[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 203 (Monday, October 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 49020]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22873]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9969-79-OAR]

Acid Rain Program: Notification of Annual Adjustment Factors for
Excess Emissions Penalty

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Annual adjustment factors for excess emissions penalty.

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

SUMMARY: The Acid Rain Program under title IV of the Clean Air Act
provides for automatic excess emissions penalties in dollars per ton of
excess emissions for sources that do not meet their annual Acid Rain
emissions limitations. This document states the dollars per ton excess
emissions penalty amounts, which must be adjusted for each compliance
year commensurate with changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), for
compliance years 2017 and 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert L. Miller, Clean Air Markets
Division (6204M), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Acid Rain Program under title IV of the
Clean Air Act limits annual sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions
of fossil fuel-fired utility units. Under the Acid Rain Program,
affected sources must hold enough allowances to cover their sulfur
dioxide emissions, and certain coal-fired sources must meet an emission
limit for nitrogen oxides. Under 40 CFR 77.6, sources that do not meet
these requirements must pay a penalty without demand to the
Administrator based on the number of excess tons emitted times $2,000
as adjusted by an annual adjustment factor, which must be published in
the Federal Register.
    The annual adjustment factor for adjusting the penalty for excess
emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides under 40 CFR part
77.6(b) for compliance year 2017 is 1.9330. This value is derived using
the CPI for 1990 and 2016 (defined respectively at 40 CFR 72.2 as the
CPI for August of the year before the specified year for all urban
consumers) and results in an automatic penalty of $3,866 per excess ton
of sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides emitted for 2017.
    The annual adjustment factor for adjusting the penalty for such
excess emissions under 40 CFR 77.6(b) for compliance year 2018 is
1.9705. This value is derived using the CPI for 1990 and 2017 and
results in an automatic penalty of $3,941 per excess ton of sulfur
dioxide or nitrogen oxides emitted for 2018.

    Dated: October 10, 2017.
Reid P. Harvey,
Director, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs,
Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2017-22873 Filed 10-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 182)]
[Notices]
[Page 48261]
[DOCID:fr22se09-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1655-000]

Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

September 10, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm, 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 September 29, 2009.
    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 St. 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 e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22729 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22992-22993]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09506]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0034; FRL 9925-38-OEI ]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills (40
CFR part 60, subpart BB) (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1055.11, OMB Control
No. 2060-0021) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through April 30, 2015. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register(79 FR 30117) on May 27,
2014 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2014-0034, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Supporting documents which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in
the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the general
provisions of the New Service Performance Standards (NSPS) at 40 CFR
part 60, subpart A, and any changes, or additions to the general
provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart BB. Owners or operators
of the affected facilities must submit initial notification,
performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or
operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and
duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of
an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system
is inoperative. Reports are required, at a minimum, semiannually.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of kraft pulp
mills.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart BB).
    Estimated number of respondents: 112 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 16,700 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $6,001,000 (per year), includes $4,327,000
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 618 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. The increase is due to an industry growth since the
last ICR renewal, resulting in an increased number of respondents
subject to the standard.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-09506 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36817-36819]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14578]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2013-0002-N-14]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and Request for Comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the Information Collection Requirements (ICRs)
abstracted below have been forwarded to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICRs describes the nature of
the information collections and their expected burdens. The Federal
Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the
following collections of information was published on March 27, 2013
(78 FR 18668).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 19, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Planning
and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone:
(202) 493-6292), or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information
Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 493-
6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13, Sec.  2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised
at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part
1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public
comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve
paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1),
1320.12. On March 27, 2013, FRA published a 60-day notice in the
Federal Register soliciting comment on ICRs that the agency was seeking
OMB approval. See 78 FR 18668. FRA received no comments after issuing
this notice. Accordingly, these information collection activities have
been re-evaluated and certified under 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and forwarded to
OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12(c).
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or
disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day
notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also
60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30 day notice
informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords
the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a
decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should
submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication
to best ensure having their full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60
FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
    The summary below describes the nature of the information
collection requirements (ICRs) and the expected burden. The revised
requirements are

