securities to have a reasonable basis for the recommendation, and to
make certain disclosures. Among other things, the Original Proposal
provided that a retail communications or a public appearance that
includes a recommendation of securities would have to disclose, if
applicable, that the member or any

associated person with the ability to influence the content of the
communication has a financial interest in any of the securities of the
issuer whose securities are recommended, and the nature of the
financial interest (including, without limitation, whether it consists
of any option, right, warrant, future, long or short position), unless
the extent of the financial interest is nominal. FINRA received a
number of comments concerning these proposed requirements.
    Two commenters recommended that the disclosure requirements apply
only to public appearances and retail communications that are published
or used in any electronic or other media.\157\ These commenters noted
that it is not necessary to mandate extensive disclosure requirements
for public appearances before small groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ See Fidelity August Letter and SIFMA August Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters argued that the requirement to disclose the
financial interests of any associated person with the ability to
influence the content of the communication is unclear, too broad, and
difficult to administer.\158\ The commenters argued that many persons
within a firm may be able to influence a communication's content, and
it would be difficult to track each person's financial interests with
respect to particular retail communications or public appearances. One
of the commenters also recommended that this disclosure requirement be
limited to associated persons who are ``directly and materially
involved in the preparation of the content.'' \159\ The other commenter
questioned the need for this disclosure at all, which it considered to
be ``meaningless to the majority of retail investors.'' \160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ See Fidelity August Letter and FSI August Letter.
    \159\ See Fidelity August Letter.
    \160\ See FSI August Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter recommended that the requirement to disclose the
financial interests of any associated person with the ability to
influence the content of the communication be deleted and replaced with
a requirement to disclose the financial interests of a member's
officers or partners, which the commenter stated is similar to the
current disclosure requirements for securities recommendations in NASD
IM-2210-1(6).\161\ The commenter argued that this alternative would
``provide meaningful disclosures to customers, without requiring
members to implement costly monitoring systems and processes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ See SIFMA August Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By contrast, another commenter urged FINRA to broaden the
disclosure requirements for retail communications and public
appearances that contain securities recommendations. This commenter
argued that the proposed standard (associated persons with the ability
to influence the content of a communication) is too narrow.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ See PIABA August Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters focused particular attention on the proposed
disclosure requirements as they would apply to public appearances.
These commenters argued that the proposed standard is unworkable in
this context, particularly where a speaker is answering a question
about a particular security, and that such appearances would be
impossible to monitor.\163\ One of those commenters also argued that
the standard is unfair, since it would impose disclosure requirements
on registered representatives who recommend securities that are not
imposed even on research analysts that recommend securities in public
appearances.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ See Fidelity August Letter and ICI August Letter.
    \164\ See ICI August Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter suggested as an alternative that the disclosure
requirements of proposed FINRA Rule 2210(d)(7) apply to public
appearances only if a member or associated person intends to recommend
a security.\165\ Another commenter offered as an alternative a more
general requirement that an associated person making a public
appearance disclose any actual, material conflict of interest related
to a particular recommendation of which the person knows or has reason
to know at the time of the public appearance.\166\ The commenter noted
that this standard is similar to the public appearance requirements
that apply to research analysts under NASD Rule 2711(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ See Fidelity August Letter.
    \166\ See ICI August Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the commenters recommended that FINRA clarify that the
disclosure requirements in proposed FINRA Rule 2210(d)(7)(A)(ii) do not
apply to indirect holdings, such as securities that are held by mutual
funds or other pooled vehicles in which an associated person
invests.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ See Fidelity August Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter recommended that the exception in proposed FINRA Rule
2210(d)(7)(D)(i), which would except from disclosure requirements any
communication that meets the definition of ``research report'' or is a
public appearance by a research analyst for purposes of NASD Rule 2711
and includes all of the applicable disclosures required by that Rule,
be expanded to cover all communications created by a firm's research
department, including debt research and research related communications
that are not research reports.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ See Wilmer August Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to comments, FINRA has amended the disclosure
requirements for both retail communications and public appearances that
include securities recommendations. As suggested by several commenters,
in Amendment No. 1, FINRA narrowed the scope of the persons whose
financial interests would have to be disclosed to those involved in the
preparation of a communication. As revised, a retail communication that
includes a securities recommendation would have to disclose if the
member or any associated person that is directly and materially
involved in the preparation of the content of the communication has a
financial interest in any of the securities of the issuer whose
securities are recommended, and the nature of the financial interest,
unless the extent of the financial interest is nominal.
    FINRA also modified paragraph (d)(7)(D) to clarify that the
disclosure requirements in paragraph (d)(7)(A) and the provisions
regarding past specific recommendations in paragraph (d)(7)(C) do not
apply to a retail communication that recommends only registered
investment companies or variable insurance products; however, such
communications still must have a reasonable basis for the
recommendation. In addition FINRA noted that pursuant to proposed
paragraph (d)(7)(B), a member must provide, or offer to furnish upon
request, available investment information supporting the recommendation
in those communications.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ See October Response Letter. FINRA noted that the proposed
requirement in paragraph (d)(7)(B) to provide the price at the time
a recommendation is made applies only to a recommendation of a
corporate equity security, and thus does not apply to the
recommendation of an investment company security or variable
insurance product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA clarified that the disclosure requirements in proposed FINRA
Rule 2210(d)(7)(A)(ii), do not apply to the portfolio investments of an
investment company or other fund owned by the member or such associated
person.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ FINRA stated that the disclosure requirements do not apply
to any communication that recommends only registered investment
companies or variable insurance products. See proposed FINRA Rule
2210(d)(7)(D)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA indicated that the revised standard provides sufficient
information to investors reading a retail

