[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 28, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38273-38274]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13688]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0818; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-35]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Route T-
366; Point Hope, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes United States Area Navigation (RNAV)
route T-366 in the vicinity of Point Hope, AK in support of a large and
comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, September 8, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jesse Acevedo, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would expand the availability of RNAV in Alaska and
improve the efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace
System by lessening the dependency on ground based navigation.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2021-0818 in the Federal Register (86 FR 58230; October 21, 2021),
proposing to establish RNAV T-route, T-366 in the vicinity of Point
Hope, AK in support of a large and comprehensive T-route modernization
project for the state of Alaska. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting comments on the
proposal. There were no comments received.
    United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph
6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F dated August 10, 2021 and effective
September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The RNAV route listed in this document will be published subsequently
in FAA Order JO 7400.11F.

Differences From the NPRM

    Subsequent to the publication of the NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2021-
0818 in the Federal Register (86 FR 58230; October 21, 2021), the FAA
determined it was necessary to relocate the following waypoints (WPs):
VANTY, CABGI, JOGDU, and JATIL, to address instrument flight procedure
concerns related to the WPs being located too close to the Non-
Directional Beacon (NDB). As a result, the latitude/long geographic
coordinates for the WPs are changed from what was proposed in the NPRM.
This change will move each WP by approximately 600-feet from the
location as proposed in the NPRM. The regulatory text in this action
incorporates these changes.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing RNAV route T-366
in the vicinity of Point Hope, AK in support of a large and
comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska.
    The route is described below.
    T-366: This action establishes T-366 navigating from the Point
Hope, AK, (PHO) NDB to the Cape Lisburne, AK, (LUR) NDB using the
VANTY, AK, WP and the CABGI, AK, WP, mirroring Colored airway B-5; from
the Cape Lisburne, AK, (LUR) NDB to the Point Lay, AK, (PIZ) NDB, using
the CABGI, AK,WP; the SUPGY, AK, WP; and the JODGU, AK, WP, mirroring
Colored airway B-2; and from the Point Lay, AK, (PIZ) NDB to the
Nuiqsut Village, AK, (UQS) NDB, using the JODGU, AK, WP; the FILEV, AK,
WP; the Barrow, AK, VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring
Equipment (VOR/DME), and the JATIL, AK, WP, mirroring Colored airway G-
16.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of

Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and
air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA determined that this airspace action of establishing RNAV
route T-366 in the vicinity of Point Hope, AK qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further
environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify
classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see
14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas;
Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points), and paragraph 5-
6.5i, which categorically excludes from further environmental review
the establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures
conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level (AGL); procedures
conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be
routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently
approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not
significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases
in minimum altitudes and landing minima. As such, this action is not
expected to result in any potentially significant environmental
impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding
Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for
factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded
action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further
analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances
exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

                                       T-366 VANTY, AK to JATIL, AK [New]
VANTY, AK                     WP                  (Lat. 68[deg]20'40.64'' N, long. 166[deg]48'09.96'' W)
CABGI, AK                     WP                  (Lat. 68[deg]52'16.94'' N, long. 166[deg]04'50.37'' W)
SUPGY, AK                     WP                  (Lat. 69[deg]01'57.87'' N, long. 164[deg]13'31.71'' W)
JODGU, AK                     WP                  (Lat. 69[deg]44'11.47'' N, long. 163[deg]00'04.08'' W)
FILEV, AK                     WP                  (Lat. 70[deg]38'16.81'' N, long. 159[deg]59'41.10'' W)
Barrow, AK (BRW)              VOR/DME             (Lat. 71[deg]16'24.33'' N, long. 156[deg]47'17.22'' W)
JATIL, AK                     WP                  (Lat. 70[deg]12'46.02'' N, long. 151[deg]00'19.83'' W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 22, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-13688 Filed 6-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44162-44164]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75491; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-064]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Options Regulatory Fee

July 20, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934,\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that on
July 10, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or
``CBOE'') proposes to amend the Options Regulatory Fee. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, 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 proposes to decrease the Options Regulatory Fee
(``ORF'') from $.0086 to $.0064 per contract in order to help ensure
that revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with other
regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total
regulatory costs. The proposed fee change would be operative on August
1, 2015.
    The ORF is assessed by the Exchange to each Trading Permit Holder
for all options transactions executed or cleared by the Trading Permit
Holder that are cleared by The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
in the customer range (i.e., transactions that clear in a customer
account at OCC) regardless of the exchange on which the transaction
occurs.\3\ In other words, the Exchange imposes the ORF on all
customer-range transactions executed by a Trading Permit Holder, even
if the transactions do not take place on the Exchange. The ORF also is
charged for transactions that are not executed by a Trading Permit
Holder but are ultimately cleared by a Trading Permit Holder. In the
case where a Trading Permit Holder executes a transaction and a
different Trading Permit Holder clears the transaction, the ORF is
assessed to the Trading Permit Holder who executed the transaction. In
the case where a non-Trading Permit Holder executes a transaction and a
Trading Permit Holder clears the transaction, the ORF is assessed to
the Trading Permit Holder who clears the

transaction. The ORF is collected indirectly from Trading Permit
Holders through their clearing firms by OCC on behalf of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The ORF also applies to customer-range transactions executed
during Extended Trading Hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to
the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Trading Permit Holder
customer options business, including performing routine surveillances,
investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, as well as policy,
rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement activities. The Exchange
believes that revenue generated from the ORF, when combined with all of
the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, will cover a material
portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs. The Exchange
notes that its regulatory responsibilities with respect to Trading
Permit Holder compliance with options sales practice rules have largely
been allocated to FINRA under a 17d-2 agreement. The ORF is not
designed to cover the cost of that options sales practice regulation.
    The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue
collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other
regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total
regulatory costs. The Exchange monitors its regulatory costs and
revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange
determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a
material portion of its regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the
ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange
notifies Trading Permit Holders of adjustments to the ORF via
regulatory circular. The Exchange endeavors to provide Trading Permit
Holders with such notice at least 30 calendar days prior to the
effective date of the change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\4\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ which provides that Exchange rules may provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using its
facilities. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirement that the
rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable because
it would help ensure that revenue collected from the ORF, in
combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the
Exchange's total regulatory costs. Moreover, the Exchange believes the
ORF ensures fairness by assessing higher fees to those Trading Permit
Holders that require more Exchange regulatory services based on the
amount of customer options business they conduct. Regulating customer
trading activity is much more labor intensive and requires greater
expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating non-
customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and less
labor-intensive. As a result, the costs associated with administering
the customer component of the Exchange's overall regulatory program are
materially higher than the costs associated with administering the non-
customer component (e.g., Trading Permit Holder proprietary
transactions) of its regulatory program.\7\ The Exchange believes the
proposed fee change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in
that it is charged to all Trading Permit Holders on all their
transactions that clear in the customer range at the OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ If the Exchange changes its method of funding regulation or
if circumstances otherwise change in the future, the Exchange may
decide to modify the ORF or assess a separate regulatory fee on
Trading Permit Holder proprietary transactions if the Exchange deems
it advisable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because it applies to all
Trading Permit Holders. The proposed ORF is comparable to fees charged
by other options exchanges for the same or similar service. The
Exchange believes any burden on competition imposed by the proposed
rule change is outweighed by the need to help the Exchange adequately
fund its regulatory activities to ensure compliance with the Exchange
Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \9\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2015-064 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-CBOE-2015-064. 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
the 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-CBOE-2015-064 and should be submitted on or before
August 14, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-18131 Filed 7-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 183 (Friday, September 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44410]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20275]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[9966-15-OEI]

 Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Arizona's
request to revise its National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation EPA-authorized program to allow electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA approves the authorized program revision for the State of
Arizona's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation
program as of October 23, 2017, if no timely request for a public
hearing is received and accepted by the Agency.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
1175<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic
reporting. Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and
modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option
of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures
available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An
application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the
state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to
implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered
by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems
that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.
    On July 26, 2017, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) submitted an application titled ``Compliance Monitoring Data
Portal'' for revision to its EPA-approved drinking water program under
title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed ADEQ's
request to revise its EPA-authorized program and, based on this review,
EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of
authorized program revision set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In
accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to
approve Arizona's request to revise its Part 142--National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic
reporting under 40 CFR part 141 is being published in the Federal
Register.
    ADEQ was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application
with respect to the authorized program listed above.
    Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that
they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State
of Arizona's request to revise its authorized public water system
program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f).
Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of
publication of today's Federal Register notice. Such requests should
include the following information:
    (1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual,
organization or other entity requesting a hearing;
    (2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's
determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing,
and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to
consider when determining whether to grant the request;
    (3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the
request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the
signature of a responsible official of the organization or other
entity.
    In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide
notice of the hearing in the Federal Register not less than 15 days
prior to the scheduled hearing date. Frivolous or insubstantial
requests for hearing may be denied by EPA. Following such a public
hearing, EPA will review the record of the hearing and issue an order
either affirming today's determination or rescinding such
determination. If no timely request for a hearing is received and
granted, EPA's approval of the State of Arizona's request to revise its
part 142--National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation
program to allow electronic reporting will become effective 30 days
after today's notice is published, pursuant to CROMERR section
3.1000(f)(4).

Matthew Leopard,
Director, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2017-20275 Filed 9-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21076-21077]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07411]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2021-0807; FRL-9680-01-R8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Dakota;
Revisions to South Dakota Codified Law and Administrative Rules of
South Dakota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the ``Agency'') is
proposing approval of South Dakota's submittal requesting that EPA
recognize the merger of South Dakota's Department of Agriculture (DOA)
with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to form
the new Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR) and
incorporate corresponding non-substantive revisions to the South Dakota
Codified Law (SDCL) and the Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD)
into South Dakota's State Implementation Plan. Accordingly, EPA is
proposing to approve South Dakota's submittal in accordance with the
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 11, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2021-0807, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically in
www.regulations.gov. To reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, for
this action we do not plan to offer hard copy review of the docket.
Please email or call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section if you need to make alternative arrangements for access
to the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Gregory, Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail
Code 8P-ARD-QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means EPA. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register,
EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this
rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives such
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 2, 2022.
K.C. Becker,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2022-07411 Filed 4-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


 IDENTIFICATION OF INFORMATION COLLECTION

 1(a) Title of the Information Collection

Title: The Environmental Protection Agency's Pollution Prevention Awards Program

ICR Number: EPA ICR No.: 2614.01; OMB Control No.: 2008-NEW
Docket ID Number: EPA-R08-OPPT-2020-0013

 1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Pollution Prevention (P2) program is a voluntary program that encourages businesses/facilities to adopt P2 projects that reduce both financial costs (e.g. waste management and cleanup) and environmental costs (e.g. health problems and environmental damage). In passing the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) in 1990, Congress found that "(T)here are significant opportunities for industry to reduce or prevent pollution at the source through cost-effective changes in production, operation, and raw materials use. Such changes offer industry substantial savings in reduced raw material, pollution control, and liability costs as well as help protect the environment and reduce risks to worker health and safety." 42 U.S.C. 13101(a)(2). EPA's P2 program is largely carried out through a competitive grant process and the provision of technical assistance to businesses. P2 is any practice that reduces environmental releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants prior to entering a waste stream for recycling, treatment, or disposal. In other words, P2 is source reduction, the prevention of waste generation and environmental releases at the source. It is not treatment, minimization, or diversion of wastes. P2 conserves natural resources, including water and energy.

Furthermore, the PPA states the Administrator shall "establish an annual awards program to recognize a company or companies which operate outstanding or innovative source reduction programs" 42 U.S.C. 13103(b)(13). The EPA P2 Awards Program is an annual, voluntary, and non-monetary awards program that recognizes companies who demonstrate leadership in innovative P2 practices and encourage other entities to consider P2 approaches. This ICR is applicable to awards administered under the P2 Awards Program in EPA's Headquarters office and any of the 10 Regional Offices that choose to participate and implement a P2 Awards Program.

A business' decision to participate in the EPA P2 Awards Program is voluntary. Participation in the program begins with the completion and submittal of a no-cost application, which outlines a project(s) that has been implemented and meets the goals of the P2 program. Companies who want to be recognized for an award will need to complete an application describing their P2 efforts, activities, cost savings, pounds of hazardous chemicals reduced, energy conserved, or gallons of water saved, and the replicability of their approach. In addition, the application will ask for specific information about their company, such as business size and location. Applications will be collected via an online submission webpage. Application questions will be a combination of drop-down options as well as narrative descriptions. All application submissions, scoring rubric, scoring, and decision memos will be archived and stored in accordance with all applicable records schedules. EPA P2 Coordinators will use this information in the overall evaluation, selection, and scoring process for selecting awardees.

There will not be a monetary cost for businesses to apply to the EPA P2 Awards Program. EPA anticipates it will take applicants less than 20 hours to complete, review, finalize, approve, and apply.

 NEED FOR COLLECTION AND HOW INFORMATION WILL BE USED

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

Congress formally authorizes the P2 program in 42 U.S.C. §§13101-13109. This law may be cited as the ``Pollution Prevention Act of 1990'' and with abbreviated citation to "PPA" and the relevant section number.

The PPA states the Administrator shall "establish an annual award program to recognize a company or companies which operate outstanding or innovative source reduction programs" (PPA § 6604(b)(13)).

The 1993 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) (PL 103-62) requires federal agencies to develop plans for what they intend to accomplish, measure how well they are doing, make appropriate decisions based on the information they have gathered, and communicate information about their performance to Congress and to the public. In response, EPA develops a five-year Strategic Plan that is submitted to Congress. Awards made under this announcement will support EPA's FY 2018-22 Strategic Plan (http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan.html), under Goal 1: Core Mission  -  A Cleaner, Healthier Environment, Objective 1.1  -  Improve Air Quality; Objective 1.2  -  Provide for Clean and Safe Water; Objective 1.3  -  Revitalize Land and Prevent Contamination; Objective 1.4  -  Ensure Safety of Chemicals in the Marketplace; and, Goal 2:  More Effective Partnerships, Objective 2.1 Enhance Shared Accountability. The P2 program, which was established in 1990, is a key element of EPA's strategic planning efforts.

As part of these strategic planning efforts, EPA encourages programs to develop meaningful performance measures, set ambitious targets, and link budget expenditures to results. Data collected under this ICR is required by EPA in order to meet its strategic goals and to establish an award program to recognize a company's or companies' P2 accomplishments. Participation in the awards program is voluntary.

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The information collected by the EPA P2 Awards Program is not designed or intended to support regulatory decision-making by other EPA offices. Companies will apply voluntarily. EPA will use information from the awards application to select and recognize businesses who have implemented outstanding P2 practices.

 NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a) Non duplication

The information to be obtained under this ICR has not been collected by EPA or any other federal agency. EPA's P2 program anticipates implementing the award program upon approval of this ICR application. Other, non-federal partner organizations promote P2 through awards and recognition programs, but these programs are for the most part state-based and not offered at the regional or national level. The National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (NPPR), a non-profit organization, hosts a national P2 awards program, but the categories differ from the businesses the EPA P2 Awards Program aims to recognize. Almost all information requested from respondents under this ICR is not available from other sources.

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR submission to OMB

This section doesn't apply at this time.

3(c) Consultations

EPA P2 Coordinators asked current P2 grantees and technical assistance providers to provide input on the EPA P2 Awards application collection efforts. The consultants below were selected because they currently implement their own state recognition programs and/or have valuable insight as existing state technical assistance providers on how to minimize burden on businesses. The following partners provided input:

                                     Name
                                  Affiliation
                                     Phone
                                    Region
Jeff Fiagle
Jennifer Reutzel-Vaughan
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<PHONE_NUMBER>
                                       7
Dan Nickey
Jennifer Trent
Iowa Waste Reduction Center
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<PHONE_NUMBER>
                                       7
Nancy Larson
Kansas State University
<PHONE_NUMBER>
                                       7
Bruce Dvorak
University of Nebraska  -  Lincoln
<PHONE_NUMBER>
                                       7
Rick Yoder
University of Nebraska  -  Omaha
<PHONE_NUMBER>
                                       7
Lynette Myers
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
<PHONE_NUMBER>
                                       8
Jenny Grossenbacher
Montana State University
<PHONE_NUMBER>
                                       8
Ben Jarvis
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
<PHONE_NUMBER>
                                      10
Lisa Cox
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
<PHONE_NUMBER>
                                      10

Each was asked to provide feedback on the amount of time needed to respond to the P2 Awards application and provided suggestions for improvements. Partners provided specific suggestions for improving the forms, including adjusting the application questions for clarity. Some long-time partners noted that completing the reporting forms would take less time over the years as applicants became more familiar with the data requested. EPA P2 Coordinators incorporated this feedback on the draft application.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

The P2 Awards application is a one-time information submittal for businesses/facilities that wish to be recognized by the annual EPA P2 Awards Program for P2 activities from the previous three years. Less frequent collection of this data is not feasible because it is an annual award program. Businesses may wish to submit applications in multiple years, which is voluntary.

3(e) General Guidelines

All collection activities described within this ICR will adhere to OMB's General Guidelines and regulations under 5 C.F.R. § 1320.5.

3(f) Confidentiality

EPA will not require and does not expect that businesses will submit confidential information in the application. However, if the applicant asserts a business confidentiality claim for certain information provided in the application, EPA will manage that information in accordance with EPA confidentiality regulations at 40 C.F.R. 2.201 et seq. The P2 program will use confidential business information provided by businesses solely for purposes related to forming partnerships and will disclose the information only to EPA employees and EPA contractors cleared for confidential information with a specific need to know.

3(g) Sensitive Questions

No questions of a sensitive nature concerning sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters usually considered private are asked in the EPA P2 Awards Program application.

 RESPONDENTS AND INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a) Respondents/NAICS Codes

Respondents are various types of businesses from all North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes that are located in a state in an EPA Region implementing this Awards Program. Applicant activity includes applying for an award, working with the respective EPA P2 Coordinator (if selected) to discuss awards presentation logistics, attending the awards presentation, and approving writeups, press releases, and presentations. If the applicant chooses, a representative can present on a webinar to inform other businesses of the benefits of implementing P2 projects and practices.

4(b) Information Requested

 Data items, including record keeping requirements

Each award applicant will answer the following short answer questions. Each question has a 500-word limit and weighted value. The weights will be an important factor when scoring and ranking the applications. Each participating EPA Region will score their own applications and select winners. Therefore, only applicants within the same EPA Region are competing against each other, not against those from other Regions.

1) Description of business or organization (what does your business do and/or make?)

2) Describe your business or organization's commitment and leadership in P2, both internally within the organization and externally (e.g. with suppliers, customers, and the community). Include applicable policies, employee engagement, and community engagement. As a reminder, P2 does not refer to forms of disposal such as recycling, composting, waste-to-energy, etc. (25 percent)

3) Describe the P2 methods or activities your business or organization implemented between [YEARS xxxx-xxxx]. Please address:  A) how the initiative was generated B) the significant or unique aspects of your P2 activities C) what company or facility needs were addressed D) what unintended benefits were realized (25 percent)

4) Describe how your P2 activities support your business or organization's goals. Provide context for the P2 activities. We are looking for a "big picture" description. (10 percent)

5) Describe the measurable results from your P2 activities. Please include any cost savings, pounds of hazardous chemicals reduced, kilowatt hours of energy conserved, or gallons of water saved, if applicable. Please normalize results to show savings for similar production amounts, if applicable (e.g. installation of conductivity meters saved 600,000 gallons of water in 2017, based on the same production as in 2016). (25 percent)

6) Describe how implementing P2 activities has benefited your business and the surrounding community. Describe how your business serves as a model for entities with similar processes or environmental challenges. (10 percent)

7) Describe your business or organization's specific, measurable P2 goals for the coming year (5 percent)

Additional contact information questions will be asked such as company name, contact title, email address, etc. The following general questions will also be asked:

 Size of business or organization
 Is your business or organization willing to be featured in publicly available newsletters, case studies, or webinars?
 Is someone within your business or organization willing to present (about 15 minutes) on a webinar to other businesses considering P2 strategies?
 Would you like to include any relevant photos, news articles, or other supplementary materials?

These general questions do not have any weight to them and therefore will not be considered in application scores. The purpose of the general questions is to provide context and understand how the potential awardee would participate in outreach.

 Respondent Activities

This is a voluntary, non-monetary awards program. Applicant activities include reviewing program instructions and eligibility requirements, gaining approval to apply from management, collecting relevant information, completing the application and supplementary materials, and submitting the application. Applicants have the information and data readily available to answer the listed short answer questions. The amount of time and effort expended to apply depends on the specific circumstances of the business/facility. EPA does not expect that applicants will expend significant time or resources reviewing instructions, collecting information and completing the application. Furthermore, the time, effort and resources necessary to respond to several questions in the application will be incurred by persons in the normal course of their activities, which is excluded from the "burden" calculation under the Paperwork Reduction Act, see 5 C.F.R. section 1320.3(b)(2).

 INFORMATION COLLECTED  -  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a) Agency Activities

EPA will engage in the following activities related to the awards application:

 Update the application to be submitted by companies, post Awards Program information to the P2 website and/or Regional P2 website and communicate the solicitation period and requirements for applying to internal and external parties.
 Create and maintain a tracking system to record each participant's application.
 Respond to questions pertaining to the application.
 Review all submissions and select awardees.
 Purchase awards and present them to those selected. Each Region will have flexibility on when and where to present awards.
 Develop awardee summaries for P2 websites.

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

In collecting and analyzing the information associated with this ICR, EPA will use electronic form software, telephones, and computers, including Microsoft Office products. Each application will be saved electronically in a Regionally designated tracking system to assure all applications are accounted for. All applications received by an EPA Region will be used in the Awards Program review process. EPA will ensure the reasonableness and completeness of collected information by reviewing each submittal.

EPA will offer all information collection instruments electronically with hard-copy versions available upon request. Electronic submissions do not have a significant impact on respondent or Agency burden. The additional burden of hard-copy submissions is minimal for the risk reduction.