being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
    Title: Stenciling Reporting Mark on Freight Cars.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0520.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    Affected Public: Railroads.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Abstract: Title 49, Section 215.301 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, sets forth certain requirements that must be followed by
railroad carriers and private car owners relative to identification
marks on railroad equipment. FRA, railroads, and the public refer to
the stencilling to identify freight cars.
    Annual Estimated Burden: 18,750 hours.
    Title: Rear-End Marking Devices.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0523.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    Affected Public: Railroads.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Abstract: The collection of information is set forth under 49 CFR
Part 221 which requires railroads to furnish a detailed description of
the type of marking device to be used for the trailing end of rear cars
in order to ensure rear cars meet minimum standards for visibility and
display. Railroads are required to furnish a certification that the
device has been tested in accordance with current ``Guidelines For
Testing of Rear End Marking Devices.'' Additionally, railroads are
required to furnish detailed test records which include the testing
organizations, description of tests, number of samples tested, and the
test results in order to demonstrate compliance with the performance
standard.
    Annual Estimated Burden: 39 hours.
    Title: Locomotive Certification (Noise Compliance Regulations).
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0527.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    Affected Public: Locomotive Manufacturers.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Abstract: Part 210 of title 49 of the United States Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) pertains to FRA's noise enforcement procedures which
encompass rail yard noise source standards published by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA has the authority to set
these standards under the Noise Control Act of 1972. The information
collected by FRA under Part 210 is necessary to ensure compliance with
EPA noise standards for new locomotives.
    Annual Estimated Burden: 2,767 hours.
    Title: Grade Crossing Signal System Safety Requirements.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0534.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    Affected Public: Railroads.
    Form(s): FRA F 6180.83.
    Abstract: FRA believes that highway-rail grade crossing (grade
crossing) accidents resulting from warning system failures can be
reduced. Motorists lose faith in warning systems that constantly warn
of an oncoming train when none is present. Therefore, the fail-safe
feature of a warning system loses its effectiveness if the system is
not repaired within a reasonable period of time. A greater risk of an
accident is present when a warning system fails to activate as a train
approaches a grade crossing. FRA's regulations require railroads to
take specific responses in the event of an activation failure. FRA uses
the information to develop better solutions to the problems of grade
crossing device malfunctions. With this information, FRA is able to
correlate accident data and equipment malfunctions with the types of
circuits and age of equipment. FRA can then identify the causes of
grade crossing system failures and investigate them to determine
whether periodic maintenance, inspection, and testing standards are
effective. FRA also uses the information collected to alert railroad
employees and appropriate highway traffic authorities of warning system
malfunctions so that they can take the necessary measures to protect
motorists and railroad workers at the grade crossing until repairs have
been made.
    Annual Estimated Burden: 8,152 hours.
    Title: Bridge Worker Safety Rules.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0535.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    Affected Public: Railroads.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Abstract: Section 20139 of Title 49 of the United States Code
required FRA to issue rules, regulations, orders, and standards for the
safety of maintenance-of-way employees on railroad bridges, including
for ``bridge safety equipment'' such as nets, walkways, handrails, and
safety lines, and requirements for the use of vessels when work is
performed on bridges located over bodies of water. FRA has added 49 CFR
Part 214 to establish minimum workplace safety standards for railroad
employees as they apply to railroad bridges. Specifically, section
214.15(c) establishes standards and practices for safety net systems.
Safety nets and net installations are to be drop-tested at the job site
after initial installation and before being used as a fall-protection
system; after major repairs; and at six-month intervals if left at one
site. If a drop-test is not feasible and is not performed, then a
written certification must be made by the railroad or railroad
contractor, or a designated certified person, that the net does comply
with the safety standards of this section. FRA and State inspectors use
the information to enforce Federal regulations. The information that is
maintained at the job site promotes safe bridge worker practices.
    Annual Estimated Burden: 1 hour.
    Title: Railroad Police Officers.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0537.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    Affected Public: Railroads.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Abstract: Under 49 CFR Part 207, railroads are required to notify
states of all designated police officers who are discharging their
duties outside of their respective jurisdictions. This requirement is
necessary to verify proper police authority.
    Annual Estimated Burden: 181 hours.
    Title: Foreign Railroads' Foreign-Based (FRFB) Employees Who
Perform Train or Dispatching Service in the United States.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0555.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Railroads.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Abstract: The collection of information is used by FRA to determine
compliance of FRFB train and dispatching service employees and their
employers with the prohibition against the abuse of alcohol and
controlled substances. Because of the increase in cross-border train
operations and the increased risk posed to the safety of train
operations in the United States, FRA seeks to apply all of the
requirements of 49 CFR 219 to FRFB train and dispatching service
employees. The basic information--evidence of unauthorized use of drugs
and alcohol--is used by FRA to help prevent accidents/incidents by
screening FRFB who perform safety-sensitive functions for unauthorized
drug or alcohol use. FRFB train and dispatching service employees
testing positive for unauthorized use of alcohol and drugs are removed
from service, thereby enhancing safety and serving as a deterrent to
other FRFB train and dispatching service employees who

might be tempted to engage in the unauthorized use of drugs or alcohol.
    Annual Estimated Burden: 33 hours.
    Addressee: Send comments regarding these information collections to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street NW., Washington, DC, 20503,
Attention: FRA Desk Officer.
    Comments are invited on the following: Whether the proposed
collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of
the burden of the proposed information collections; ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
    A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 13, 2013.
Rebecca Pennington,
Chief Financial Officer, Federal Railroad Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-14578 Filed 6-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36646-36647]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13319]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77970; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-60]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule
1000A(b)(8)

June 1, 2016.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 24, 2016, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend section (b)(8) of Rule 1000A,
Applicability and Definitions. The rule applies to index options.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is amending Rule 1000A(b)(8) which defines the term
``closing index value'' to provide greater clarity. Currently Rule
1000A(b)(8) defines ``closing index value'' to mean the current index
value calculated at the close of business on the day of exercise, or,
if the day of exercise is not a trading day, on the last trading day
before exercise (P.M.-settled), unless the settlement value of the
index is based on the opening price of each component issue on the
primary market (A.M.-settled).
    Accordingly, the definition of ``closing index value'' applicable
to P.M.-settled options--the current index value calculated at the
close of business on the day of exercise, or, if the day of exercise is
not a trading day, on the last trading day before exercise--clearly
does not apply to options where the settlement value of the index is
based on the opening price of each component issue on the primary
market (A.M.-settled).
    It is understood that the ``closing index value'' for such options
is to be ``the settlement value of the index based on the opening price
of each component issue on the primary market,'' but the Exchange
believes the provision could be more tightly drafted and less awkward.
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to redefine ``closing index value''
separately for P.M.-settled options and A.M.-settled options as (a)
with respect to P.M.-settled options, the current index value
calculated at the close of business on the day of exercise, or, if the
day of exercise is not a trading day, on the last trading day before
exercise, or (b) with respect to A.M.-settled options, the opening
price of each component issue on the primary market on the day of
exercise, or, if the day of exercise is not a trading day, on the last
trading day before exercise. The rule amendment is intended to improve
readability and provide greater clarity. No substantive change is
intended.
    Additionally, the Commentary to Rule 1009A(b)(8) [sic] is proposed
to be updated. Currently, the Commentary recites that for any series of
index options first opened after March 30, 1987, the Exchange may, in
its discretion, provide that the calculation of the final index
settlement value of any index on which options are traded at the
Exchange will be determined by reference to the prices of the
constituent stocks at a time other than the close of trading on the
last trading day before expiration. The Exchange is deleting the words
``first opened after March 30, 1987'' as archaic and no longer
necessary.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act,\3\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by improving the readability and clarity of its definition of closing
index value and the related commentary. The change benefits members by
providing better access to clear rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the rule merely
clarifies the defined term ``closing index value'' which is not a
substantive change, and removes archaic language from the Rule
1009A(b)(8) [sic] Commentary. Neither proposed change has an impact on
competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \5\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2016-60 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-Phlx-2016-60. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2016-60, and should be
submitted on or before June 28, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-13319 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68179-68186]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21783]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98558; File No. SR-FICC-2023-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1,
Relating to the Margin Liquidity Adjustment Charge

September 27, 2023.