communication to warn them of potential conflicts of interest. It also
reduces the burdens on members with regard to tracking financial
interests that must be disclosed. FINRA also revised the disclosure
standards for public appearances that include securities
recommendations. As revised, the requirements under proposed FINRA Rule
2210(f) would apply only to public appearances by associated persons
(since members do not engage in public appearances except through their
associated persons). As amended, an associated person making a public
appearance would have to disclose, as applicable, his or her own
financial interests in any of the securities of the issuer of the
recommended security, and the nature of the financial interest, unless
the extent of the financial interest is nominal. Additionally, the
associated person would have to disclose any actual, material conflict
of interest of the associated person or member of which the associated
person knows or has reason to know at the time of the public
appearance. FINRA noted that these disclosure requirements would not
apply to any public appearance by a research analyst for purposes of
NASD Rule 2711 that includes all of the applicable disclosures required
by that Rule. FINRA further noted that the disclosure requirements also
would not apply to a recommendation of investment company securities or
variable insurance products; provided, however, that the associated
person must have a reasonable basis for the recommendation. FINRA
stated that it believes that this standard will still provide important
information regarding potential conflicts to investors, while reducing
the compliance burden to firms in administering this standard.
    The Commission believes that FINRA addressed adequately comments
regarding the disclosure requirements for both retail communications
and public appearances that include securities recommendations. FINRA
has amended these provisions in several respects to address commenter
concerns. For example, FINRA has narrowed the scope of persons whose
financial interests must be disclosed to capture the member or any
associated person that is directly and materially involved in the
preparation of the content of the communication. FINRA also revised the
disclosure standards for public appearances that include securities
recommendations for purposes of providing important information
regarding potential conflicts to investors without unduly burdening
firms. Additionally, FINRA explained why it would not be necessary to
expressly exclude indirect holdings from the disclosure requirements in
proposed FINRA Rule 2210(d)(7)(A)(ii).

E. Other Issues Related to Public Appearances and Online Interactive
Electronic Communications

    Currently, the term ``public appearance'' is included as a category
within the broader term ``communications with the public,'' and
includes participation in an online interactive electronic forum.\171\
Under proposed FINRA Rule 2210, public appearances would no longer be a
separate category of the term ``communications,'' and instead would be
governed by FINRA Rule 2210(f). Proposed paragraph 2210(f) sets forth
certain content, supervisory and other requirements that apply to
public appearances. The term also would not include posts on online
interactive electronic forums, which would be considered retail
communications. Under proposed FINRA Rule 2210(b)(1)(D)(ii), members
would be permitted to supervise and review retail communications that
are posted on an online interactive electronic forum in the same manner
as required for supervising and reviewing correspondence under NASD
Rule 3010(d). Thus, members would not have to approve each such retail
communication prior to use, and would have flexibility regarding how
they establish their supervisory systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ See NASD Rule 2210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter opposed proposed FINRA Rule 2210(f)(2), which would
require each member to establish written procedures that are
appropriate to its business, size, structure and customers to supervise
its associated persons' public appearances, arguing that it is
duplicative of supervisory requirements that already exist under NASD
Rule 3010.\172\ FINRA disagreed with this objection. FINRA maintains
that while NASD Rule 3010 already generally requires a member to
establish and maintain written procedures to supervise its associated
persons' activities,\173\ FINRA rules also include provisions regarding
the supervision of particular activities where appropriate.\174\ In
this case, FINRA believes that proposed FINRA Rule 2210(f)(2) provides
additional information regarding the type of supervision it expects
members to maintain in connection with public appearances, and thus is
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ See ICI August Letter.
    \173\ See NASD Rule 3010(b)(1).
    \174\ See, e.g., FINRA Rule 2330(d) (supervisory procedures
regarding the purchase or exchange of deferred variable annuities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters opposed the elimination of the term ``public
appearance'' as a communication category, particularly with respect to
online interactive electronic communications.\175\ These commenters
argued that posts on online interactive electronic forums are more
analogous to ``physical public appearances.'' They also argued that
recordkeeping requirements would be less burdensome if posts on social
media Web sites were considered public appearances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ See Fidelity August Letter and SIFMA August Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA disagreed that it is necessary to continue to treat posts on
online interactive electronic forums as public appearances. FINRA noted
that it has created an exception from the pre-use principal approval
requirements for such posts, permitting members to supervise and review
such posts in the same manner permitted for correspondence.\176\
Moreover, FINRA notes that this proposed standard would codify guidance
already provided regarding supervision of posts on social media Web
sites.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ See proposed FINRA Rule 2210(b)(1)(D)(ii).
    \177\ See October Response Letter (citing Regulatory Notice 10-
06 (Guidance on Blogs and Social Networking Web sites) (January
2010) and Regulatory Notice 11-39 (Guidance on Social Networking Web
sites and Business Communications) (August 2011)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following publication of the Notice and Proceedings Order, the
commenters reiterated that FINRA should maintain its current definition
of ``public appearance'' under NASD Rule 2210 and include online
interactive electronic communications within this framework,
``recognizing that these communications are more analogous to physical
public appearances.'' \178\ One commenter expressed concern that
otherwise, online interactive electronic communications may fall into
the definitions of correspondence, institutional communications or
retail communications, which would complicate how the rules apply to
such communications.\179\ The other commenter recommended that FINRA
exclude content that is interactive rather than static from the filing
requirements under proposed FINRA Rule 2210(c), arguing that the burden
of filing interactive online postings would far outweigh any potential
benefits.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ See Fidelity December Letter and SIFMA December Letter.
    \179\ See Fidelity December Letter.
    \180\ See SIFMA December Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to comments reiterating concerns about online
interactive