To conserve resources, EPA will encourage and promote the use of electronic submissions via EPA's P2 website; however, we will provide an option to submit hard copy versions upon request. The website will automatically email the applications to the respective Regional P2 Coordinator. Existing Regional Awards Programs have demonstrated the success of this website submission system.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

All data collected under this ICR is voluntarily reported. EPA expects that some of the companies will be small entities. EPA has designed its reporting materials to minimize respondent burden while obtaining sufficient and accurate information. EPA considered the less burdensome collection mechanism of evaluating case studies within EPA's P2 case study database, but this collection mechanism was not adopted for the following reasons: (1) EPA's database of case studies is not inclusive of all P2 projects carried out over the last 3 years that would be eligible for a P2 Awards and (2) EPA's database of case studies largely only capture activities supported by the EPA Pollution Prevention and Source Reduction Assistance grant programs. Applicants to the P2 Awards Program are not required to have been supported by EPA's grant programs.

5(d) Collection Schedule

Businesses or organizations may voluntarily submit an application during the solicitation period. The solicitation period will be done on an annual basis and is open for approximately 2 months once posted. The timing of open solicitation is dependent upon regional discretion but cannot be less than 40 business days.

 ESTIMATING COLLECTION BURDEN AND COST

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

EPA used input from existing P2 grantees and technical assistance providers to estimate the burden for respondents. Table 1 presents the annual burden hours and costs per respondent as well as the total burden hours and costs per Region during each of the three years covered under this ICR.

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

EPA anticipates receiving a total of 10 applications per Region per year. Table 1 shows the aggregate annual respondent burden and costs for the information collection activities associated with the EPA P2 Awards Program.

 Estimating Respondent Labor Costs

The labor rates used to determine the estimated costs to respondents are consistent with the hourly wage rates published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on employment and earnings. Rates include the cost of overhead and fringe benefits. EPA estimates an average respondent's hourly labor rate (e.g. hourly plus overhead) of $115.54 for managerial staff, $86.98 for technical staff, and $45.22 for clerical staff.

 Estimating Respondent Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

Businesses who choose to participate in the awards program will be requested to submit materials electronically and retain materials in electronic format to conserve paper. For this reason, EPA does not estimate costs for copying and mailing.

Table 1. Respondent Burden and Costs
                        Information Collection Activity
                     Burden Hours and Costs per Respondent
                       Total Hours and Costs per Region

                                  Managerial
                                   Technical
                                   Clerical
                                Hours per Year
                                Costs per Year
                         Annual Capital Startup Costs
                             Annual O&M Costs
                               # Resp. per Year
                             Total Hours per Year
                             Total Costs per Year
                                  Hourly Rate
                                    $115.54
                                    $86.98
                                    $45.22

                               Award Application

Review instructions & eligibility requirements & gain approval from management
                                       1
                                       1

                                       2
                                    $202.52

                                      10
                                      20
                                   $2,025.20
Gather information
                                       2
                                      10

                                      12
                                   $1,100.88

                                      10
                                      120
                                  $11,008.80
Complete application & option. supp. material
                                       2
                                       1
                                       1
                                       4
                                    $363.28

                                      10
                                      40
                                   $3,632.80
Submit the application
                                       1

                                      0.5
                                      1.5
                                    $138.15

                                      10
                                      15
                                   $1,381,50
                                     Total
                                       6
                                      12
                                      1.5
                                     19.5
                                   $1,804.83

                                      195
                                  $18,048.30

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

EPA P2 Coordinators drew on experience implementing other voluntary programs to estimate Agency staff burden estimates. Table 2 presents the annual burden hours and costs per respondent application as well as the total burden hours and costs per EPA Region during each of the three years covered under this ICR.

Table 2 shows the aggregate annual Agency burden and costs for the information collection activities associated with the EPA P2 Awards Program. The annual hourly burden for the Agency is approximately 130 hours at a cost of $11,912 per EPA Region. The three-year, bottom-line Agency burden for the life of this ICR is approximately 390 hours at a cost of $35,736 per EPA Region.

             Estimating Agency Labor Costs

The hourly labor rates used to determine the estimated costs to the Agency are based on the 2020 GS pay schedule for Washington D.C. locality pay available from the Office of Personnel Management. EPA estimates an average hourly labor cost of $123.89 for managerial staff and $83.95 for professional staff. The labor costs are based on the following GS levels and steps: GS Level 15 Step 5 for managerial rate and GS Level 13 Step 3 for professional rate. EPA multiplied hourly rates by the standard government overhead factor of 1.6.

Table 2. Agency Burden and Costs
                        Information Collection Activity
                    Burden Hours and Costs per Application
                       Total Hours and Costs per Region

                                  Managerial
                                 Professional
                                Hours per Year
                                Costs per Year
                         Annual Capital Startup Costs
                             Annual O&M Costs
                             # Activities per Year
                             Total Hours per Year
                             Total Costs per Year
                                  Hourly Rate
                                    $123.89
                                    $83.95

                               Award Application

Update application materials, post to website, & communicate application requirements
                                       5
                                      40
                                      45
                                   $3,977.45

                                       1
                                      45
                                   $3,977.45
Maintain application tracking system

                                       1
                                       1
                                    $83.95

                                      10
                                      10
                                    $839.50
Respond to questions pertaining to application

                                      0.5
                                      0.5
                                    $41.98

                                      10
                                       5
                                    $419.75
Review application
                                       2
                                       5
                                       7
                                    $667.53

                                      10
                                      70
                                   $6,675.30
                                     Total
                                       7
                                     46.5
                                     53.5
                                   $4,770.91

                                      130
                                  $11,912.00

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

The annual hourly burden for the universe of respondents is approximately 195 hours at a cost of $18,048.30 per EPA Region or HQ. The three-year, bottom-line respondent burden for the life of this ICR is approximately 585 hours at a cost of $54,144.90 per EPA Region.

6(e) Bottom-Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

Table 3 summarizes the total estimated annual burden hours and costs for respondents and EPA. The annual burden for the universe of respondents is approximately 195 hours at a cost of $18,048.30 per EPA Region. The annual hourly burden for the Agency is approximately 130 hours at a cost of $11,912 per EPA Region. Table 3 displays these estimates as well as the grand annual total hourly burden of approximately 325 hours at a cost of total of $29,960.30 for the information collection activities associated with the EPA P2 Awards Program. Table 4 displays the 3-year burden and cost estimates (as shown in 6(a) and 6(b)) as well as the bottom-line 3-year grand total of approximately 975 hours at a cost of $89,880.90 per EPA Region.

Table 3. Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours and Costs for Respondents and EPA

                          Burden Hours Per EPA Region
                           Total Cost Per EPA Region
Respondents
195
$18,048.30
Agency
130
$11,912
Total
325
$29,960.30

Table 4. Total Estimated Three-year Burden Hours and Costs for Respondents and EPA

                      3-year Burden Hours Per EPA Region
                       3-Year Total Cost Per EPA Region
Respondents
585
$54,144.90
Agency
390
$35,736
Total
975
$89,880.90

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

N/A. This is an initial ICR application.

6(g) Burden Statement

The reporting burden for information collection requirements associated with the EPA P2 Awards Program for each respondent is estimated to be approximately 19.5 hours at a cost of $1,804.83. This estimate includes reviewing the eligibility requirements and instruction on the application, gathering data and information for submission, completing the application, reviewing the information and narrative description required, and submitting the application to EPA.


SEC to collect the information on this form from registrants. See 15
U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  78o-10, 78q and 78w. Filing of this form is
mandatory. The principal purpose of this Form is to permit the
Commission to determine whether the applicant meets the statutory
requirements to engage in the security-based swap business. The
Commission maintain[s] a file of the information on this form and will
make certain information collected via the form publicly available. Any
member of the public may direct to the Commission any comments
concerning the accuracy of the burden estimate on this Form, and any
suggestions for reducing this burden. This collection of information
has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance
with the clearance requirements of 44 U.S.C. Sec.  3507. The
information contained in this form is part of a system of records
subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. The Securities and
Exchange Commission has published in the Federal Register the Privacy
Act Systems of Records Notice for these records.