I. Introduction

    On August 3, 2023, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ proposed rule change SR-
FICC-2023-012 to amend FICC's Government Securities Division (``GSD'')
Rulebook (``GSD Rules'') and Mortgage-Backed Securities Division
(``MBSD'') Clearing Rules (``MBSD Rules,'' and collectively with the
GSD Rules, the ``Rules'') \3\ to enhance FICC's margin methodology with
respect to the Margin Liquidity Adjustment Charge (``MLA Charge''). The
proposed rule change was published for public comment in the Federal
Register on August 24, 2023.\4\ The Commission has received no comments
on the proposed rule change. On August 22, 2023, FICC filed Amendment
No. 1 to the proposed rule change, to make clarifications to the
proposed rule change.\5\ The proposed

rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is hereinafter referred to
as the ``Proposed Rule Change.'' The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on Amendment No. 1 from interested persons,
and, for the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the
Proposed Rule Change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Terms not defined herein are defined in the GSD Rules and
MBSD Rules, as applicable, available at www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98163 (Aug. 18,
2023), 88 FR 58004 (Aug. 24, 2023) (File No. SR-FICC-2023-012)
(``Notice of Filing'').
    \5\ Amendment No. 1 made clarifications and corrections to
Exhibit 3b of the filing (Proposed Changes to the Depository Trust
and Clearing Corporation (``DTCC'') Model Development
Documentation--FICC Market Liquidity Adjustment Model and Bid-ask
Charge Model) to include a description of a term used in a
calculation and to remove an unnecessary chart. These clarifications
and corrections do not substantively change proposed rule change.
FICC has requested confidential treatment of Exhibit 3b, pursuant to
17 CFR 240.24b-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    FICC operates two divisions: GSD and MBSD. GSD provides trade
comparison, netting, risk management, settlement, and central
counterparty (``CCP'') services for the U.S. Government securities
market. MBSD provides the same services for the U.S. mortgage-backed
securities market. GSD and MBSD maintain separate sets of rules, margin
models, and clearing funds. As a CCP, FICC interposes itself as the
buyer to every seller and seller to every buyer for the financial
transactions it clears. As such, FICC 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 FICC uses to manage its credit exposures to its
members is the daily collection of the Required Fund Deposit (i.e.,
margin) from each member. A member's margin is designed to mitigate
potential losses associated with liquidation of the member's portfolio
in the event of that member's default. The aggregated amount of all GSD
and MBSD members' margin constitutes the GSD Clearing Fund and MBSD
Clearing Fund, respectively, which FICC would be able to access should
a defaulted member's own margin be insufficient to satisfy losses to
FICC caused by the liquidation of that member's portfolio. Each
member's margin consists of several components, each of which is
designed to address specific risks faced by FICC arising out of its
members' trading activity. One of these components is the MLA Charge.
As described more fully below, the MLA Charge is designed to address
the risk presented to FICC by member portfolios that contain large net
unsettled positions in a particular group of securities with a similar
risk profile or in a particular transaction type.
    In the event of a member default, the Rules \6\ provide FICC with
the authority to close out and manage the positions in a defaulted
member's portfolio. The process of closing out a defaulted member's
portfolio typically involves buying and selling securities that the
defaulted member was obligated to deliver and receive to and from FICC,
or otherwise liquidating the portfolio.\7\ FICC's transaction costs to
liquidate the securities in a defaulted member's portfolio are affected
by, among other things, the marketability of such securities (``market
impact costs''). As a general matter, less marketable securities are
more difficult and costly to liquidate within the three-day assumed
period of risk. One factor that could reduce the marketability of the
securities in a defaulted member's portfolio is if the portfolio were
to contain a large concentration of net unsettled positions in a
particular group of securities with a similar risk profile or in a
particular transaction type. Therefore, such portfolios create the risk
that FICC may face increased transaction costs to liquidate in the
event of a member default. The MLA Charge is the margin component
designed to mitigate the foregoing risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See GSD Rule 22A (Procedures for When the Corporation Ceases
to Act) and MBSD Rule 17 (Procedures for When the Corporation Ceases
to Act), supra note 3.
    \7\ FICC's margin methodology assumes that a defaulted member's
portfolio would take three days to liquidate in normal market
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Current MLA Charge

    To calculate the MLA Charge, FICC categorizes securities into asset
groups that share similar risk profiles. Under the current GSD Rules,
the asset groups include: (a) U.S. Treasury securities, which are
further categorized into subgroups by maturity--those maturing in (i)
less than one year, (ii) equal to or more than one year and less than
two years, (iii) equal to or more than two years and less than five
years, (iv) equal to or more than five years and less than ten years,
and (v) equal to or more than ten years; (b) Treasury-Inflation
Protected Securities (``TIPS''), which are further categorized into
subgroups by maturity--those maturing in (i) less than two years, (ii)
equal to or more than two years and less than six years, (iii) equal to
or more than six years and less than eleven years, and (iv) equal to or
more than eleven years; (c) U.S. agency bonds; and (d) mortgage pools
transactions.\8\ Under the current MBSD Rules, there is currently one
mortgage-backed securities asset group.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See GSD Rule 1 (definition of ``Margin Liquidity Adjustment
Charge''), supra note 3. Additional details regarding the
calculation of the MLA Charge are set forth in the DTCC Model
Development Documentation--FICC Market Liquidity Adjustment Model
and Bid-ask Charge Model (``Model Development Documentation''). FICC
would revise the Model Development Document to incorporate the
changes in the Proposed Rule Change and included copies of changes
to the Model Development Document in Exhibit 3b to the Proposed Rule
Change. Pursuant to 17 CFR 240.24b-2, FICC requested confidential
treatment of Exhibit 3b.
    \9\ See MBSD Rule 1 (definition of ``Margin Liquidity Adjustment
Charge''), supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC designed the MLA Charge calculation to compare the total
market value of a portfolio's net unsettled positions in a particular
asset group to the available trading volume of that asset group (or
subgroup) in the market.\10\ If the market value of the portfolio's net
unsettled positions in an asset group is large in comparison to the
available trading volume of that asset group, then FICC faces the risk
of increased transaction costs to liquidate those positions in the
event of a member default.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ FICC determines average daily trading volume by reviewing
data that is made publicly available by the Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''), at https://www.sifma.org/resources/archive/research/statistics. See Notice of Filing, supra
note 4, at 58006.
    \11\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Calculation of the MLA Charge involves several steps, which are
generally described as part of the definition of the MLA Charge in Rule
1.\12\ First, FICC calculates the market impact cost with respect to
the member's net unsettled positions in each asset group.\13\ To
determine the market impact cost for net unsettled positions in
Treasuries maturing in less than one year and TIPS at GSD, FICC uses
the directional market impact cost, which is a function of the net
unsettled positions' net directional market value.\14\ To determine the
market impact cost for all other net unsettled positions at GSD and
MBSD, FICC adds together two components: (1) the directional market
impact cost, as described above, and (2) the basis cost, which is based
on the net unsettled positions' gross market value.\15\ The calculation
of market impact cost for net unsettled positions in Treasuries
maturing in less than one year and TIPS does not include basis cost
because basis risk is negligible for

