircut
schedule, and that NSCC would provide members with at a minimum one
Business Day's advance notice of any change in the haircut schedule.
    NSCC states that the proposed change to move the haircuts and
concentration limits from the Rules to the website would enable NSCC to
adjust the haircuts and concentration limits without undergoing a rule
filing process (although it could still necessitate an advance notice
under Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act, if a change materially affects
the nature or level of risks presented by NSCC).\28\ NSCC states that
by being able to make appropriate and timely adjustments to the
haircuts and concentration limits, it would have the flexibility to
respond to changing market conditions more promptly.\29\ Having the
flexibility to respond to changing market conditions more promptly
would in turn help better ensure that NSCC collects sufficient margin
from members as well as risk manages its credit exposures to its
members.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Notice of Filing, supra note 3, 88 FR at 68779 and n. 11
(citing 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i)).
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Notice of Filing, NSCC also provides an overview regarding
its changes to the categories relating to Treasury Inflation-Protected
Securities (``TIPS'').\31\ NSCC states that, as part of

its daily backtesting regarding the adequacy of collateral haircuts,
NSCC has determined that in periods where the inflation rate
fluctuates, the current haircut levels for TIPS have been inadequate to
address the fluctuations from time to time.\32\ This is because TIPS
are indexed to the inflation rate, and prices on TIPS move inversely to
their yields, e.g., when the inflation rate increases, prices on TIPS
decrease. When the decline in market value of TIPS exceeds the haircut
for TIPS, NSCC would be exposed to potential liquidation losses.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ TIPS are a type of Treasury security issued by the U.S.
government that are indexed to inflation such that the principal
value of the security rises as inflation rises.
    \32\ Notice of Filing, supra note 3, 88 FR at 68779.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, NSCC is planning to address haircuts for TIPS in a
separate category, as opposed to as part of a category also including
Treasury Bills, Notes, and Bonds, and to increase the haircut levels
for TIPS to ensure that the haircut levels would be commensurate with
the particular risk attributes of TIPS.\34\ NSCC describes the new TIPS
haircut categories as follows:\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id. NSCC also stated that its review of TIPS haircuts at
other registered clearing agencies demonstrate that NSCC's current
haircut levels for TIPS are generally lower than the TIPS haircuts
required by other clearing agencies and foreign CCPs, particularly
with respect to maturity ranges of 10 years or longer. Id.
(summarizing and citing various other clearing agency rules).
    \35\ Id. NSCC also reflected the changes with respect to
haircuts for TIPS on the haircut schedule filed as Exhibit 3c to the
Notice of Filing, which would be posted to its website if the
Proposed Rule Change were approved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Maturity               Current (%)        Proposed (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIPS.......................................  Zero to 1 year...............                2.0                2.0
                                             1 year to 2 years............                2.0                3.0
                                             2 years to 5 years...........                3.0                5.0
                                             5 years to 10 years..........                4.0                7.0
                                             10 years to 15 years.........                6.0                7.0
                                             15 years or greater..........                6.0               10.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC conducted an impact study for the period from September 1,
2021 through August 31, 2022 (``Impact Study'').\36\ The results of the
Impact Study indicate that, if the haircut changes for TIPS had been in
place, it would have resulted in an average daily increase of $197,000
in the Clearing Fund assuming TIPS were deposited.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ NSCC filed this Impact Study as confidential Exhibit 3a to
the Notice of Filing.
    \37\ Notice of Filing, supra note 3, 88 FR at 68780 (also
providing a more detailed summary of the Impact Study).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, NSCC is proposing to clarify language in Sections
I.(B)(1), II.(A), II.(B), II.(C) and II.(D) of Procedure XV to reflect
that Mutual Fund/Insurance Services Members and other Limited Members
are no longer required to make deposits into the Clearing Fund. In
2022, NSCC removed the requirement that any Limited Members, including
Mutual Fund/Insurance Services Members, make any deposits to the
Clearing Fund.\38\ Sections I.(B)(1), II.(A), II.(B), II.(C) and II.(D)
of Procedure XV still contain references to Mutual Fund/Insurance
Service Members and/or Limited Members making deposits into the
Clearing Fund, and NSCC states that it would remove those references
for clarity.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93722 (Dec. 6,
2021), 86 FR 70548 (Dec. 10, 2021) (SR-NSCC-2021-015).
    \39\ Notice of Filing, supra note 3, 88 FR at 68779.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \40\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to such organization. After carefully considering the Proposed Rule
Change, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to NSCC. In particular, the
Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with
section 17A(b)(3)(F) \41\ of the Act and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(5) and
(e)(23), each promulgated under the Act.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \42\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(5) and (e)(23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \43\ requires that the rules of a
clearing agency, such as NSCC, be designed to, among other things,
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which
are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible.\44\ The Commission believes that the Proposed Rule Change
is consistent with section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act for the reasons
stated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Part II supra, a key tool that NSCC uses to manage its
credit exposures to its members is the daily collection of margin from
each member described above, and NSCC applies haircuts to securities
collected as margin to protect NSCC and its members from price
fluctuations, i.e., if NSCC is required to liquidate collateral of an
insolvent member and such collateral is worth less at the time of
liquidation than when it is pledged to NSCC.
    By moving the location where collateral haircuts and concentration
limits are published from NSCC's Rules to its website, the Proposed
Rule change would add flexibility for NSCC to make timely adjustments
to collateral haircuts and concentration limits during a time of
potentially deteriorating market or other conditions, while preserving
notice requirements to ensure that members are aware of risk management
changes. This added flexibility should allow NSCC to continue to ensure
that it can address changing market conditions rapidly and ensure that
it is collecting sufficient margin to cover its credit exposures to
members and minimizing exposures from members with large collateral
positions in a particular group of securities with a similar risk
profile or in a particular asset type.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ In addition, the Commission believes that the changes
relating to the haircuts for TIPS would allow NSCC to ensure that
the haircut levels would be commensurate with the particular risk
attributes of TIPS, and thereby assure the safeguarding of
securities and funds that are in its custody or control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By helping NSCC to collect sufficient margin, the Proposed Rule
Change would better ensure that, in the event of a member default,
NSCC's operation of its critical clearance and settlement services
would not be disrupted because of insufficient financial resources.

Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change should help NSCC to continue
providing prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, consistent with section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, because the Proposed Rule Change would continue to ensure
that NSCC collects sufficient margin from members, it should also help
minimize the likelihood that NSCC would have to access the Clearing
Fund, thereby limiting non-defaulting members' exposure to mutualized
losses. By helping to limit the exposure of NSCC's non-defaulting
members to mutualized losses, the Proposed Rule Change should help NSCC
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in its
custody or control, consistent with section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed clarifying changes should help to ensure that
NSCC's Rules are clear to members. When members better understand their
rights and obligations regarding the Rules, members are more likely to
act in accordance with the Rules, which should promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. As such,
the proposed clarifying changes are consistent with section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5) under the Act \49\ requires, in part, a covered
clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to set and enforce
appropriately conservative haircuts and concentration limits if the
covered clearing agency requires collateral to manage its or its
participants' credit exposure. As described in Part II supra, the
proposed changes to move the collateral haircuts and concentration
limits from NSCC's Rules should provide NSCC with more flexibility to
respond to changing market conditions because adjustments to the
haircuts and concentration limits would no longer require a rule
change. By being able to make appropriate and timely adjustments to the
haircuts and concentration limits, NSCC would have the flexibility to
respond to changing market conditions more promptly. Specifically, NSCC
would have the ability to promptly set and enforce conservative
collateral haircuts and concentration limits that are reflective of the
current market conditions. In this way, the proposed changes to move
the collateral haircuts and concentration limits from the Rules to the
website should help NSCC set and enforce appropriately conservative
collateral haircuts and concentration limits, consistent with the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5) under the Act.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(5).
    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) and (ii) \51\ under the Act requires each
covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, among other
things, publicly disclose all relevant rules and material procedures;
and provide sufficient information to enable participants to identify
and evaluate the risks, fees, and other material costs they incur by
participating in the covered clearing agency. Based on its review of
the record, and for the reasons described below, the Commission finds
that the proposed changes, taken together, are consistent with the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) and (ii).\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) and (ii).
    \52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By adopting rules that require NSCC to provide prior notice through
public disclosures on its website relating to information on collateral
haircuts and concentration limits, NSCC's Rules would support the
communication of information that its members may use to identify and
evaluate the haircuts and concentration limits resulting from NSCC's
processes. As such, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with
publicly disclosing all relevant rules and material procedures; and
providing sufficient information to enable participants to identify and
evaluate the risks, fees, and other material costs incurred with
participation in the covered clearing agency. The Commission finds,
therefore, that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) and (ii) under the Act.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular with the requirements of section 17A of the Act \54\ and
the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\55\ that proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2023-009, be, and hereby is,
approved.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \56\ In approving the Proposed Rule Change, the Commission
considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25104 Filed 11-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 38048]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15498]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-2068-000]