B. Filing Instructions

    1. FORMAT
    a. Items 1-4 and the accompanying Schedules must be answered and
all fields requiring a response must be completed before the filing
will be accepted.
    b. Failure to follow instructions or properly complete the form may
result in the application being delayed or rejected.
    c. Applicant must complete the execution screen certifying that
Form SBSE-BD and amendments thereto have been executed properly and
that the information contained therein is accurate and complete.
    d. To amend information, the applicant must update the appropriate
Form SBSE-BD screens.
    e. A paper copy, with original signatures, of the initial Form
SBSE-BD filing and Schedules must be retained by the applicant and be
made available for inspection upon a regulatory request.
    The mailing address for questions and correspondence is:
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23MY13.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23MY13.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23MY13.059

BILLING CODE 8011-01-C

Appendix D: List of Commenters

    Market participants, foreign regulators, and other interested
parties have submitted to the Commission (and the CFTC) numerous
written comment letters that address the application of Title VII to
cross-border activities. Because of the interdisciplinary nature of
cross-border issues, these comments were filed in connection with
several rulemakings and following the joint public roundtable
regarding the application of Title VII to cross-border activities
held by the Commission and the CFTC on August 1, 2011. The
Commission has provided the legend and table below to facilitate the
public's ability to access and review these comment letters.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Abbreviation                 Source               Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions Concept Release   Definitions           http://www.sec.gov/
 (Advanced Joint Notice of     Contained in Title    comments/s7-16-10/
 Proposed Rulemaking or        VII of Dodd-Frank     s71610.shtml.
 ``ANPR'').                    Wall Street Reform
                               and Consumer
                               Protection Act.
Study on International Swap   Comments on           http://www.sec.gov/
 Regulation (``ISR'').         Acceptance of         comments/4-635/4-
                               Public Submissions    635.shtml.
                               for a Study on
                               International Swap
                               Regulation Mandated
                               by Section 719(c)
                               of the Dodd-Frank
                               Wall Street Reform
                               and Consumer
                               Protection Act.
Intermediary Definitions      SEC Final Rules on    http://www.sec.gov/
 Adopting Release (``IDAR'').  the Further           comments/s7-39-10/
                               Definition of         s73910.shtml.
                               ``Swap Dealer,''
                               ``Security-Based
                               Swap Dealer,''
                               ``Major Swap
                               Participant,''
                               ``Major Security-
                               Based Swap
                               Participant'' and
                               ``Eligible Contract
                               Participant''.
Registration Proposing        SEC Proposed Rules    http://www.sec.gov/
 Release (``RPR'').            on the Registration   comments/s7-40-11/
                               of Security-Based     s74011.shtml.
                               Swap Dealers and
                               Major Security-
                               Based Swap
                               Participants.
Regulation SBSR Proposing     SEC Proposed Rules    http://www.sec.gov/
 Release (``RSPR'').           on Regulation SBSR--  comments/s7-34-10/
                               Reporting and         s73410.shtml.
                               Dissemination of
                               Security-Based Swap
                               Information.

Regulation SB SEF Proposing   SEC Proposed Rules    http://www.sec.gov/
 Release (``PRSBR'').          on the Registration   comments/s7-06-11/
                               and Regulation of     s70611.shtml.
                               Security-Based Swap
                               Execution
                               Facilities.
Product Definitions (``PD'')  Product Definitions   http://www.sec.gov/
                               Contained in Title    comments/s7-16-11/
                               VII of the Dodd-      s71611.shtml.
                               Frank Wall Street
                               Reform and Consumer
                               Protection Act.
Public Comments on SEC        Security-Based Swap   http://www.sec.gov/
 Regulatory Initiatives        Dealers and Major     comments/df-title-
 Under the Dodd-Frank Act      Security-Based Swap   vii/swap/
 (``PC'').                     Participants: Title   swap.shtml.
                               VII Provisions of
                               the Dodd-Frank Wall
                               Street Reform and
                               Consumer Protection
                               Act.
Roundtable (``T7R'')........  August 1, 2011--      http://www.sec.gov/
                               Joint Public          comments/4-636/4-
                               Roundtable on         636.shtml.
                               International
                               Issues Relating to
                               the Implementation
                               of Title VII of the
                               Dodd-Frank Wall
                               Street Reform and
                               Consumer Protection
                               Act.
SDR Proposing Release         Security-Based Swap   http://www.sec.gov/
 (``SPR'').                    Data Repository       comments/s7-35-10/
                               Registration,         s73510.shtml.
                               Duties, and Core
                               Principles.
CFTC Title VII Definitions    CFTC Proposed Rule    http://
 (``CFTC-D'').                 75 FR 51429:          comments.cftc.gov/
                               Definitions           PubliPublicCom/
                               Contained in Title    CommentList.aspa?id
                               VII of Dodd-Frank     =759.
                               Wall Street Reform
                               and Consumer
                               Protection Act.
CFTC Further Definitions of   CFTC Proposed Rule    http://
 ``Swap Dealer'' (``FDSD'').   75 FR 80174:          comments.cftc.gov/
                               Further Definition    PublicComments/
                               of ``Swap Dealer,''   CommentList.aspx?id
                               ``Security-Based      =933.
                               Swap Dealer,''
                               ``Major Swap
                               Participant,''
                               ``Major Security-
                               Based Swap
                               Participant'' and
                               ``Eligible Contract
                               Participant''.
CFTC Further Definition of    CFTC Proposed Rule    http://
 ``Swap'' (``FDS'').           76 FR 29818:          comments.cftc.gov/
                               Further Definition    PublicComments/
                               of ``Swap,''          CommentList.aspx?id
                               ``Security-Based      =1032.
                               Swap,'' and
                               ``Security-Based
                               Swap Agreement'';
                               Mixed Swaps;
                               Security-Based Swap
                               Agreement
                               Recordkeeping.
CFTC Cross-Border Guidance    CFTC Proposed         http://
 (``CBG'').                    Interpretive          comments.cftc.gov/
                               Guidance and Policy   PublicComments/
                               Statement 77 FR       CommentList.aspx?id
                               41214: Cross-Border   =1234.
                               Application of
                               Certain Swaps
                               Provisions of the
                               Commodity Exchange
                               Act.
Interim Final Rule on         Interim Final         http://sec.gov/
 Reporting of Security-Based   Temporary Rule for    comments/s7-28-10/
 Swap Transaction Data         Reporting of          s72810.shtml.
 (``IFTR'').                   Security-Based Swap
                               Transaction Data.
End-User Exception Proposing  SEC Proposed Rules    http://www.sec.gov/
 Release (``EUEPR'').          on the End-User       comments/s7-43-10/
                               Exception to          s74310.shtml.
                               Mandatory Clearing
                               of Security-Based
                               Swaps.
Sequencing Policy Release     SEC Statement of      http://www.sec.gov/
 (``SQPR'').                   General Policy on     comments/s7-05-12/
                               the Sequencing of     s70512.shtml.
                               the Compliance
                               Dates for Final
                               Rules Applicable to
                               Security-Based-
                               Swaps Adopted
                               Pursuant to the
                               Securities Exchange
                               Act of 1934 and the
                               Dodd-Frank Wall
                               Street Reform and
                               Consumer Protection
                               Act.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below is a list of comment letters that we considered in this
release.
1. ``ABC Letter'' American Benefits Council, to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, SEC (Apr. 8, 2011) (available in PRSBR)
2. ``ACP/AMF Letter'' Christian Noyer, Chairman, Autorit[eacute] de
Controle Prudential and Jean-Pierre Jouyet, Chairman,
Autorit[eacute] des March[eacute]s Financiers to Mary Schapiro,
Chairman, SEC (Feb. 11, 2011) (available in IDAR)
3. ``AIMA Letter'' Mary Richardson, Director of Regulatory and Tax
Department, Alternative Investment Management Association to David
A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC and Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC
(Feb. 22, 2011) (available in IDAR)
4. ``APG Asset Management Letter'' Guus Warringa, Chief Counsel,
Legal, Tax, Regulations and Compliance, APG Algemene Pensioen Groep
NV/APG Asset Management to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC and
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (undated) (available in IDAR)
5. ``AFGI Letter'' Bruce Stern, Chairman, Association of Financial
Guaranty Insurers (AFGI) to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC and
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Sept. 19, 2011) (available in
T7R)
6. ``Asian-Pacific Regulators Letter'' Belinda Gibson, Deputy
Chairman, Australian Securities and Investments Commission; Malcolm
Edey, Assistant Governor (Financial System), Reserve Bank of
Australia; Arthur Yuen, Deputy Chief Executive, Hong Kong Monetary
Authority; Keith Lui, Executive Director, Supervision of Markets,
Securities and Futures Commission, Hong Kong; Teo Swee Lian, Deputy
Managing Director (Financial Supervision), Monetary Authority of
Singapore to Gary Gensler, Chairman, CFTC (Aug. 27, 2012)
(unavailable online)
7. ``BaFin Letter'' Thomas Happel, Executive Director for Banking
Supervision, Bundesanstalt f[uuml]r Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht to
Mary Schapiro, Chairman, SEC and Gary Gensler, Chairman, CFTC (Mar.
25, 2011) (available in IDAR)
8. ``Better Markets Letter'' Dennis M. Kelleher, President & CEO,
Stephen W. Hall, Securities Specialist, Wallace C. Turbeville,
Derivatives Specialist, Better Markets, Inc., to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Feb. 4, 2011) (available in EUEPR)
9. ``BIS Letter I'' Gunter Pleines, Head of Banking, and Diego
Devos, General Counsel, Bank for International Settlements to Ananda
Radhakrishnan, Director of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight, CFTC
and James Brigagliano, Deputy Director, Division of Trading and
Markets, SEC (Mar. 18, 2011) (available in ANPR)
10. ``BIS Letter II'' G[uuml]nter Pleines, Head of Banking
Department, and Diego Devos, General Counsel, Bank for International
Settlements to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, and Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, SEC (July 20, 2011) (available in PD)
11. ``BlackRock Letter'' Joanne Medero, Richard Prager, and Supurna
VedBrat, BlackRock, Inc. to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC
(Apr. 4, 2011) (available in PRSBR)
12. ``Bloomberg Letter'' Ben Macdonald, Global Head Fixed Income,
Bloomberg