these types of positions.\16\ For all asset groups, when determining
the market impact cost at GSD and MBSD, the net directional market
value and the gross market value of the net unsettled positions are
divided by the average daily volumes of the securities in that asset
group over a lookback period.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra notes 8 and 9.
    \13\ See id.
    \14\ The net directional market value of an asset group within a
portfolio equals the absolute difference between the market value of
the long net unsettled positions in that asset group, and the market
value of the short net unsettled positions in that asset group. For
example, if the market value of the long net unsettled positions is
$100,000, and the market value of the short net unsettled positions
is $150,000, the net directional market value of the asset group is
$50,000. See id.
    \15\ To determine the gross market value of the net unsettled
positions in each asset group, FICC sums the absolute value of each
CUISP in the asset group. See id.
    \16\ See id.
    \17\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, FICC compares the calculated market impact cost to a portion
of the Value at Risk (``VaR'') Charge (``VaR Charge'') that is
allocated to the net unsettled positions in those asset groups.\18\ If
the ratio of the calculated market impact cost to a portion of the VaR
Charge is greater than a prescribed threshold,\19\ FICC applies an MLA
Charge to that asset group.\20\ If the ratio of these two amounts is
equal to or less than the threshold, FICC does not apply an MLA Charge
to that asset group.\21\ In addition, FICC may apply a downward
adjusting scaling factor in the calculation of the MLA Charge based on
the ratio of the calculated market impact cost to the 1-day VaR
Charge.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The VaR Charge is a margin component designed to mitigate
the risk that market volatility could cause the price of securities
in a member's portfolio to change between trade execution and
settlement. See GSD Rule 1 (definition of ``VaR Charge''); MBSD Rule
1 (definition of ``VaR Charge''), supra note 3. The VaR Charge is
typically the largest component of a member's margin requirement.
For purposes of calculating the MLA Charge, FICC uses a portion of
the VaR Charge that is based on a one-day assumed period of risk and
calculated by applying a simple square-root of time scaling,
referred to herein as the ``1-day VaR Charge.'' See Notice of
Filing, supra note 4, at 58006.
    \19\ The threshold is based on an estimate of the market impact
cost that is incorporated into the calculation of the 1-day VaR
Charge, such that FICC only applies an MLA Charge when the
calculated market impact cost exceeds this prescribed threshold.
FICC reviews its method for calculating the thresholds from time to
time. Any changes that FICC deems appropriate would be subject to
FICC's model risk management governance procedures set forth in the
Clearing Agency Model Risk Management Framework (``Model Risk
Management Framework''). See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
81485 (Aug. 25, 2017), 82 FR 41433 (Aug. 31, 2017) (SR-FICC-2017-
014); 84458 (Oct. 19, 2018), 83 FR 53925 (Oct. 25, 2018) (SR-FICC-
2018-010); 88911 (May 20, 2020), 85 FR 31828 (May 27, 2020) (SR-
FICC-2020-004); 92380 (July 13, 2021), 86 FR 38140 (July 19, 2021)
(SR-FICC-2021-006); 94271 (Feb. 17, 2022), 87 FR 10411 (Feb. 24,
2022) (SR-FICC-2022-001); and 97890 (July 13, 2023), 88 FR 46287
(July 19, 2023) (SR-FICC-2023-008).
    \20\ Notice of Filing, supra note 4, at 58006.
    \21\ See id.
    \22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each member portfolio, FICC adds together the MLA Charges (if
any) for each asset group to determine the total MLA Charge for the
member portfolio.\23\ FICC calculates the final MLA Charge daily, and
if applicable, includes the MLA Charge as a margin component.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See id.
    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Current MLA Charge and MLA Excess Amount for Sponsored Members

