[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21433-21435]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08306]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69301; File No. SR-NSCC-2012-810]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of No Objection to Advance Notice Filing to
Eliminate the Offset of Its Obligations With Institutional Delivery
Transactions That Settle at The Depository Trust Company for the
Purpose of Calculating Its Clearing Fund Under Procedure XV of Its
Rules & Procedures

April 4, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On December 18, 2012, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') advance notice SR-NSCC-2012-810 (``Advance Notice'')
pursuant to Section 806(e) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank Act''),\1\ entitled
the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010
(``Clearing Supervision Act'' or ``Title VIII'') and Rule 19b-4(n) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''). The Advance
Notice was published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2013.\2\
The Commission received two comment letters to the Advance Notice from
one commenter.\3\ NSCC responded to both comment letters.\4\ This
publication serves as notice of no objection to the Advance Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,
Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
    \2\ Release No. 34-68621 (Jan. 10, 2013), 78 FR 3960 (Jan. 17,
2013). NSCC also filed a proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act on December 17, 2012 seeking Commission
approval to permit NSCC to change its rules to reflect the proposed
change described herein. The Commission published notice of the
proposed rule change on December 28, 2012. Release No. 34-68549
(Dec. 28, 2012), 78 FR 792 (Jan. 4, 2013). The Commission extended
the period of review of the proposed rule change on February 5,
2013. Release No. 34-68829 (Feb. 5, 2013), 78 FR 9751 (Feb. 11,
2013).
    \3\ Comment Letter from Lek Securities Corporation dated January
25, 2013 (http://sec.gov/comments/sr-nscc-2012-810/nscc2012810-1.pdf), and Comment Letter from Lek Securities Corporation dated
March 18, 2013 (http://sec.gov/comments/sr-nscc-2012-810/nscc2012810-3.pdf) (collectively, the ``Lek Letters'').
    \4\ Response Letter from NSCC dated February 22, 2013 (http://sec.gov/comments/sr-nscc-2012-810/nscc2012810-2.pdf), and Response
Letter from NSCC dated March 21, 2013 (http://sec.gov/comments/sr-nscc-2012-810/nscc2012810-4.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Analysis

    NSCC filed the Advance Notice to permit it to make rule changes to
its Rules & Procedures (``Rules'') designed to eliminate the offset of
NSCC obligations with institutional delivery (``ID'') transactions that
settle at The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') for the purpose of
calculating the NSCC clearing fund (``Clearing Fund'') under Procedure
XV of its Rules, as discussed below.

A. ID Offset

    NSCC maintains a Clearing Fund to have on deposit assets sufficient
to satisfy losses that may otherwise be incurred by NSCC as the result
of the default of an NSCC member (``Member'') and the resulting
closeout of that Member's unsettled positions under NSCC's trade
guaranty. Each Member is required to contribute to the Clearing Fund
pursuant to a formula calculated daily. The Clearing Fund formula
accounts for a variety of risk factors through the application of a
number of components, including Value-at-Risk