LP to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Apr. 4, 2011) (available
in PRSBR)
13. ``CEB Letter'' Jacques Mirante-Per[eacute], Chief Financial
Officer, and Jan De Bel, General Counsel, Council of Europe
Development Bank to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC, and David
A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC (July 22, 2011) (available in PD)
14. ``China Investment Letter'' Wang Jianxi, Executive Vice
President, China Investment Corp. to David A. Stawick, Secretary,
CFTC and Elizabeth Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Feb. 22, 2011) (available
in IDAR)
15. ``Citadel Letter'' Adam C. Cooper, Senior Managing Director and
Chief Legal Officer, Citadel LLC, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
SEC (Aug. 13, 2012) (available in SQPR)
16. ``Citigroup Letter'' James A. Forese, Chief Executive Officer,
Securities & Banking, Citigroup Inc. to David A. Stawick, Secretary,
CFTC (Aug. 27, 2012) (available in CBG)
17. ``Cleary Letter I'' Edward Rosen, Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton, LLP to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC and Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Sept. 21, 2010) (available in ANPR)
18. ``Cleary Letter II'' Edward Rosen, Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton, LLP, for Bank of America, BNP Paribas, Citi, Credit
Agricole, Credit Suisse (USA), Deutsche Bank AG, Morgan Stanley,
Nomura Securities International, Inc., PNC Bank, National
Association, Soci[eacute]t[eacute] G[eacute]n[eacute]rale, UBS
Securities LLC, and Wells Fargo & Co. to David A. Stawick,
Secretary, CFTC and Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Feb. 14,
2011) (available in RSPR)
19. ``Cleary Letter III'' Edward J. Rosen, Partner, Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton LLP, for Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Barclays
Capital, BNP Paribas, Citi, Cr[eacute]dit Agricole Corporate and
Investment Bank, Credit Suisse Securities (USA), Deutsche Bank AG,
HSBC, Morgan Stanley, Nomura Securities International, Inc.,
Soci[eacute]t[eacute] G[eacute]n[eacute]rale, UBS Securities LLC,
and Wells Fargo & Co. to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC and
David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC (April 5, 2011) (available in
PRSBR)
20. ``Cleary Letter IV'' Edward Rosen, Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton, LLP, for Bank of America, Barclays Capital, BNP Paribas,
Citi, Credit Agricole, Credit Suisse (USA), Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC,
Morgan Stanley, Nomura Securities International, Inc.,
Soci[eacute]t[eacute] G[eacute]n[eacute]rale, and UBS Securities LLC
to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, SEC, Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System, Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corp., Gary K. Van Meter, Director, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Farm Credit Administration, and Alfred Pollard, General
Counsel, Federal Housing Finance Agency (Sept. 20, 2011) (available
in T7R)
21. ``CME Letter'' Craig S. Donohue, Chief Executive Officer, CME
Group Inc., to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Apr. 4, 2011)
(available in PRSBR)
22. ``Davis Polk Letter I'' Lanny Schwartz, Arthur Long, Bob Colby,
and Courtenay Myers, Davis Polk & Wardwell, for Barclays Bank PLC,
BNP Paribas S.A., Deutsche Bank AG, Royal Bank of Canada, The Royal
Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Soci[eacute]t[eacute]
G[eacute]n[eacute]rale, and UBS AG to David A. Stawick, Secretary,
CFTC, Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC, and Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Jan.
11, 2011) (available in IDAR)
23. ``Davis Polk Letter II'' Lanny Schwartz, Arthur Long, Bob Colby,
and Courtenay Myers, Davis Polk & Wardwell, for Barclays Bank PLC,
BNP Paribas S.A., Credit Suisse AG, Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC, Nomura
Securities International, Inc., Rabobank Nederland, Royal Bank of
Canada, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Soci[eacute]t[eacute]
G[eacute]n[eacute]rale, The Toronto-Dominion Bank, and UBS AG to
David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
SEC, and Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System (Feb. 17, 2011) (available in IDAR)
24. ``Deutsche Bank Letter'' Ernest C. Goodrich, Jr., Managing
Director--Legal Department, and Marcelo Riffaud, Managing Director--
Legal Department, Deutsche Bank AG to David A. Stawick, Secretary,
CFTC, Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Nov. 5, 2010) (available
in IFTR)
25. ``DTCC Letter I'' Larry E. Thompson, General Counsel, Depository
Trust & Clearing Corporation to Mary Schapiro, Chairman, SEC and
Gary Gensler, Chairman, CFTC (Nov. 15, 2010) (available in SPR)
26. ``DTCC Letter II'' Larry E. Thompson, General Counsel,
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, SEC (Jan. 18, 2011) (available in RSPR)
27. ``DTCC Letter III'' Larry E. Thompson, General Counsel,
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, SEC (Jan. 24, 2011) (available in SPR)
28. ``DTCC Letter IV'' Larry E. Thompson, General Counsel,
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation to Mary Schapiro, Chairman,
SEC and Gary Gensler, Chairman, CFTC (June 3, 2011) (available in
RSPR and SPR)
29. ``ECB Letter I'' Daniela Russo, Director General, Directorate
General Payments and Market Infrastructure, and Antonio Sainz de
Vicuna, General Counsel, European Central Bank to Ananda
Radhakrishnan, Director of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight, CFTC
and James Brigagliano, Deputy Director, Division of Trading and
Markets, SEC (May 6, 2011) (available in CFTC-D; not available on
SEC Web site, but accessible via CFTC Web site)
30. ``ECB Letter II'' Daniela Russo, Director General, Directorate
General Payments and Market Infrastructure, European Central Bank to
Natalie Markman Radhakrishnan, Office of International Affairs,
CFTC, and Babbak Sabahi, Office of International Affairs, SEC (Sep.
29, 2011) (available in ISR)
31. ``EDF Letter'' Eric Dennison, Sr. Vice President and General
Counsel, Stephanie Miller, Assistant General Counsel-Commodities,
Bill Hellinghausen, Director of Regulatory Affairs, EDF Trading
North America, LLC to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC (Feb. 22,
2011) (available in IDAR)
32. ``EIB Letter'' A. Querejeta, Secretary General and General
Counsel, and B. de Mazi[egrave]res, Director General, European
Investment Bank to Ananda Radhakrishnan, Director of Clearing and
Intermediary Oversight, CFTC, and James Brigagliano, Deputy
Director, Division of Trading and Markets, SEC (July 22, 2011)
(available in PD)
33. ``ESMA Letter'' Carlos Tavares, Vice-Chairman, European
Securities and Markets Authority to Mary Schapiro, Chairman, SEC
(Jan. 17, 2011) (available in SPR)
34. ``European Commission Letter I'' Michel Barnier, European
Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services, European Commission
to Mary Schapiro, Chairman, SEC and Gary Gensler, Chairman, CFTC
(July 19, 2011) (unavailable online)
35. ``European Commission Letter II'' Michel Barnier, European
Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services, European Commission
to Mary Schapiro, Chairman, SEC and Gary Gensler, Chairman, CFTC
(Oct. 24, 2011) (unavailable online)
36. ``European Financial Markets Letter'' Antonio Sainz de Vicuna,
European Financial Markets Lawyers Group to David A. Stawick,
Secretary, CFTC and Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Mar. 24,
2011) (available in PC)
37. ``Financial Services Roundtable Letter'' Richard M. Whiting,
Executive Director and General Counsel, Financial Services
Roundtable to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC and Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Feb. 22, 2011) (available in IDAR)
38. ``GFI Letter'' Scott Pintoff, General Counsel, GFI Group Inc.,
to Elizabeth Murphy, Secretary, SEC (July 12, 2011) (available in
PRSBR)
39. ``GIC Letter'' Lee Ming Chua, General Counsel, Government of
Singapore Investment Corp. Pte Ltd. to David A. Stawick, Secretary,
CFTC and Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Feb. 22, 2011)
(available in ANPR)
40. ``ICI Letter'' Karrie McMillan, General Counsel, Investment
Company Institute to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC, dated
(Jan.18, 2011) (available in RSPR)
41. ``IIB Letter'' Sarah A. Miller, Chief Executive Officer,
Institute of International Bankers to David A. Stawick, Secretary,
CFTC and Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Jan. 10, 2011)
(available in IDAR)
42. ``ISDA Letter I'' Robert Pickel, Executive Vice Chairman,
International Swaps and