electronic communications, FINRA disagreed that participation on an
online interactive electronic forum is more analogous to a physical
public appearance than other electronic communications. FINRA noted
that an online interactive electronic forum post generally remains
available to the public for an extended period of time. FINRA noted
that unless an interview or other public speaking activity is recorded
and made available afterwards through some other medium, it no longer
is available to the public after the interview or speech is completed.
Thus, FINRA believes it is more appropriate to classify online
interactive electronic forum posts generally as retail communications
rather than public appearances.
    FINRA recognized that participation on online electronic forums
often occurs on a real-time basis and does not lend itself easily to
pre-use principal approval. Accordingly, FINRA proposed to allow firms
the flexibility to supervise participation on online electronic forums
in the same manner as they supervise correspondence, which can include
post-use review.\181\ FINRA believes the concerns expressed by a
commenter regarding whether an online forum post is correspondence, an
institutional communication or a retail communication are overstated
because FINRA believes that as a general matter, under the rule
proposal, the supervisory requirements will be the same in each case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ See December Response Letter (citing to Regulatory Notice
10-06 (Guidance on Blogs and Social Networking Web Sites) (January
2010); Regulatory Notice 07-59 (FINRA Provides Guidance Regarding
the Review and Supervision of Electronic Communications) (December
2007)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, FINRA recognized the potential difficulties
associated with filing an online forum post, and accordingly amended
proposed FINRA Rule 2210(c)(7) in Amendment No. 2, to add a filing
exclusion for retail communications that are posted on online
interactive electronic forums.
    The Commission believes that FINRA has responded adequately to
these comments. For example, FINRA responded to the comment suggesting
that the proposed rule contains requirements duplicative of NASD Rule
3010 by clarifying that the proposed rule sets forth more specific
information regarding the type of supervision it expects members to
maintain in connection with public appearances. FINRA responded to
comments regarding the treatment of online interactive electronic
communications by noting that (1) the proposed rule permits members to
supervise and review such communications in the same manner permitted
for correspondence, (2) online interactive electronic forum posts
generally remain available to the public for extended periods of time--
which suggests they are more appropriately classified as retail
communication than public appearance, and (3) as noted above, FINRA
amended the proposal to add a filing exclusion for such communications
in light of potential difficulties associated with filing.

F. Social Media

    Three commenters expressed concern with the amount of content and
data related to social media that must be stored under Commission
recordkeeping rules.\182\ These commenters recommended that the
Commission, FINRA and the securities industry work together to create a
new paradigm for electronic recordkeeping. Two commenters also urged
FINRA to take a longer-term, comprehensive approach to the regulation
of social media taking into consideration evolving media and
technology, as well as the costs and benefits of regulation.\183\ One
of those commenters recommended that FINRA use its Social Media Task
Force or another committee to consider how the communications rules
should apply to mobile devices and provide guidance or new rules that
are tailored to these technologies.\184\ Another commenter recommended
that FINRA codify in its communications rules the guidance that it
provided in Regulatory Notices 10-06 and 11-39.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ See Fidelity August Letter; ICI August Letter; and
Vanguard August Letter.
    \183\ See ICI August Letter and Vanguard August Letter.
    \184\ See Fidelity August Letter.
    \185\ See FSI August Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA noted that the commenters' concerns regarding the
Commission's recordkeeping rules are outside the scope of the proposed
rule change. FINRA indicated that it will continue to work with the
industry going forward to address issues raised under FINRA rules, and
may issue more guidance or propose new rules regarding these issues in
the future as appropriate.
    The Commission believes that FINRA responded adequately to these
comments by indicating that it will continue to monitor and address
issues that arise under FINRA rules in the social media landscape,
whether through its Social Media Task Force or other means it deems
suitable. The Commission also believes that Commission recordkeeping
rules are outside the scope of the proposed rule change. Under Exchange
Act Rule 17a-4, a broker-dealer is required to maintain originals of
all communications received and copies of all communications sent
relating to its ``business as such'' including all communications which
are subject to the rules of a self regulatory organization regarding
communications with the public.

G. Other General Comments

    One commenter indicated that the proposed rule change will not
improve the flow of communications, which in turn will compromise
investor protection.\186\ FINRA disagreed, indicating that the proposed
rule change seeks to balance the need for members to communicate with
their customers and the need for such communications to be fair and
balanced. FINRA believes that members still will be able to communicate
with their customers through a number of channels, and that the
proposed rules will enhance rather than compromise investor protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ See TLGI August Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter noted that it is difficult to follow the proposed
rules in the form presented in the Proposing Release and urged FINRA to
simplify that presentation.\187\ FINRA noted that it presents the
proposed rule text in the format required by SEC Form 19b-4 under the
Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ See SIFMA August Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that FINRA has responded adequately to
comments regarding the flow of communications and the complexity of the
proposed rule by, among other things, emphasizing that the proposed
rule is designed to enhance investor protection, while still providing
members a number of channels for communicating with customers.
    As FINRA noted in response to comments the presentation of the
proposed rule is consistent with the requirements of SEC Form 19b-4.
The Commission also notes that in an effort to assist commenters in
reviewing proposed Amendment No. 1, FINRA submitted as a comment letter
an alternative version of Exhibit 4 showing the full proposal marked
with the changes in Amendment No. 1.\188\ Additionally, FINRA has
revised its rule text to seek to provide clarity where commenters have
pointed out ambiguities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ See Letter from Philip A. Shaikun, FINRA, to Elizabeth M.
Murhpy, Secretary, SEC, dated November 2, 2011 available at
www.sec.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Implementation Timeframe