(``VaR'') \5\ and Market Maker Domination (``MMDOM'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The VaR component of the Clearing Fund calculation is a core
component of the formula and is designed to calculate the amount of
money that may be lost on a portfolio over a given period of time
that is assumed necessary to liquidate the portfolio, within a given
level of confidence. See Release No. 34-68621 (Jan. 10, 2013), 78 FR
3960 (Jan. 17, 2013).
    \6\ The MMDOM component of the Clearing Fund calculation is
charged to market makers or firms that clear for them. In
calculating the MMDOM, if the sum of the absolute values of net
unsettled positions in a security for which the firm in question
makes a market is greater than that firm's excess net capital, NSCC
may then charge the firm an amount equal to such excess or the sum
of each of the absolute values of the affected net unsettled
positions, or a combination of both. MMDOM operates to identify
concentration within a given CUSIP. See Release No. 34-68621 (Jan.
10, 2013), 78 FR 3960 (Jan. 17, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC currently calculates the VaR and MMDOM components of a
Member's Clearing Fund required deposit after allowing for a Member's
net unsettled NSCC positions in a particular CUSIP to be offset by any
pending ID transactions settling at DTC in the same CUSIP, which have
been confirmed and/or affirmed through an institutional delivery system
acceptable to NSCC (``ID Offset'').\7\ ID Offset is based on the
assumption that in the event of a Member's insolvency NSCC will be able
to close out any trade for which there is a corresponding ID
transaction settling at DTC by completing that ID transaction.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For purposes of the ID Offset, NSCC includes ID transactions
that are confirmed and/or affirmed on trade date, as well as ID
transactions affirmed one day after trade date and remain affirmed
through settlement date. See Release No. 34-68621 (Jan. 10, 2013),
78 FR 3960 (Jan. 17, 2013).
    \8\ ID transactions are included in the ID Offset only if they
are on the opposite side of the market from the Member's net NSCC
position (i.e., only if they reduce the net position). See Release
No. 34-68621 (Jan. 10, 2013), 78 FR 3960 (Jan. 17, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Potential Inability To Complete ID Transactions

    Generally, when NSCC ceases to act for a Member, it is obligated,
for those transactions that it has guaranteed, to pay for deliveries
made by non-defaulting Members that are due to the failed Member on the
day they are due. If NSCC is unable to complete the ID transactions as
contemplated by the current Clearing Fund calculation, then NSCC may
need to liquidate a portfolio that could be substantially different
than the portfolio for which NSCC collected its Clearing Fund, leaving
NSCC potentially under-collateralized and exposed to market risk.
    A defaulting Member's pending ID transactions may not be completed
for a number of reasons. Completion of an ID transaction by its
institutional counterparty is voluntary because that counterparty is
not a Member, which means it is not bound by NSCC's Rules and is not
party to any legally binding contract with NSCC that requires it or its
custodian to complete the transaction. Moreover, based on news that a
Member may be in distress or insolvent, the institutional counterparty
or its investment adviser may take immediate market action with respect
to the ID transaction, in order to reduce its market risk, which
effectively eliminates the option for NSCC to complete the
transactions. Finally, ID transactions settle trade-by-trade between
the executing broker and the custodian; the netted ID positions used to
offset the NSCC position could be comprised of thousands of individual
trades with hundreds of different counterparties. In the event of a
Member default, it could be time consuming for NSCC to contact the
counterparties individually to get their agreement to complete the ID
transactions. Even if NSCC were to get all of the counterparties to
agree to complete the ID transactions, this could delay the prompt
closeout of the defaulter's open positions and possibly expose NSCC to
additional market risk in excess of the Clearing Fund.
    Due to the risk that, in the event it ceases to act for a Member
with pending ID transactions, NSCC may be unable to complete the
pending ID transactions in the timeframe contemplated by its current
Clearing Fund calculations and, as a result, may have insufficient
margin in its Clearing Fund, as described above, NSCC will eliminate
the ID Offset calculation from the VaR and MMDOM components of a
Member's Clearing Fund requirement deposit.

C. Implementation Schedule

    In order to mitigate the impact of this rule change on its Members,
NSCC will implement the changes set forth in the Advance Notice over an
18-month period. On a date no earlier than 10 days following notice to
Members by Important Notice (``Initial Implementation Date''), NSCC
will eliminate ID Offset from ID transactions that have only been
confirmed, but have not yet been affirmed. Beginning on a date
approximately 12 months from the Initial Implementation Date, and no
earlier than 10 days following notice to Members by Important Notice,
NSCC will eliminate from ID Offset all affirmed ID transactions that
have reached settlement date at the time the Clearing Fund calculations
are run. Three months later, or approximately 15 months following the
Initial Implementation Date, and on a date no earlier than 10 days
following notice to Members by Important Notice, NSCC will eliminate
from ID Offset all affirmed ID transactions that have reached either
settlement date or the day prior to settlement date. Finally, on a date
approximately 18 months following the Initial Implementation Date, and
no earlier than 10 days following notice to Members by Important
Notice, NSCC will eliminate ID Offset entirely for all ID transactions.
Members will be advised of each proposed implementation date through
issuance of NSCC Important Notices, which are publicly available at
www.dtcc.com.