Derivatives Association, Inc. to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC
and Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Feb. 22, 2011) (available
in IDAR)
43. ``ISDA Letter II'' Robert Pickel, Executive Vice Chairman,
International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. to Elizabeth
M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Feb. 22, 2011) (available in IFTR)
44. ``ISDA/SIFMA Letter I'' Robert Pickel, Executive Vice Chairman,
International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. and Kenneth
Bentsen, Jr. Executive Vice President, Public Policy and Advocacy,
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association to Elizabeth
M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Jan. 18, 2011) (available in RSPR)
45. ``ISDA/SIFMA Letter II'' Robert Pickel, Executive Vice Chairman,
International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. and Kenneth E.
Bentsen, Jr., Executive Vice President, Public Policy and Advocacy,
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association to Elizabeth
M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Apr. 4, 2011) (available in PRSBR)
46. ``Japanese Banks Letter'' Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd.,
Mizuho Corporate Bank, Ltd., and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. to
David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
SEC, and Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System (May 6, 2011) (available in RSPR)
47. ``JFSA Letter I'' Katsunori Mikuniya, Commissioner and Chief
Executive, Financial Services Agency, Government of Japan to Gary
Gensler, Chairman, CFTC; copy recipients include Chairman Mary
Schapiro and Commissioners Luis Aguilar, Kathleen Casey, Troy
Parades, and Elisse Walter, SEC (Apr. 1, 2011) (unavailable online)
48. ``JFSA Letter II'' Chikahisa Sumi, Deputy Commissioner for
International Affairs, Financial Services Agency, Government of
Japan to Jill Sommers, Commissioner, CFTC; copy recipients include
Chairman Mary Schapiro and Commissioners Luis Aguilar, Kathleen
Casey, Troy Parades, and Elisse Walter, SEC (June 3, 2011)
(unavailable online)
49. ``Jones Day Letter'' Joel Telpner, Jones Day to David A.
Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, and Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC
(Feb. 22, 2011) (available in IDAR)
50. ``KfW Letter'' Dr. Lutz-Christian Funke, Sr. Vice President, and
Dr. Frank Czichowski, Sr. Vice President and Treasurer, KfW
Bankengruppe to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, and Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Mar. 20, 2012) (available in PD)
51. ``MFA Letter I'' Stuart J. Kaswell, Executive Vice President,
Managing Director, and General Counsel, Managed Funds Association to
David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, and Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, SEC (Jan. 24, 2011) (available in SPR)
52. ``MFA Letter II'' Stuart J. Kaswell, Executive Vice President
and Managing Director, General Counsel, Managed Funds Association to
David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, and Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, SEC (Feb. 22, 2011) (available in IDAR)
53. ``MFA Letter III'' Stuart J. Kaswell, Executive Vice President,
Managing Director & General Counsel, Managed Funds Association, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Apr. 4, 2011) (available in
PRSBR)
54. ``MFA Letter IV'' Stuart J. Kaswell, Executive Vice President &
Managing Director, General Counsel, Managed Funds Association to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Aug. 13, 2012) (available in
SQPR)
55. ``MarketAxess Letter'' Richard M. McVey, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, MarketAxess Holdings Inc. to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, SEC (April 4, 2011) (available in PRSBR)
56. ``Markit Letter'' Kevin Gould, President, Markit North America,
Inc. to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC and Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, SEC (Sept. 19, 2011) (available in T7R)
57. ``MarkitSERV Letter I'' Jeff Gooch, Chief Executive Officer,
MarkitSERV to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Jan. 24, 2011)
(available in RSPR and SPR)
58. ``MarkitSERV Letter II'' Jeff Gooch, CEO, MarkitSERV to David A.
Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Sept.
19, 2011) (available in T7R)
59. ``Milbank Tweed Letter'' Winthrop N. Brown, Milbank, Tweed,
Hadley & McCloy, LLP to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, and
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Feb. 22, 2011) (available in
IDAR)
60. ``Multiple Associations Letter I'' Financial Services Forum,
Futures Industry Association, International Swaps and Derivatives
Association, and Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, and Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, SEC (May 4, 2011) (available in ANPR)
61. ``Multiple Associations Letter II'' Futures Industry
Association, the Financial Services Roundtable, Institute of
International Bankers, Insured Retirement Institute, International
Swaps and Derivatives Association, Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, SEC (May 31, 2011) (available in ANPR)
62. ``Multiple Associations Letter III'' Conrad Voldstad, CEO,
International Swaps and Derivatives Association; T. Timothy Ryan,
Jr., President and CEO, Global Financial Markets Association; Guido
Ravoet, CEO, Alternative Investment Management Association; Anthony
Belchambers, CEO, Futures and Options Association; Jane Lowe,
Director, Markets, Investment Management Association; and Alex
McDonald, CEO, Wholesale Market Brokers' Association and London
Energy Brokers' Association to Michel Barnier, Commissioner for the
Internal Market and Services, The European Commission, and Timothy
Geithner, Secretary, The Department of the Treasury; copy recipients
include Chairman Mary Schapiro and Commissioners Luis Aguilar,
Kathleen Casey, Troy Parades, and Elisse Walter, SEC (July 5, 2011)
(available in ISR)
63. ``Multiple Associations Letter IV'' ABA Securities Association;
American Council of Life Insurers; Financial Services Roundtable;
Futures Industry Association; Institute of International Bankers;
International Swaps and Derivatives Association; and Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association to David A. Stawick,
Secretary, CFTC; Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC; Jennifer J.
Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System; Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; Robert E.
Feldman, Executive Secretary, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;
Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel, Federal Housing Finance Agency;
Gary K. Van Meter, Director, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm
Credit Administration (Sept. 8, 2011) (available in ANPR)
64. ``Newedge Letter'' Gary DeWaal, Senior Managing Director and
General Counsel, Newedge Group to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC
and Elizabeth M. Murphy, SEC (Feb. 24, 2011) (available in IDAR)
65. ``NIB Letter'' Heikki Cantell, General Counsel, and Lars
Eibeholm, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Head of Treasury,
and Pernelle de Klauman, Deputy Chief Counsel, Nordic Investment
Bank to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC and Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, SEC (Aug. 2, 2011) (available in PD)
66. ``Norges Bank Letter'' Yngve Slyngstad, CEO, and Marius Nygaard
Haug, Global Head of Legal, Norges Bank Investment Management to
David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC and Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, SEC (Feb. 18, 2011) (available in IDAR)
67. ``Phoenix Letter'' Nicholas J. Stephan, Chief Executive Officer,
Phoenix Partners Group LP, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC
(Apr. 4, 2011) (available in PRSBR)
68. ``Rabobank Letter'' William R. Mansfield, Managing Director,
Head of Global Financial Markets Americas, Rabobank Nederland to
David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, and Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Apr. 5,
2011) (available in FDSD; not available on SEC Web site, but
accessible via CFTC Web site)
69. ``SDMA Letter I'' Michael Hisler, Swaps & Derivatives Market
Association, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Feb. 18, 2012)
(available in PRSBR)
70. ``SDMA Letter II'' Michael Hisler, Swaps & Derivatives Market
Association, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Apr. 21, 2012)
(available in PRSBR)
71. ``SIFMA Letter I'' Kenneth Bentsen, Executive Vice President,
Public Policy