    One commenter recommended that FINRA allow at least six months
after

Commission approval of the proposed rule change before these changes
become effective.\189\ Another commenter recommended that the
compliance date be 10 business days after the second calendar quarter
end following Commission approval.\190\ These commenters also
recommended that if FINRA subjects internal training and education
materials to proposed FINRA Rule 2210, FINRA should permit a compliance
time period of nine months after Commission approval. Another commenter
requested that FINRA provide, at a minimum, 12 months for members to
adapt to the changes.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ See Fidelity August Letter and Fidelity December Letter.
    \190\ See ICI August Letter.
    \191\ See FSI December Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA stated that it recognizes that members will need time to
alter their internal policies and procedures in response to new
requirements imposed by the proposed rule change. FINRA indicated on
multiple occasions that it plans to publish a Regulatory Notice no
later than 90 days following Commission approval of the rule
changes.\192\ FINRA has stated that the implementation date will be no
later than 365 days following Commission approval. In establishing this
schedule, FINRA agreed to consider members' need to adopt and implement
policies and procedures necessary to comply with the new rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ See October Response Letter and December Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has clarified that it will take into account members'
comments in establishing the implementation timeframe for members to
adapt to changes. Therefore, the Commission believes that FINRA has
responded adequately to the comments regarding the implementation
timeframe of the proposed rule.

I. FINRA's General Comments Regarding the Proposal

    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, satisfies
the statutory standard for Commission approval. FINRA indicated that
the proposed rule change is primarily intended to simplify FINRA's
advertising rules by reducing the number of communications categories,
codifying long-standing interpretations of the rules, and clarifying
certain provisions. FINRA also stated that the industry supports most
of these amendments, which it believes should simplify application of
the rules by compliance professionals and other broker-dealer
personnel. FINRA also believes that the proposed rule change would
continue to ensure that FINRA's rules protect investors from false and
misleading communications.
    FINRA noted that it has been responsive to industry and Commission
staff comments. The industry and other members of the public have had
four formal opportunities (one provided by FINRA and three by the
Commission) to comment on iterations of the proposal. Throughout the
comment process FINRA believes that it has responded to commenters'
concerns. FINRA noted that many of the comments concerned provisions of
existing NASD Rules 2210 and 2211 that FINRA had not originally
proposed to amend.
    Among the changes that FINRA has proposed in response to comments
are the following:
     Eliminating the existing requirement that internal
training material is subject to NASD Rule 2211;
     Explicitly excluding retail communications that are posted
on online interactive electronic forums from the filing requirement;
     Expanding a Supervisory Analyst's authority to approve
retail communications;
     Eliminating the current filing requirement for
advertisements concerning government securities;
     Providing a new exception from the filing and principal
pre-use approval requirements for those retail communications that do
not make a financial or investment recommendation or otherwise promote
a product or service of the member;
     Permitting firms to combine multiple retirement plans
offered by the same employer for purposes of determining whether there
are 100 participants, thereby making it easier for such an employer to
qualify as an institution for purposes of the rule;
     Permitting retail communications concerning collateralized
mortgage obligations (CMOs) to be filed within 10 days of first use,
rather than 10 days prior to use as required by the existing rule; and
     Authorizing FINRA to grant exemptions from both the filing
and principal pre-use approval requirements for good cause shown.
    FINRA believes that these changes to the existing rules would
address concerns raised by the industry in the comment process while
maintaining rigorous investor protections.

J. General Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change, the
comments received, and FINRA's response to the comments, and finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities association. In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the
Act,\193\ which, among other things, requires that FINRA rules be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. In approving this proposed
rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.\194\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \194\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Commission believes that FINRA addressed
adequately concerns regarding pre-filing and supervision requirements
that could impact efficiency; and notes that the proposed rule's
overarching goal of simplifying the regulatory framework enhances
efficiency. As FINRA noted in the March Response Letter, the intent of
the proposed rule is to simplify communications rules by decreasing the
number of communications categories, codifying long-standing
interpretations of the rules, and clarifying certain provisions. The
Commission believes that the proposed rule simplifies the framework
under which broker-dealers are required to supervise communications,
disclose information to investors and file information with regulators.
    The Commission also believes that FINRA has addressed adequately
competition concerns that could arise from differing treatment of
certain products or categories of communications. The Commission
believes that the proposed requirements for enhanced supervision and
review of communications to retail investors by new members, containing
certain rankings or ratings and/or concerning more complex products is
designed to prevent misleading communications and to protect investors.
    The Commission has reviewed the record for the proposed rule change
and notes that the record does not contain any information to indicate
that the proposed rule would have a significant effect on capital
formation. The Commission believes that the intent of the proposed rule
is beneficial and that the changes will enhance consumer confidence by
promoting fair and balanced communications from broker-dealers to the
investing public.
    As noted in each category above, the Commission believes that FINRA
has

considered carefully and responded adequately to comments and concerns
raised about previous versions of the proposed rule. As evidence of
FINRA's commitment to drafting a narrowly tailored rule while
maintaining comprehensive investor protection standards, the Commission
points to the discussion above which highlights the many revisions
FINRA made to the proposal to address comments and concerns raised
through four separate opportunities for comment.

VI. Accelerated Approval

    The Commission finds goods cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Exchange Act,\195\ for approving the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendments Nos. 1, 2, and 3 thereto, prior to the 30th day
after publication of notice of the filing of Amendment No. 3 in the
Federal Register. The proposed rule change was informed by FINRA's
consideration of, and the incorporation of many suggestions made in
comments on a 2009 proposal to members to harmonize and modernize the
communications with the public rules,\196\ the Original Proposal, the
Notice and Proceedings Order, and Amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 3
reflects FINRA's efforts to further address commenter concerns and
minimize burdens resulting from the proposed rule's requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \196\ See Regulatory Notice 09-55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission finds that good cause exists to approve
the proposal, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on an
accelerated basis.