III. Discussion

    Although Title VIII does not specify a standard of review for an
Advance Notice, the stated purpose of Title VIII is instructive.\9\ The
stated purpose of Title VIII is to mitigate systemic risk in the
financial system and promote financial stability by, among other
things, promoting uniform risk management standards for systemically-
important financial market utilities (``FMUs'') and providing an
enhanced role for the Federal Reserve Board in the supervision of risk
management standards for systemically-important FMUs.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 12 U.S.C. 5461(b).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act \11\ authorizes
the Commission to prescribe risk management standards for the payment,
clearing, and settlement activities of designated clearing entities and
financial institutions engaged in designated activities for which it is
the supervisory agency or the appropriate financial regulator. Section
805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act \12\ states that the objectives
and principles for the risk management standards prescribed under
Section 805(a) shall be to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
    \12\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Promote robust risk management;
     promote safety and soundness;
     reduce systemic risks; and
     support the stability of the broader financial system.
    The Commission adopted risk management standards under Section
805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act on October 22, 2012
(``Clearing Agency Standards'').\13\ The Clearing Agency Standards
became effective on January 2, 2013 and require clearing agencies that
perform central counterparty (``CCP'') services to establish,
implement, maintain, and

enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to
meet certain minimum requirements for their operations and risk
management practices on an ongoing basis.\14\ As such, it is
appropriate for the Commission to review Advance Notices against these
risk management standards that the Commission promulgated under Section
805(a) and the objectives and principles of these risk management
standards as described in Section 805(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Release No. 34-68080 (Oct. 22, 2012), 77 FR 66219 (Nov. 2,
2012).
    \14\ The Clearing Agency Standards are substantially similar to
the risk management standards established by the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System (``Board of Governors'') governing the
operations of designated FMUs that are not clearing entities and
financial institutions engaged in designated activities for which
the Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is the
Supervisory Agency. See Financial Market Utilities, 77 FR 45907
(Aug. 2, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a CCP, NSCC occupies an important role in the securities
settlement system by interposing itself between counterparties to
financial transactions, thereby reducing certain risks faced by Members
and contributing to global financial stability. In this role, however,
NSCC is necessarily subject to certain risks in the event of the
default of a Member.
    NSCC's proposal to eliminate ID Offsets, as described above, is
designed to help mitigate the risk that NSCC will be under-
collateralized if it ceases to act for a defaulting Member and is
unable to complete the offsetting ID transactions in the time currently
contemplated by its Clearing Fund calculation. Consistent with Section
805(a), the Commission believes this proposal promotes robust risk
management, as well as the safety and soundness of NSCC's operations,
while reducing systemic risks and supporting the stability of the
broader financial system, by improving NSCC's risk management systems
in preparation for a possible Member default via a more accurate
representation of risk in its Clearing Fund calculation. As discussed
above, NSCC's calculation of its Clearing Fund margin will be more
accurate in that it will not include an assumption of trade closeouts
following a Member insolvency with respect to trades for which there is
a corresponding ID transaction.
    Additionally, Commission Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) regarding measurement
and management of credit exposure,\15\ adopted as part of the Clearing
Agency Standards,\16\ requires a CCP to establish, implement, maintain
and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
measure its credit exposures to its participants at least once a day
and limit its exposures to potential losses from defaults by its
participants under normal market conditions so that the operations of
the CCP would not be disrupted and non-defaulting participants would
not be exposed to losses that they cannot anticipate or control.\17\