and Advocacy, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, SEC, Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System, John Walsh, Acting Comptroller,
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Administrator of National
Banks, Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corp., Edward DeMarco, Acting Director, Federal Housing
Finance Agency, and Gary Van Meter, Acting Director, Farm Credit
Administration (Feb. 3, 2011) (available in IDAR)
72. ``SIFMA Letter II'' Kenneth E. Bentsen, Executive Vice
President, Public Policy and Advocacy, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC
(Dec. 16, 2011) (available in RPR)
73. ``SIFMA AMG Letter I'' Timothy W. Cameron, Managing Director,
Asset Management Group, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Jan. 18, 2011)
(available in RSPR)
74. ``SIFMA AMG Letter II'' Timothy W. Cameron, Managing Director,
Asset Management Group, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Apr. 4, 2011)
(available in PRSBR)
75. ``Soci[eacute]t[eacute] G[eacute]n[eacute]rale Letter I'' Laura
J. Schisgall, Managing Director and Senior Counsel,
Soci[eacute]t[eacute] G[eacute]n[eacute]rale to Ananda
Radhakrishnan, Director of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight,
CFTC, John M. Ramsay, Deputy Director, Division of Trading and
Markets, SEC, and Mark E. Van Der Weide, Senior Associate Director,
Division of Supervision and Regulation, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System (Nov. 23, 2010) (available in PC)
76. ``Soci[eacute]t[eacute] G[eacute]n[eacute]rale Letter II'' Laura
J. Schisgall, Managing Director and Senior Counsel,
Soci[eacute]t[eacute] G[eacute]n[eacute]rale to David A. Stawick,
Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Feb. 18, 2011) (available in IDAR)
77. ``Sullivan & Cromwell Letter'' Kenneth Raisler, Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP, on behalf of Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc.,
and JP Morgan Chase & Co. to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC,
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC, and Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Feb.
22, 2011) (available in IDAR)
78. ``TCX Letter'' Joost Zuidberg, Managing Director, Chief
Executive Officer and Brice Ropion, Director and Chief Operating
Officer, TCX Investment Management Company B.V. to Marcia Blase,
Counsel, Office of Commissioner Jill E. Sommers, CFTC (Dec. 15,
2011) (available in FDSD; not available on SEC Web site, but
accessible via CFTC Web site)
79. ``Thomson Letter'' Nancy C. Gardner, Executive Vice President
and General Counsel, Thomson Reuters Markets to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, SEC (Apr. 4, 2011) (available in PRSBR)
80. ``TradeWeb Letter'' Lee H. Olesky, Chief Executive Officer, and
Douglas L. Friedman, General Counsel, Tradeweb Markets LLC to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC (Apr. 4, 2011) (available in
PRSBR)
81. ``UBS Letter'' David Kelly, Managing Director, and Paul Hamill,
Executive Director, UBS Securities LLC, to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, SEC (Nov. 2, 2011) (available in PRSBR)
82. ``Vanguard Letter'' Gus Sauter, Managing Director and Chief
Investment Officer, and John Hollyer, Principal and Head of Risk
Management and Strategy Analysis, Vanguard to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, SEC (Jan. 18, 2011) (available in RSPR)
83. ``WMBAA Letter'' Stephen Merkel, Chairman, Shawn Bernardo, Vice
Chairman, Christopher Ferreri, Board Member, J. Christopher
Giancarlo, Board Member, and Julian Harding, Board Member, Wholesale
Market Brokers' Association, Americas to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, SEC (Apr. 4, 2011) (available in PRSBR)
84. ``World Bank Letter I'' John Gandolfo, Acting Vice President and
Treasurer, The World Bank to Jill Sommers, Commissioner, CFTC (Apr.
5, 2011) (available in ANPR)
85. ``World Bank Letter II'' Vincenzo La Via, World Bank Group CFO,
Anne-Marie Leroy, Senior Vice President and Group General Counsel,
and Rachel Robbins, Vice President and General Counsel of
International Finance Corp. to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC
(July 22, 2011) (available in FDS; not available on SEC Web site,
but accessible via CFTC Web site)

    By the Commission.

    Dated: May 1, 2013.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10835 Filed 5-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P