VII. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 3
to 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-FINRA-2011-035 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2011-035. 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2011-035 and should be
submitted on or before April 25, 2012.

VIII. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\197\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2011-035), as
modified by Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3, be, and hereby is, approved on
an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8043 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 243 (Monday, December 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 91964-91965]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30388]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79535; File No. SR-FICC-2016-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Modify the MBSD Schedule of Charges Dealer Account Group

December 13, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 2, 2016, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the clearing agency. 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. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of an amendment to the Mortgage-
Backed Securities Division (``MBSD'') Clearing Rules (the ``MBSD
Rules'') to include an additional fee in the ``Schedule of Charges
Dealer Account Group,'' as described in greater detail below.\3\ The
proposed fee would be implemented as of January 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined
shall have the meaning assigned to such terms in the MBSD Rules,
available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    FICC is proposing to amend the MBSD ``Schedule of Charges Dealer
Account Group'' to include an additional fee. The proposed rule change
would allow FICC to pass through any daylight overdraft (``DOD'') fees
that MBSD incurs from The Bank of New York Mellon (``BNY'') in
connection with the settlement of Clearing Members' securities
obligations. FICC would pass through these BNY DOD fees to Clearing
Members who settle their securities obligations at BNY.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This proposed rule change would be consistent with the fee
schedule in FICC's Government Securities Division Rulebook,
available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In October 2016, FICC began to incur the cost of the BNY DOD fees.
FICC is proposing to amend the MBSD ``Schedule of Charges Dealer
Account Group'' to allow FICC to pass through the BNY DOD fees to
Clearing Members who settle their securities obligations at BNY.\5\
Specifically, each Clearing Member who settles securities obligations
at BNY would be charged a pass-through fee, calculated as a percentage
of the total of all such costs incurred by MBSD. This percentage would
be calculated on a monthly basis as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposed fee would not be applicable to Brokers because
Brokers do not have securities settlement obligations.

(Total dollar value of Pool Deliver Obligations and Pool Receive
Obligations of such Clearing Member at BNY)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(Total dollar value of Pool Deliver Obligations and Pool Receive
Obligations in all Dealer Accounts at BNY)
2. Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (``Act'') requires, in part, that the rules of the clearing
agency provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees
and other charges among its participants.\6\ The proposed rule change
would allow FICC to recover the costs of providing securities
settlement services to Clearing Members by passing the BNY DOD fees
incurred by MBSD to Clearing Members who settle their securities
obligations at BNY. FICC believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to FICC, in particular Section
17A(b)(3)(D), because the proposed fee would be allocated among all
Clearing Members who settle their securities obligations at BNY,
calculated as a percentage of the total of such costs incurred by MBSD
in connection with the services that FICC provide provides for such
Clearing Members.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FICC believes that the proposed rule change could have an impact on
competition because the proposed rule change would impose an additional
fee on Clearing Members who settle their securities obligations at BNY.
FICC believes, however, that any burden on competition that would be
created by the proposed rule change would be necessary and appropriate
in furtherance of the Act. Specifically, the proposed rule change is
necessary to allow FICC to recover the cost of providing services to
Clearing Members by passing through the BNY DOD fees to Clearing
Members who settle their securities obligations at BNY. The proposed
rule change is appropriate because, as stated, it would only apply to
Clearing Members who settle their securities obligations at BNY, which
is the third party that is charging the fees being incurred by MBSD to
provide FICC's services.

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

    Written comments related to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. FICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by FICC.

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) \8\ of the Act 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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-FICC-2016-008 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2016-008. 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 FICC and on
DTCC's Web site (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). 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-FICC-2016-008 and should be
submitted on or before January 9, 2017.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-30388 Filed 12-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39029-39031]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15963]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72525; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2014-74]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca
Options Fee Schedule Relating to Manual Executions by Firms and Broker
Dealers

July 2, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)\1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on July 1, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule'') relating to Manual Executions by Firms and Broker
Dealers. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective
July 1, 2014. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to modify the Exchange's fees on Firm
and Broker Dealer Manual Executions to provide a lower rate in certain
select symbols.
    Currently, a Firm or Broker Dealer order executed Manually on the
Floor of the Exchange that is not facilitating a Customer is charged
$0.25 per contract.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Firm and Broker Dealer orders that facilitate a Customer are
charged $0.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing a rate of $0.12 per contract for Firm and
Broker Dealer orders for select symbols that are active issues with
narrow spreads and a competitive distribution of market share among the
exchanges.\5\ Initially, the Exchange proposes to include only options
transactions in VXX (iPath S&P 500 VIX Short Term Futures Exchange
Traded Note) in the select symbols, although the Exchange may add or
remove symbols from the eligible symbol list with subsequent filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that the practice of providing additional
incentives to increase order flow in high volume symbols is, and has
been, commonly practiced in the options markets. See, e.g.,
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), Schedule of Fees,
available here, http://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/ISE_fee_schedule.pdf, p. 6 (providing reduced fee rates
for order flow in Select Symbols); NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Pricing
Schedule, available here, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=phlxpricing, Section I (providing a rebate for adding
liquidity in SPY); NYSE Arca, Inc. Fees Schedule, available here,
https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf (section titled ``Customer Monthly
Posting Credit Tiers and Qualifications for Executions in Penny
Pilot Issues'').
    \6\ VXX is a Penny Pilot Issue in the top 10 by Customer volume
from January 2, 2014 through May 31, 2014, with market share spread
fairly evenly amongst five of the 12 exchanges, and with 15% of
transactions by contract volume involving a Firm. At least one other
option exchange (ISE) lists VXX among its select symbols. See supra
n. 5.