Here, as described in detail above, NSCC's proposal to eliminate ID
Offsets should help to limit its exposure and non-defaulting members'
exposure to potential losses from a defaulting Member, while minimizing
disruption to its CCP operations, by more accurately reflecting its
risks in the calculation of its Clearing Fund margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(1).
    \16\ Release No. 34-68080 (Oct. 22, 2012), 77 FR 66219 (Nov. 2,
2012).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, Commission Rules 17Ad-22(d)(4) regarding
identification and mitigation of operational risk,\18\ and 17Ad-
22(d)(11) regarding default procedures,\19\ also both adopted as part
of the Clearing Agency Standards,\20\ require that registered clearing
agencies ``establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies
and procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable: * * * Identify
sources of operational risk and minimize them through the development
of appropriate systems, controls, and procedures * * * '',\21\ and `` *
* * establish default procedures that ensure that the clearing agency
can take timely action to contain losses and liquidity pressures and to
continue meeting its obligations in the event of a participant
default,\22\ respectively. Here, as described in detail above, the
elimination of ID Offsets should help NSCC better minimize settlement
risks and better ensure that it can contain losses and liquidity
pressures, and meet its obligations in a timely fashion, by more
accurately accounting for those risks in a Clearing Fund calculation
that is designed to satisfy potential losses in a timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(4).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(11).
    \20\ Release No. 34-68080 (Oct. 22, 2012), 77 FR 66219 (Nov. 2,
2012).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(4).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its assessment of the Advance Notice, the Commission assessed
whether the issues raised by the Lek Letters relate to the level or
nature of risks presented by NSCC's proposal, which is designed to
mitigate risks to NSCC, as discussed above. After evaluating NSCC's
responses to the Lek Letters, the Commission believes that the issues
raised in the Lek Letters relate to the potential competitive effects
of NSCC's proposal, not the level or nature of risks presented by
it.\23\ As such, the issues raised by the Lek Letters are not
considered within the context of this Notice of No Objection to the
Advance Notice under Title VIII; rather, they are considered within an
analysis of the proposal's consistency with Section 17A of the Exchange
Act and the applicable rules and regulations thereunder, which the
Commission did in its ``Order Approving Proposed Rule Change to
Eliminate the Offset of [NSCC's] Obligations with Institutional
Delivery Transactions that Settle at The Depository Trust Company for
the Purpose of Calculating Its Clearing Fund Under Procedure XV of Its
Rules & Procedures'' (File No. SR-NSCC-2012-10).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Lek Letters, supra note 3.
    \24\ See Release No. 34-69302 (Apr. 4, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore noticed, pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(I) of the
Clearing Supervision Act,\25\ that the Commission does not object to
the proposed rule change described in the Advance Notice (File No. SR-
NSCC-2012-810) and that NSCC be and hereby is authorized to implement
the proposed rule change as of the date of this notice or the date of
the ``Order Approving Proposed Rule Change to Eliminate the Offset of
[NSCC's] Obligations with Institutional Delivery Transactions that
Settle at The Depository Trust Company for the Purpose of Calculating
Its Clearing Fund Under Procedure XV of Its Rules & Procedures'' (File
No. SR-NSCC-2012-10),\26\ whichever is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(I).
    \26\ Release No. 34-69302 (Apr. 4, 2013).

By the Commission.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08306 Filed 4-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64990-64991]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26215]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0823; FRL-9368-1]

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee; Request for Nominations to
the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Pesticide Programs
is inviting nominations from a diverse range of qualified candidates to
be considered for appointment to the Pesticide Program Dialogue
Committee (PPDC). EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to
obtain nominations of diverse candidates, EPA encourages nominations of
women and men of all racial and ethnic groups. Vacancies are expected
to be filled by early spring 2013. Additional sources may be utilized
in the solicitation of nominees.