    A Sponsoring Member is permitted to submit to FICC, for comparison,
novation, and netting, certain eligible securities transactions of its
Sponsored Members.\25\ A Sponsored Member may be sponsored by a single
Sponsoring Member or by multiple Sponsoring Members. FICC requires each
Sponsoring Member to establish an omnibus account at FICC (separate
from its regular netting account) for Sponsored Member trading
activity.\26\ Sponsored Members are generally required to meet the
definition of a qualified institutional buyer (``QIB''), as defined in
Rule 144A \27\ under the Securities Act of 1933.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51896 (June 21, 2005),
70 FR 36981 (June 27, 2005) (SR-FICC-2004-22). See GSD Rule 3A,
supra note 3.
    \26\ See GSD Rule 3A, Section 8, supra note 3.
    \27\ 17 CFR 230.144A.
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For operational and administrative purposes, FICC interacts solely
with the Sponsoring Member as agent for purposes of the day-to-day
satisfaction of its Sponsored Members' obligations to and from FICC,
including their securities and funds-only settlement obligations.\29\
Sponsoring Members are also responsible for providing FICC with a
Sponsoring Member Guaranty, whereby the Sponsoring Member guarantees to
FICC the payment and performance by its Sponsored Members of their
obligations under the GSD Rules.\30\ Although Sponsored Members are
principally liable to FICC for their own settlement obligations under
the GSD Rules, the Sponsoring Member Guaranty requires the Sponsoring
Member to satisfy those settlement obligations on behalf of a Sponsored
Member if the Sponsored Member defaults and fails to perform its
settlement obligations.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See GSD Rule 3A, Section 8, supra note 3.
    \30\ See GSD Rule 1 (definition of ``Sponsoring Member
Guaranty'') and GSD Rule 3A, Section 2(c), supra note 3.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC's calculation of the MLA Charge for a Sponsored Member that
clears through a single account sponsored by a single Sponsoring Member
is the same as described above in Section II.A.\32\ However, for a
Sponsored Member that clears through multiple accounts sponsored by
multiple Sponsoring Members, in addition to calculating an MLA Charge
for each account as described above, FICC also calculates an MLA Charge
for the combined net unsettled positions of the Sponsored Member across
all of its Sponsoring Members (referred to herein as the ``consolidated
portfolio'').\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Notice of Filing, supra note 4, at 58006.
    \33\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, if the MLA Charge of the consolidated portfolio is
greater than the sum of all MLA Charges for each account of the
Sponsored Member, FICC charges the difference (referred to herein and
currently defined in the Rules as the ``MLA Excess Amount'') in
addition to the applicable MLA Charge.\34\ If the MLA Charge of the
consolidated portfolio is not greater than the sum of all MLA Charges
for each account of the Sponsored Member, FICC does not charge the MLA
Excess Amount.\35\ Instead, FICC charges the applicable MLA Charge for
each of the Sponsored Member's accounts.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See id.
    \35\ See id.
    \36\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MLA Excess Amount is designed to capture the additional market
impact cost that could be incurred when a Sponsored Member defaults,
and each of its Sponsoring Members, in its capacity as the Sponsored
Member's guarantor, liquidates net unsettled positions associated with
that defaulted Sponsored Member.\37\ If large net unsettled positions
in the same asset group are being liquidated by multiple Sponsoring
Members, the market impact cost to liquidate those positions could
increase as Sponsoring Members compete for market liquidity in the same
asset group at the same time.\38\ The MLA Excess Amount addresses this
additional market impact cost by capturing any difference between the
calculations of the MLA Charge for each of the Sponsored Member's
accounts on both a stand-alone basis and for the consolidated
portfolio.\39\ The MLA Excess Amount for a Sponsored Member is
allocated pro rata across each of its Sponsoring Members using a market
volatility risk-weighted allocation methodology.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See id.
    \38\ See id.
    \39\ See id.
    \40\ Notice of Filing, supra note 4, at 58006-07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

A. Amend MLA Charge Calculation and Eliminate MLA Excess Amount

    FICC proposes to amend the MLA Charge calculation for Sponsored
Members that clear through multiple accounts sponsored by multiple
Sponsoring Members to better align the amount of the MLA Charge with
the market impact cost arising from position concentration of the
Sponsored Member's respective Sponsored Member

accounts. Specifically, the revised calculation would apportion a
higher MLA Charge to those Sponsored Member accounts with higher
relative market impact costs (and lower relative VaR Charges) than the
current calculation.
    FICC's proposal to amend the MLA Charge calculation for Sponsored
Members that clear through multiple accounts sponsored by multiple
Sponsoring Members is designed to mitigate the risk of incurring
additional market impact costs when a Sponsored Member defaults and
each of its Sponsoring Members (each, as the Sponsored Member's
guarantor) liquidate the defaulted Sponsored Member's large net
unsettled positions in the same asset group.\41\ In light of this
change to the MLA Charge calculation, FICC also proposes to simplify
its margin methodology by eliminating the MLA Excess Amount from the
GSD Rules because the amended MLA Charge calculation would address the
additional market impact cost that the MLA Excess Amount was originally
designed to address.\42\ Specifically, for such Sponsored Members, FICC
proposes to calculate an MLA Charge both (1) for each asset group/
subgroup in the account on a stand-alone basis, as described above in
Section II.C, and (2) for each asset group/subgroup in the account as
part of a consolidated portfolio, as described below, with the greater
amount applied as the MLA Charge for the relevant asset group/subgroup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 4, at 58007.
    \42\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When calculating the MLA Charge for each asset group/subgroup in
the account as part of a consolidated portfolio, FICC would first
calculate the market impact cost for each asset group/subgroup based on
the aggregate net unsettled positions of that asset group/subgroup in
the consolidated portfolio. FICC would allocate the market impact cost
for each asset group/subgroup to each asset group/subgroup in each
account of the Sponsored Member on a pro rata basis based on the market
impact cost of that asset group/subgroup in the account.
    Next, FICC would compare the allocated market impact cost for an
asset group/subgroup to a portion of the VaR Charge that is allocated
to that asset group/subgroup in the account. If the ratio of the
allocated market impact cost to a portion of the VaR Charge is greater
than a prescribed threshold, FICC would apply an MLA Charge for that
asset group/subgroup. If the ratio of the two amounts is equal to or
less than this threshold, FICC would not apply an MLA Charge for that
asset group/subgroup.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ As described in further detail in Model Development
Documentation submitted in the Proposed Rule Change, FICC determines
the threshold by an optimization process based on the ratio of an
estimate of the market impact cost to the 1-day VaR Charge. See
supra note 8; see Notice of Filing, supra note 4, at 58007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When applicable, FICC would calculate the MLA Charge for each asset
group/subgroup in the account as part of the consolidated portfolio as
a proportion of the product of (1) the amount by which the ratio of the
allocated market impact cost for the asset group/subgroup to the
portion of the VaR Charge allocated to that asset group/subgroup
exceeds the prescribed threshold,\44\ and (2) a portion of the VaR
Charge allocated to that asset group/subgroup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The proposed methodology would calculate the MLA Charge for
the consolidated portfolio by applying the threshold to asset
groups/subgroups, as opposed to the current methodology, which
calculates the MLA Charge for the consolidated portfolio by applying
the threshold to the entire portfolio. See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC would then compare the MLA Charge for each asset group/
subgroup in the account on a stand-alone basis against the MLA Charge
for each asset group/subgroup in the account as part of a consolidated
portfolio. FICC would apply the greater of these two amounts as the MLA
Charge for the asset group. FICC would add the applicable MLA Charges
for each asset group/subgroup together to calculate the total MLA
Charge for that Sponsored Member account.
    FICC believes that the proposed revisions to the MLA Charge
calculation for Sponsored Members that clear through multiple accounts
sponsored by multiple Sponsoring Members would better allocate MLA
Charges to those Sponsored Member accounts than the current
calculation, so that the MLA Charge would increase for accounts with
higher relative market impact costs.\45\ FICC also believes that the
proposed revisions to the MLA Charge calculation would address the
market impact costs that the MLA Excess Amount was originally designed
to address, thereby enabling FICC to eliminate the MLA Excess Amount
from the GSD Rules.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 4, at 58007.
    \46\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Revise Description of Asset Groups and/or Subgroups