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

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\8\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed special rate for Firm and
Broker Dealer orders in select symbols is reasonable as it is within
the general range of transaction fees for manual transactions. The
proposed special rate for select symbols is reasonably designed to
increase the competitiveness of the Exchange with other options
exchanges that also offer increased incentives for higher volume
symbols.
    It is also not unfairly discriminatory to provide for a reduced fee
for Firm and Broker Dealer orders in select symbols to attract business
in certain issues to the Floor. Firms and Broker Dealers are generally
represented on the Floor by Floor Brokers and providing a reduced fee
in certain symbols incents them to have their orders executed on the
Trading Floor where other participants are already present. Further,
the proposal is not unfairly discriminatory in its treatment of Firms
and Broker Dealers vis-[agrave]-vis Market Makers because Firms and
Broker Dealers have their orders brought to the Floor for execution
whereas Market Makers are providing liquidity for the orders. Market
Makers are present and obligated to respond to a call for markets, and
in return, Market Makers are charged a lower fee in all Manual
executions, with the exception being select symbols. In addition, the
Exchange believes that by providing a lower fee to Firm and Broker
Dealer orders brought to the Floor in a highly competitive issue,
Market Makers are provided a greater opportunity to interact with order
flow, which in turn benefits market participants.
    The proposed fee change is also not unfairly discriminatory because
the reduced fee is available to any Firm or Broker Dealer.
    Additionally, the proposed fee is an equitable allocation of fees
because the intent is to create an incentive for non-Market Maker order
flow to the Exchange, which will provide additional opportunities for
Market Makers and other participants alike.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\9\ the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change
reduces the burden on competition because it incents Firm and Broker
Dealers to have their orders brought to the Floor by offering a
competitive rate in active issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee change will
increase competition among exchanges where market share is very fairly
spread out amongst five of the twelve exchanges, but where, in this
active issue, one exchange has a disproportionate amount (30%) of
market share. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change may
provide a competitive incentive to market participants. The Exchange
notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily favor competing venues, and providing a
reduced fee in certain select symbols for Firm and Broker Dealer orders
that participate in Manual Executions allows OTP firms to attract
additional business which benefits all participants. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)\10\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4\11\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \12\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEArca-2014-74 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-NYSEArca-2014-74. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and

printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2014-74, and should
be submitted on or before July 30, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-15963 Filed 7-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 65)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17309-17313]
[DOCID:fr06ap10-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 272

[EPA-R10-RCRA-2009-0868; FRL-9122-8]

Idaho: Incorporation by Reference of Approved State Hazardous
Waste Management Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended,
(RCRA), allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize
State hazardous waste programs if EPA finds that such programs are
equivalent to and consistent with the Federal RCRA program and if such
programs provide adequate enforcement of compliance. The regulations
are used by EPA to codify its decision to authorize individual State
programs and incorporate by reference those provisions of the State
statutes and regulations that are subject to EPA's RCRA inspection and
enforcement authorities as authorized provisions of the State's
program. This direct final rule revises the codification of the
authorized Idaho hazardous waste management program and incorporates by
reference authorized provisions of the State's statutes and
regulations.

DATES: This rule is effective June 7, 2010, unless the EPA receives
adverse comment on this regulation by the close of business May 6,
2010. If the EPA receives such comments, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of this direct final rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference as of June 7,
2010 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
RCRA-2009-0868 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Zach Hedgpeth, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 900, Mail Stop AWT-122, Seattle, Washington 98101.
     Hand Delivery: Zach Hedgpeth, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mail Stop AWT-122, Seattle, Washington 98101.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the normal business hours of
operation; special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-
2009-0868. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Region 10
Library, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. This Docket
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to noon, and 1 to 4 p.m. Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The library telephone number is 206-
553-1289.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zach Hedgpeth, U.S. EPA, Region 10,

1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail stop WCM-122, Seattle, Washington 98101, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Incorporation by Reference

A. What is Codification?

    Codification is the process of including the statutes and
regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste
management program in the CFR. Section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6926(b), allows the Environmental Protection Agency to authorize State
hazardous waste management programs. The State regulations authorized
by EPA supplant the Federal regulations concerning the same matter with
the result that after authorization EPA enforces the authorized
regulations. Infrequently, State statutory language which acts to
regulate a matter is also authorized by EPA with the consequence that
EPA enforces the authorized statutory provision. EPA does not authorize
State enforcement authorities and does not authorize State procedural
requirements. EPA codifies the authorized State program in 40 CFR part
272 and incorporates by reference State statutes and regulations that
make up the approved program which is Federally enforceable. EPA
retains independent enforcement authority pursuant to sections 3007,
3008, 3013 and 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6927, 6928, 6934 and 6973 and
any other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.
    This action codifies EPA's authorization of revisions to Idaho's
hazardous waste management program. This direct final action codifies
the State program in effect at the time EPA authorized revisions to the
Idaho hazardous waste management program in a final rule dated December
23, 2008 (73 FR 78647). Notice and an opportunity for comment regarding
those revisions to the authorized State program were provided to the
public at the time those revisions were proposed. EPA is not reopening
its decision to authorize changes to the State's program nor is EPA
requesting comment on those revisions.