DATES: Nominations must be emailed or postmarked no later than November
9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Nominations should be emailed or submitted in writing to
Margie Fehrenbach at the address listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margie Fehrenbach, Office of Pesticide
Programs (7501P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A . Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
particular interest to persons who work in agricultural settings or
persons who are concerned about implementation of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); and the amendments to both of these
major pesticide laws by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996;
and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act. Potentially affected
entities may include, but are not limited to: Agricultural workers and
farmers; pesticide industry and trade associations; environmental,
consumer, and farm worker groups; pesticide users and growers; animal
rights groups; pest consultants; State, local, and tribal governments;
academia; public health organizations; and the public. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0823, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is entrusted with the
responsibility to help ensure the safety of the American food supply,
the education and protection from unreasonable risk of those who apply
or are exposed to pesticides occupationally or through use of products,
and general protection of the environment and special ecosystems from
potential risks posed by pesticides.
    The Charter for EPA's PPDC was established under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, in September 1995,
and has been renewed every 2 years since that time. PPDC's Charter was
renewed October 28, 2011, for another 2-year period. The purpose of
PPDC is to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator
on issues associated with pesticide regulatory development and reform
initiatives, evolving public policy and program implementation issues,
and science issues associated with evaluating and reducing risks from
use of pesticides. It is determined that PPDC is in the public interest
in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Agency by
law. The following sectors are represented on the current PPDC:
Environmental/public interest and animal rights groups; farm worker
organizations; pesticide industry and trade associations; pesticide
user, grower, and commodity groups; Federal and State/local/tribal
governments; the general public; academia; and public health
organizations.
    The PPDC meets face-to-face twice a year, generally in the spring
and the fall. Additionally, members may be asked to serve on work
groups to develop recommendations to address specific policy issues.
The average workload for members is approximately 4 to 6 hours per
month. EPA provides reimbursement for travel and other incidental
expenses associated with official government business.
    Copies of the PPDC Charter are filed with appropriate committees of
Congress and the Library of Congress and are available upon request.

III. How To Submit Nominations

    Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified
persons to be considered for appointment to this advisory committee.
Individuals may self-nominate. Nominations may be submitted in
electronic format (preferred) or mailed to Margie Fehrenbach at the
address listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    To be considered, all nominations should include:
     Current contact information for the nominee, including the
nominee's name, organization (and position within that organization),
current business address, email address, and daytime telephone number.
     Brief statement describing the nominee's interest in
serving on the PPDC.
     R[eacute]sum[eacute] and a short biography (no more than
two paragraphs) describing the professional and educational
qualifications of the nominee, including

a list of relevant activities, and any current or previous service on
advisory committees.
     Letter[s] of recommendation from a third party supporting
the nomination. The letter should describe how the nominee's experience
and knowledge will bring value to the work of the PPDC.
    Other sources, in addition to this Federal Register notice, may
also be utilized in the solicitation of nominees.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural workers, Agriculture,
Chemicals, Endangered species, Foods, Pesticide labels, Pesticides and
pests, Public health, Spray drift.

    Dated: October 18, 2012.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-26215 Filed 10-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51826-51827]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24271]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR18-4-000]

Marathon Pipe Line LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on November 1, 2017, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2016), Marathon Pipe Line
LLC (MPL), filed a petition for a declaratory order seeking approval of
the overall rate structure and terms of service for a redesign and
expansion project for two interstate crude oil pipelines that MPL
operates, namely the

Woodpat and Roxpat pipelines, which will be combined and expanded to
create a single pipeline system that can ship Cushing, Rockies, and
Canadian crude oil to multiple Patoka, Illinois destinations, as more
fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is 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 protected], or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on November 30, 2017.

    Dated: November 2, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-24271 Filed 11-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 220 (Thursday, November 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 78802]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25361]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-236, OMB Control No. 3235-0222]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 17f-1