    As described above in Section II.A, FICC categorizes securities
into asset groups/subgroups that share similar risk profiles for the
purpose of calculating the MLA Charge. The current GSD Rules contain a
list of the asset groups/subgroups.\47\ The current MBSD Rules contain
a statement that there is one mortgage-backed securities asset
group.\48\ FICC states that it may need to set and adjust the asset
groupings from time to time in response to changes in market conditions
that cause the risk profiles of portfolio positions to shift.\49\
However, since the groups/subgroups are currently codified in the GSD
Rules and MBSD Rules, FICC notes that any changes to the groupings
would require the filing of a proposed rule change with the Commission,
which FICC believes does not necessarily provide FICC with the
flexibility to make timely changes in response to market
conditions.\50\ Therefore, FICC proposes to retain the asset groups in
the GSD Rules, but remove the asset subgroups (i.e., the specific
maturities) from the GSD Rules.\51\ FICC proposes to revise the GSD
Rules and the MBSD Rules to provide that FICC would publish the asset
groups and subgroups on FICC's website, and that FICC will provide at
least 5 business days' advance notice of any changes to the schedule
via Important Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See GSD Rule 1 (definition of ``Margin Liquidity Adjustment
Charge''), supra note 3.
    \48\ See MBSD Rule 1 (definition of ``Margin Liquidity
Adjustment Charge''), supra note 3.
    \49\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 4, at 58008.
    \50\ See id.
    \51\ The revised GSD Rule would contain provisions indicating
that the asset groupings may be further categorized into subgroups.
See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, to better reflect the different risk profiles of the
mortgage pools/mortgage-backed securities asset groups, FICC proposes
to add language in the GSD Rules and MBSD Rules to indicate that
mortgage pools/mortgage-backed securities asset groups may be further
categorized into subgroups by mortgage pool types. FICC also proposes
to revise the MBSD Rules to provide that for the purpose of calculating
the MLA Charge at MBSD, a member's net unsettled positions in TBA
transactions, Specified Pool Trades, and Stipulated Trades shall be
included in one mortgage-backed securities asset group, which may be
further categorized into subgroups by mortgage pool types.

C. Clarifying and Technical Changes

    FICC proposes to modify certain language in the GSD Rules and MBSD
Rules to clarify certain aspects of the MLA Charge, without making
substantive changes to the methodology. Specifically, FICC proposes to
clarify that for the purpose of determining the MLA Charge amount, FICC
first calculates the MLA Charge for each asset group/subgroup, and then
FICC

adds the MLA Charges together to result in one MLA Charge for each
member portfolio. FICC also proposes to clarify that FICC calculates
the market impact cost for the combined net unsettled positions in each
asset group/subgroup; not for each net unsettled position. Similarly,
FICC proposes to clarify that the associated VaR Charge allocation is
also performed for each asset group/subgroup; not for each net
unsettled position.
    Finally, FICC proposes to make several technical changes to the GSD
Rules that reflect the correct usage of terms. Specifically, in GSD
Rule 1, FICC proposes to replace the term ``mortgage pools
transactions'' with ``mortgage pools,'' and the term ``MLA charge''
with ``MLA Charge.''

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \52\ 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 the 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 FICC. In particular, the
Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \53\ of the Act and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i),
(e)(6)(i), and (e)(19) thereunder.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \53\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \54\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i), (e)(6)(i), and (e)(19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