B. What Is the History of the Authorization and Codification of Idaho's
Hazardous Waste Management Program?

    Idaho initially received final authorization for its hazardous
waste management program effective April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015).
Subsequently, EPA authorized revisions to the State's program effective
June 5, 1992 (57 FR 11580), August 10, 1992 (57 FR 24757), June 11,
1995 (60 FR 18549), January 19, 1999 (63 FR 56086), July 1, 2002 (67 FR
44069), March 10, 2004 (69 FR 11322), July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273),
February 26, 2007 (72 FR 8283) and December 23, 2008 (73 FR 78647). EPA
first codified Idaho's authorized hazardous waste program effective
February 4, 1991 (55 FR 50327), and updated the codification of Idaho's
program on June 5, 1992 (57 FR 11580), August 10, 1992 (57 FR 24757),
August 24, 1999 (64 FR 34133), March 8, 2005 (70 FR 11132) and April
20, 2006 (71 FR 20341). In this action, EPA is revising subpart N of 40
CFR part 272, to include the most recent authorization revision
effective December 23, 2008 (73 FR 78647).

C. What Codification Decisions Have We Made in This Rule?

    This action incorporates by reference the authorized revisions to
the Idaho hazardous waste program by revising subpart N of 40 CFR part
272. 40 CFR 272.651, previously incorporated by reference Idaho's
authorized hazardous waste program, as amended, through 2005. Section
272.651 also referenced the demonstration of adequate enforcement
authority, including procedural and enforcement provisions, which
provide the legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous
waste management program. In addition, Section 272.651 referenced the
Memorandum of Agreement, the Attorney General's Statement and the
Program Description which were evaluated as part of the approval
process of the hazardous waste management program in accordance with
Subtitle C of RCRA. This action updates those demonstrations of
adequate enforcement authority, including procedural and enforcement
provisions, which provide the legal basis for the State's
implementation of the hazardous waste management program, as well as
the Memorandum of Agreement, the Attorney General's Statement and the
Program Description, all of which were evaluated as part of the
approval process for the program revision effective on December 23,
2008.

D. What Is the Effect of Idaho's Codification on Enforcement?

    EPA retains its independent enforcement authority under statutory
provisions, including but not limited to, sections 3007, 3008, 3013 and
7003 of RCRA, and any other applicable statutory and regulatory
provisions, to undertake inspections and enforcement actions and to
issue orders in all authorized States. With respect to enforcement
actions, EPA will rely on Federal sanctions, Federal inspection
authorities, and Federal procedures rather than the State analogues to
these provisions. Therefore, the EPA is not incorporating by reference
Idaho's inspection and enforcement authorities nor are those
authorities part of Idaho's approved State program which operates in
lieu of the Federal program. EPA lists Idaho's authorities for
informational purposes, and because EPA considered them in determining
the adequacy of Idaho's enforcement authorities. This action revises
this listing for informational purposes where these authorities have
changed under Idaho's revisions to State law and were considered by EPA
in determining the adequacy of Idaho's enforcement authorities. Idaho's
authority to inspect and enforce the State's hazardous waste management
program requirements continues to operate independently under State
law.

E. What State Provisions Are Not Proposed as Part of the Codification?

    The public is reminded that some provisions of Idaho's hazardous
waste management program are not part of the Federally authorized State
program. These non-authorized provisions include:
    (1) Provisions that are not part of the RCRA subtitle C program
because they are ``broader in scope'' than RCRA subtitle C (see 40 CFR
271.1(i));
    (2) Federal rules for which Idaho is not authorized, but which have
been incorporated into the State regulations because of the way the
State adopted Federal regulations by reference;
    (3) State procedural and enforcement authorities which are
necessary to establish the ability of the program to enforce compliance
but which do not supplant the Federal statutory enforcement and
procedural authorities.
    State provisions that are ``broader in scope'' than the Federal
program are not incorporated by reference in 40 CFR part 272. For
reference and clarity, 40 CFR 272.651(b)(3) lists the Idaho regulatory
provisions which are ``broader in scope'' than the Federal program and
which are not part of the authorized program being incorporated by
reference. This action updates that list for ``broader in scope''
provisions EPA identified in the recent authorization of the revision
to the State program. While ``broader in scope'' provisions are not
part of the authorized program and cannot be enforced by EPA, the State
may enforce such provisions under State law.

F. What Will Be the Effect of the Proposed Codification on Federal HSWA
Requirements?

    With respect to any requirement(s) pursuant to the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) for which the State has not yet
been authorized and which EPA has identified as taking effect
immediately in States with authorized hazardous waste management
programs, EPA will enforce those Federal HSWA standards until the State
is authorized for those provisions.
    This Codification does not effect Federal HSWA requirements for
which the State is not authorized. EPA has authority to implement HSWA
requirements in all States, including States with authorized hazardous
waste management programs, until the States become authorized for such
requirements or prohibitions unless EPA has identified the HSWA
requirement(s) as an optional or as a less stringent requirement of the
Federal Rules program. A HSWA requirement or prohibition, unless
identified by EPA as optional or as less stringent, supersedes any less
stringent or inconsistent State provision which may have been
previously authorized by EPA (50 FR 28702, July 15, 1985).
    Some existing State requirements may be similar to the HSWA
requirements implemented by EPA. However, until EPA authorizes those
State requirements, EPA enforces the HSWA requirements and not the
State analogs.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This direct final action codifies revisions to the EPA-authorized
hazardous waste management program in Idaho pursuant to RCRA section
3006 and imposes no requirements other than those imposed by State law.
This action complies with applicable executive orders and statutory
provisions as follows:

1. Executive Order 12866

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

2. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This direct final rule does not
establish or modify any information or recordkeeping requirements for
the regulated community. EPA has determined that it is not subject to
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., generally requires Federal agencies to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of
this direct final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:
(1) A small business, as codified in the Small Business Size
Regulations at 13 CFR part 121; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. EPA
has determined that this direct final action will not have a
significant impact on small entities because the action will only have
the effect of codifying pre-existing authorized requirements under
State law. After considering the economic impacts of this action, I
certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or Tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local
or Tribal governments or the private sector. This action contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small government entities. Thus, EPA has determined that the
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA do not apply to this action.