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit these existing collections of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 17f-1 (17 CFR 270.17f-1) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (the ``Act'') (15 U.S.C. 80a) is entitled: ``Custody of Securities
with Members of National Securities Exchanges.'' Rule 17f-1 provides
that any registered management investment company (``fund'') that
wishes to place its assets in the custody of a national securities
exchange member may do so only under a written contract that must be
ratified initially and approved annually by a majority of the fund's
board of directors. The written contract also must contain certain
specified provisions. In addition, the rule requires an independent
public accountant to examine the fund's assets in the custody of the
exchange member at least three times during the fund's fiscal year. The
rule requires the written contract and the certificate of each
examination to be transmitted to the Commission. The purpose of the
rule is to ensure the safekeeping of fund assets.
    Commission staff estimates that each fund makes 1 response and
spends an average of 3.5 hours annually in complying with the rule's
requirements. Commission staff estimates that on an annual basis it
takes: (i) 0.5 hours for the board of directors \1\ to review and
ratify the custodial contracts; and (ii) 3 hours for the fund's
controller to assist the fund's independent public auditors in
verifying the fund's assets. Approximately 8 funds rely on the rule
annually, with a total of 8 responses.\2\ Thus, the total annual hour
burden for rule 17f-1 is approximately 28 hours.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Estimates of the number of hours are based on conversations
with representatives of mutual funds that comply with the rule. The
actual number of hours may vary significantly depending on
individual fund assets. The hour burden for rule 17f-1 does not
include preparing the custody contract because that would be part of
customary and usual business practice.
    \2\ Based on a review of Form N-17f-1 filings over the last
three years the Commission staff estimates that an average of 8
funds rely on rule 17f-1 each year.
    \3\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (8
respondents x 3.5 hours = 28 hours). The annual burden for rule 17f-
1 does not include time spent preparing Form N-17f-1. The burden for
Form N-17f-1 is included in a separate collection of information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Funds that rely on rule 17f-1 generally use outside counsel to
prepare the custodial contract for the board's review and to transmit
the contract to the Commission. Commission staff estimates the cost of
outside counsel to perform these tasks for a fund each year is
$1,130.\4\ Funds also must have an independent public accountant verify
the fund's assets three times each year and prepare the certificate of
examination. Commission staff estimates the annual cost for an
independent public accountant to perform this service is $10,412.\5\
Therefore, the total annual cost burden for a fund that relies on rule
17f-1 would be approximately $11,542.\6\ As noted above, the staff
estimates that 8 funds rely on rule 17f-1 each year, for an estimated
total annualized cost burden of $92,336.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (2
hours of outside counsel time x $565 = $1,130). The staff has
estimated the average cost of outside counsel at $565 per hour,
based on information received from funds and their counsel.
    \5\ This estimate is based on information received from fund
representatives estimating the aggregate annual cost of an
independent public accountant's periodic verification of assets and
preparation of the certificate of examination.
    \6\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: $1,130
+ $10,412 = $11,542.
    \7\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 8 funds
x $11,542 = $92,336.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules. Compliance with the collections of information
required by rule 17f-1 is mandatory for funds that place their assets
in the custody of a national securities exchange member. Responses will
not be kept confidential. 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 control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted by January 16, 2024.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an
email to: [email protected].

    Dated: November 13, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25361 Filed 11-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10107]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03272]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. AD20-6-000]

Request for Technical Conference and Petition for Rulemaking:
Energy Trading Institute

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of request for technical conference and petition for
rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has received a
petition from the Energy Trading Institute requesting that the
Commission hold a technical conference and conduct a rulemaking to
update the requirements adopted in Order No. 741 and Commission's
regulations addressing credit and risk management in the markets
operated by Independent System Operators and Regional Transmission
Organizations.

DATES: Comments are due March 12, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways:
     Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software should be filed
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned
format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically
may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tina Ham (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Michael Hill (Policy Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>James Burchill (Policy Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Anne Marie Hirschberger (Legal Information), Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  On December 16, 2019, the Energy Trading
Institute filed in the above-captioned docket a petition requesting
that the Commission hold a technical conference and conduct a
rulemaking to update the requirements adopted in Order No. 741 \1\ and
section 35.47 of the Commission's regulations \2\ addressing credit and
risk management in the markets operated by Independent System Operators
and Regional Transmission Organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Credit Reforms in Organized Wholesale Electric Markets,
Order No. 741, 133 FERC ] 61,060 (2010) (Order No. 741), order on
reh'g, Order No. 741-A, 134 FERC ] 61,126 (2011), reh'g denied,
Order No. 741-B, 135 FERC ] 61,242 (2011).
    \2\ 18 CFR 35.47 (2019).

    Dated: February 11, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03272 Filed 2-20-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P