1. Prompt and Accurate Clearance and Settlement
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \55\ requires that the rules of a
clearing agency, such as FICC, 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.\56\ The Commission believes that the Proposed Rule Change
is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act for the reasons
stated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above in Section III.A, FICC proposes to amend the MLA
Charge calculation at GSD for Sponsored Members that clear through
multiple accounts sponsored by multiple Sponsoring Members.
Specifically, the amended calculation would apportion a higher MLA
Charge to those Sponsored Member accounts with higher relative market
impact costs than the current calculation. As a result, the proposal
would better align the MLA Charge with the risk arising from position
concentration in such Sponsored Member portfolios. The Commission
believes that a closer alignment between the MLA Charge and the risks
presented by the concentration of securities in Sponsored Member
portfolios would help facilitate FICC's ability to set margins that
more accurately reflect the risks posed by such portfolios. Setting
margins that accurately reflect the risks posed by its members'
portfolios could reduce the likelihood that FICC would not have
collected sufficient margin to address losses arising out of a member
default. Reducing the likelihood that FICC holds insufficient margin to
address default losses would, in turn, further assure that FICC's
operation of its critical clearance and settlement services would not
be disrupted because of insufficient financial resources.
    As part of the Proposed Rule Change, FICC filed Exhibit 3a--Summary
of Impact Study (``Impact Study''), which provided the actual MLA
Charges at the member-level, account-level, and CCP-level, from October
19, 2020 through October 31, 2022, as compared to the MLA Charges that
FICC would have assessed if the proposed enhancement had been in place
during that time period.\57\ The Commission reviewed and analyzed the
Impact Study, which showed, among other things, that had the proposed
enhancement been in place for Sponsored Members that clear through
multiple accounts sponsored by multiple Sponsoring Members, it would
have resulted in an average daily increase of $9.47 million in the
aggregate MLA Charge for the impacted Sponsored Members. Therefore, the
Impact Study demonstrates that the proposed MLA Charge calculation
would enable FICC to set higher margin coverage levels than those using
the current calculation, providing further assurance that FICC's
operation of its critical clearance and settlement services would not
be disrupted because of insufficient financial resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ FICC has requested confidential treatment of Exhibit 3a,
pursuant to 17 CFR 240.24b-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, as described above in Section III.A, the proposed
enhancement to the MLA Charge calculation would enable FICC to simplify
its margin methodology by eliminating the MLA Excess Amount from the
GSD Rules because the enhanced MLA Charge calculation would address the
additional market impact cost that the MLA Excess Amount was originally
designed to address. Thus, the proposed enhancement to the MLA Charge
calculation and removal of the MLA Excess Amount from the GSD Rules
would render FICC's margin methodology more accurate, robust, and
streamlined, further assuring its effectiveness.
    As described above in Section III.B, FICC proposes to (1) remove
the enumerated asset subgroups from the GSD Rules, (2) change both the
GSD Rules and MBSD Rules to indicate that FICC may further categorize
asset groups into subgroups, and (3) change both the GSD Rules and MBSD
Rules to indicate that a member's net unsettled positions in TBA
transactions, Specified Pool Trades, and Stipulated Trades shall be
included in one mortgage-backed securities asset group, which may be
further categorized into subgroups by mortgage pool types. FICC states
that the purpose of these changes is to facilitate FICC's ability to
timely set and adjust the asset groupings from time to time in response
to changes in market conditions that cause a shift in the risk profiles
of portfolio positions. FICC would publish the asset groups and
subgroups on FICC's website, and that FICC will provide at least 5
business days' advance notice of any changes to the schedule via
Important Notice.
    FICC's ability to promptly respond to changing risk profiles of the
securities in its members' portfolios would better enable FICC to set
margins that more accurately reflect the risks posed by such
portfolios. Setting margins that accurately reflect the risks posed by
its members' portfolios could reduce the likelihood that FICC would not
have collected sufficient margin to address losses arising out of a
member default. Reducing the likelihood that FICC holds insufficient
margin to address default losses would, in turn, further assure that
FICC's operation of its critical clearance and settlement services
would not be disrupted because of insufficient financial resources.
    As described above in Section III.C, FICC proposes to make several
technical changes to the GSD Rules that reflect the correct usage of
terms. Enhancing the clarity of the GSD Rules would enable members to
more efficiently and effectively understand and conduct their business
in accordance with the GSD Rules. When members conduct

their business in accordance with the GSD Rules, FICC is able to focus
more of its resources on providing its clearance and settlement
services.
    Accordingly, for the reasons above, the Commission finds that the
Proposed Rule Change should help FICC to continue providing prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions,
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Safeguarding Securities and Funds
    As described above in Section II, FICC would access the mutualized
Clearing Fund should a defaulted member's own margin be insufficient to
satisfy losses to FICC caused by the liquidation of that member's
portfolio. As discussed above in Section IV.A.1, FICC's proposals to
enhance the MLA Charge calculation and eliminate the MLA Excess Amount
should help ensure that FICC collects sufficient margin from its
members. Similarly, FICC's proposals to remove the asset subgroups from
the GSD Rules and otherwise streamline the GSD Rules and MBSD Rules
with respect to the asset groups/subgroups, should help facilitate
FICC's ability to promptly respond to changing risk profiles of its
members' portfolios, and thereby set margins that more accurately
reflect the risks posed by such portfolios. Accordingly, the Proposed
Rule Change should help minimize the likelihood that FICC would have to
access the Clearing Fund, thereby limiting non-defaulting members'
exposure to mutualized losses.
    The Commission believes that by helping to limit the exposure of
FICC's non-defaulting members to mutualized losses, the Proposed Rule
Change would help FICC assure the safeguarding of securities and funds
which are in its custody or control, consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) Under the Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act requires that each covered
clearing agency that provides central counterparty services, such as
FICC, establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure,
monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those
arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including
by maintaining sufficient financial resources to cover its credit
exposure to each participant fully with a high degree of
confidence.\60\ The Commission believes that the proposal is consistent
with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act for the reasons stated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above in Section IV.A, FICC's proposed enhancement to
the MLA Charge calculation and removal of the MLA Excess Amount from
the GSD Rules would render FICC's margin methodology more accurate than
the current methodology by apportioning a higher MLA Charge to those
Sponsored Member accounts with higher relative market impact costs. As
a result, the proposal would better align the MLA Charge with the risk
arising from position concentration in such Sponsored Member
portfolios. The Commission has reviewed and analyzed the filing
materials, including the Impact Study,\61\ and agrees that the proposed
enhancement to the MLA Charge calculation and removal of the MLA Excess
Amount from the GSD Rules would enable FICC to set margins that more
accurately reflect the risks posed by such portfolios than the current
methodology. As a result, implementing the Proposed Rule Change would
better enable FICC to collect sufficient margin in connection with
Sponsored Members that clear through multiple accounts sponsored by
multiple Sponsoring Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See supra note 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission finds the Proposed Rule Change is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act because it is
designed to assist FICC in managing its credit exposures to its members
by maintaining sufficient financial resources to cover its credit
exposure to the portfolios of Sponsored Members that clear through
multiple accounts sponsored by multiple Sponsoring Members.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) Under the Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act requires that each covered
clearing agency that provides central counterparty services, such as
FICC, establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its
participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a
minimum, considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the
risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio,
and market.\63\ The Commission believes that the proposal is consistent
with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act for the reasons stated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above in Section IV.A, FICC's proposed enhancement to
the MLA Charge calculation and removal of the MLA Excess Amount from
the GSD Rules would render FICC's margin methodology more accurate than
the current methodology by apportioning a higher MLA Charge to those
Sponsored Member accounts with higher relative market impact costs. As
a result, the proposal would better align the MLA Charge with the risk
arising from position concentration in such Sponsored Member
portfolios. The Commission has reviewed and analyzed the filing
materials, including the Impact Study,\64\ and agrees that the proposed
enhancement to the MLA Charge calculation and removal of the MLA Excess
Amount from the GSD Rules would enable FICC to set margins that more
accurately reflect the risks posed by such portfolios than the current
methodology. As a result, implementing the Proposed Rule Change would
better enable FICC to set margin amounts at levels commensurate with
the risks associated with the portfolios of Sponsored Members that
clear through multiple accounts sponsored by multiple Sponsoring
Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See supra note 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission finds the Proposed Rule Change is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act because it is
designed to assist FICC in maintaining a risk-based margin system that
considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the risks and
particular attributes of its Sponsored Member portfolios.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(19) Under the Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(19) under the Act requires that each covered
clearing agency that provides central counterparty services, such as
FICC, establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to identify, monitor, and manage the
material risks to the covered clearing agency arising from arrangements
in which firms that are indirect participants in the covered clearing
agency rely on the services provided by direct participants to access
the covered clearing agency's payment, clearing, or settlement
facilities.\66\ The Commission believes that the proposal is consistent
with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(19)