Blue Sky East, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Blue Sky East, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 10, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 20, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15498 Filed 6-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


John Quinn	100 Constellation Way

Director – Environmental Affairs		Suite 1000C

			Baltimore, Maryland  21202<PHONE_NUMBER>

<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax

3 September, 2010 								Via email and post

Robert Wayland, Group Leader

Energy Strategies Group

US EPA

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711

Mail Drop D243-01

Cc: Melanie King

Re: Petition for Reconsideration of National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines,
Final Rule

RIN 2060-AP36

EPA Docket No. OAR-2008-0708

Dear Ms. Jackson:

Constellation Energy appreciates the opportunity to express support for
EnerNOC’s Petition for Reconsideration of National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines, Final Rule, submitted by Beveridge & Diamond, PC, May 27, 2010.
 We understand EPA has granted the petition for reconsideration.

Constellation Energy

Constellation Energy ( HYPERLINK
"http://cts.businesswire.com/ct/CT?id=smartlink&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.con
stellation.com&esheet=6382682&lan=en-US&anchor=www.constellation.com&ind
ex=1&md5=c807813eb61d0e3ab248d95fb58ad5b2" www.constellation.com ) is a
leading supplier of energy products and services to wholesale and retail
electric and natural gas customers. It owns a diversified fleet of
generating units located in the United States and Canada, totaling
approximately 9,000 megawatts of generating capacity, and is among the
leaders pursuing the development of new nuclear plants in the United
States. The company delivers electricity and natural gas through the
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE), its regulated utility in
Central Maryland. A FORTUNE 500 company headquartered in Baltimore,
Constellation Energy had revenues of $15.6 billion in 2009.

Petition for Reconsideration – Change 15-hour limit on emergency
engines to 60 hours or the minimum hours required by the ISO, whichever
is less

Constellation Energy supports EnerNOC’s petition for reconsideration
of the rule, specifically with respect to the 15-hour operating limit on
emergency DR.  The 15 hour limit for emergency engine operation in the
regulation currently says,  “The 50 hours per year for non-emergency
situations cannot be used for peak shaving or to generate income for a
facility to supply power to an electric grid or otherwise supply power
as part of a financial arrangement with another entity; except that
owners and operators may operate the emergency engine for a maximum of
15 hours per year as part of a DR program if the regional transmission
organization or equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator
has determined there are emergency conditions that could lead to a
potential electrical blackout, such as unusually low frequency,
equipment overload, capacity or energy deficiency, or unacceptable
voltage level.”

Constellation Energy favors EnerNOC’s request that the italicized
language above be revised to read, "…may operate the emergency engine
for a maximum of 60 hours per year or the minimum hours required by
Independent System Operator tariff, whichever is less..."

The Rationale behind the request for 60 hours is:

ISOs do not have the discretion to dispatch DR resources to take
advantage of the greater hours.  The emergency DR programs are only
called under very specific, planned, and controlled circumstances.  The
system operator must report operation in any emergency state to NERC.
NERC requires development of formal plans for Capacity and Energy
Emergencies, and precise implementation when calling emergency DR
events.

The 15 hour limit may prevent emergency engines from participating in
emergency DR programs. The PJM FERC Tariff for the Emergency Load
Response program requires a minimum availability of 60 hours. PJM’s
Reliability Assurance Agreement states that a party must agree to
reserve for interruption …at least 10 interruptions per planning
period.  In addition, a party must agree to reserve interruptions of at
least 6-hour duration.  Hence the 60 hours: 10 interruptions at 6 hours
duration per year.

In summary, Constellation Energy feels a 60-hour or ISO limit is more
rational; based on the existing ISO system reliability requirements for
this equipment.

Respectfully,

John Quinn

Director, Environmental Affairs

Constellation Energy

Cc: Melanie King    HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 9306]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04379]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL18-51-000]

Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund
Effective Date; RockGen Energy, LLC

    On February 26, 2018, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL18-51-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether the Rate
Schedule of RockGen Energy, LLC may be unjust and unreasonable. RockGen
Energy, LLC, 162 FERC ] 61,166 (2018).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL18-51-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL18-51-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2017),
within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.

    Dated: February 27, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-04379 Filed 3-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P