under the Act for the reasons stated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above in Section II.B, FICC's Sponsored Service allows
eligible members to sponsor their clients into a limited form of FICC
membership such that a Sponsoring Member is permitted to submit to
FICC, for comparison, novation, and netting, certain eligible
securities transactions of its Sponsored Members. Sponsored Members are
indirect FICC participants that rely on the services provided by direct
FICC participants (i.e., Sponsoring Members) to access FICC's clearance
and settlement facilities.\67\ Therefore, Rule17Ad-22(e)(19) requires
FICC to identify, monitor, and manage the material risks arising from
the Sponsored Service.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See id.
    \68\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC's proposals to amend the MLA Charge calculation and eliminate
the MLA Excess Amount are designed to address the risks arising from
Sponsored Members that clear through multiple accounts sponsored by
multiple Sponsoring Members. As described above in Section II.B, for
such Sponsored Members, FICC currently calculates an MLA Charge for
each Sponsored Member account on both a stand-alone and consolidated
portfolio basis, ultimately applying whichever MLA Charge calculation
is greater to the Sponsored Member's margin. FICC has identified an
opportunity to amend the MLA Charge calculation for such Sponsored
Members to better align the amount of the MLA Charge with the market
impact cost arising from position concentration in the Sponsored
Member's respective Sponsored Member accounts. Specifically, the
revised calculation would apportion a higher MLA Charge to those
Sponsored Member accounts with higher relative market impact costs than
the current calculation. The proposed change would also enable FICC to
simplify its margin methodology by eliminating the MLA Excess Amount
from the GSD Rules because the enhancement would address the additional
market impact cost that the MLA Excess Amount was originally designed
to address. As discussed above in Section IV.A, the Commission believes
that implementation of these proposals would help facilitate FICC's
ability to set margins that more accurately and efficiently reflect the
risks posed by the portfolios of Sponsored Members that clear through
multiple Sponsoring Members.
    Accordingly, the Commission believes that by improving FICC's
margin methodology with respect to FICC's Sponsored Members, the
Proposed Rule Change would help FICC better manage the material risks
arising from the Sponsored Service, consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(19).\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the
Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

    Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
    Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number
SR-FICC-2023-012 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2023-012. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the Proposed Rule Change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the Proposed
Rule Change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of FICC and FICC's website at
https://www.dtcc.com/legal.
    Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions;
you should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication
submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2023-012 and should
be submitted on or before October 24, 2023.

VI. Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act,\70\ to approve the Proposed Rule Change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day after the
date of publication of Amendment No. 1 in the Federal Register. As
noted above, in Amendment No. 1, FICC updated the Exhibit 3b \71\ to
the Proposed Rule Change to add a missing description of a term used in
a calculation and to remove an unnecessary chart. Amendment No. 1
neither modifies the Proposed Rule Change as originally published in
any substantive manner, nor does Amendment No. 1 affect any rights or
obligations of FICC or its members. Instead, Amendment No. 1 makes
technical changes to clarify Exhibit 3b. Additionally, since FICC filed
Amendment No. 1 on August 22, 2023, the Commission has had sufficient
time to review and consider Amendment No. 1 as part of its analysis of
the Proposed Rule Change. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act,\72\ to approve the
Proposed Rule Change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the
thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of Amendment No.
1 in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(iii).
    \71\ See supra note 8.
    \72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
Proposed Rule Change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \73\ and the rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\74\ that proposed rule change SR-FICC-2023-012, be, and hereby is,
approved.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \75\ 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.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-21783 Filed 10-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 144 (Monday, July 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 45209]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16190]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC20-82-000.
    Applicants: Golden Fields Solar III, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of Golden Fields Solar III, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/20/20.
    Accession Number: 20200720-5185.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/20.

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

    Docket Numbers: EG20-216-000.
    Applicants: Tatanka Ridge Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Tatanka Ridge Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200721-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/20.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER19-404-004.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company, Public Service
Company of Colorado.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2020-07-20 OATT-Att O-SPS-ADIT-Amnd
Compliance_ER19-404 to be effective 2/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/20/20.
    Accession Number: 20200720-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2014-000.
    Applicants: Rattlesnake Flat, LLC.
    Description: Second Supplement to June 8, 2020 Rattlesnake Flat,
LLC tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 7/20/20.
    Accession Number: 20200720-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2087-000.
    Applicants: Gichi Noodin Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to June 17-2020 Gichi Noodin Wind Farm, LLC
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 7/20/20.
    Accession Number: 20200720-5183.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2098-000.
    Applicants: Titan Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Second Supplement to June 18, 2020 Titan Solar 1, LLC
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 7/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20200716-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2462-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Moon Lake Revised Wheeling
Agreement Rev 5 to be effective 9/20/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200721-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2463-000.
    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of Long Sault
Division Open Access Transmission Tariff to be effective 9/20/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200721-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2464-000.
    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of Tapoco Division
Open Access Transmission Tariff to be effective 9/20/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200721-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/20.

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

    Dated: July 21, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-16190 Filed 7-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P