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action addresses the
codification of the authorized State hazardous waste program in Idaho.
Codification is the process of including the statutes and regulations
that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste management program
in the CFR. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
action, EPA did consult with officials of the State of Idaho,
Department of Environmental Quality in developing this action.

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action addresses the codification of the
authorized State hazardous waste program in Idaho. Codification is the
process of including the statutes and regulations that comprise the
State's authorized hazardous waste management program in the CFR. Thus,
EPA has determined that Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
rule.

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is
not subject to EO 13045 because it codifies an approved State program
into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Codification is the process
of including the statutes and regulations that comprise the State's
authorized hazardous waste management program in the CFR.

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866.

9. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies.
The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through the OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards. EPA has determined that this
action does not involve ``technical standards'' as defined by the
NTTAA. Therefore EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this action will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This action addresses codifying a revision of the
authorized hazardous waste program in the State of Idaho. EPA has
determined that the action is not subject to Executive Order 12898.

11. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This action will be effective June 7, 2010.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 272

    Environmental protection, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of Sections
2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste and Disposal Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: March 11, 2010.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 272
as follows:

PART 272--APPROVED STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

0
1. The authority citation for part 272 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

0
2. Subpart N is amended by revising Sec.  272.651 to read as follows:

Sec.  272.651  Idaho State-Administered Program: Final Authorization.

    (a) Pursuant to section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), Idaho
has final authorization for the following elements as submitted to EPA
in Idaho's base program application for final authorization which was
approved by EPA effective on April 9, 1990. Subsequent program revision
applications were approved effective on June 5, 1992, August 10, 1992,
June 11, 1995, January 19, 1999, July 1, 2002, March 10, 2004, July 22,
2005, February 26, 2007 and December 23, 2008.
    (b) The State of Idaho has primary responsibility for enforcing its
hazardous waste management program. However, EPA retains the authority
to exercise its inspection and enforcement authorities in accordance
with sections 3007, 3008, 3013, 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6927, 6928,
6934, 6973, and any other applicable statutory and regulatory
provisions, regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions,
as well as in accordance with other statutory and regulatory
provisions.
    (c) State Statutes and Regulations. (1) The Idaho statutes and
regulations cited in this paragraph are incorporated by reference as
part of the hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.
    (i) 2010 Codification of EPA-Approved Idaho Statutory and
Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Hazardous Waste Management
Program, December 2008.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (2) EPA considered the following statutes and regulations in
evaluating the State program but is not incorporating them herein for
enforcement purposes:
    (i) Idaho Code (I.C.) containing the General Laws of Idaho
Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 44, ``Hazardous Waste Management'',
published in 2002 by the Michie Company, Law Publishers: sections 39-
4404; 39-4405 (except 39-4405(8)); 39-4406; 39-4407; 39-4408(4); 39-
4409(2) (except first sentence); 39-4409(3); 39-4409(4) (first
sentence); 39-4410; 39-4411(1); 39-4411(3); 39-4411(6); 39-4412 through
39-4416; 39-4418; 39-4419; 39-4421; 39-4422; and 39-4423(3)(a) & (b).
    (ii) Idaho Code (I.C.) containing the General Laws of Idaho
Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 58, ``Hazardous Waste Facility Siting
Act'', published in 2002 by the Michie Company, Law Publishers:
sections 39-5804; 39-5809; 39-5810; 39-5813(2); 39-5814; 39-5816; 39-
5817; and 39-5818(1).
    (iii) Idaho Code (I.C.) containing the General Laws of Idaho
Annotated, Volume 2, Title 9, Chapter 3, ``Public Writings'', published
in 1990 by the Michie Company, Law Publishers, Charlottesville,
Virginia: sections 9-337(10); 9-337(11); 9-338; 9-339; and 9-344(2).
    (iv) 2002 Cumulative Pocket Supplement to the Idaho Code (I.C.),
Volume 2, Title 9, Chapter 3, ``Public Writing'', published in 2002 by
the Michie Company, Law Publishers, Charlottesville, Virginia: sections
9- 340A, 9-340B, and 9-343.
    (v) Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Rules and
Regulations, Idaho Administrative Code, IDAPA 58, Title 1, Chapter 5,
``Rules and Standards for Hazardous Waste'', as published July 2008:
sections <IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>6.02 through <IP_ADDRESS>6.05;
<IP_ADDRESS>0; <IP_ADDRESS>0; <IP_ADDRESS>6; <IP_ADDRESS>7; and
<IP_ADDRESS>9.
    (3) The following statutory and regulatory provisions are broader
in scope than the Federal program, are not part of the authorized
program, are not incorporated by reference, and are not Federally
enforceable:
    (i) Idaho Code containing the General Laws of Idaho Annotated,
Title 39,

Chapter 44, ``Hazardous Waste Management'', published in 2002 by the
Michie Company, Law Publishers: sections 39-4403(6) & (14); 39-4428 and
39-4429.
    (ii) 2004 Cumulative Pocket Supplement to the Idaho Code (I.C.),
Volume 39, Title 44, ``Hazardous Waste Management'', published in 2004
by the Michie Company, Law Publishers, Charlottesville, Virginia:
section 39-4427.
    (iii) Idaho Code containing the General Laws of Idaho Annotated,
Title 39, Chapter 58, ``Hazardous Waste Siting Act'', published in 2002
by the Michie Company, Law Publishers: section 39-5813(3).
    (iv) Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Rules and
Regulations, Idaho Administrative Code, IDAPA 58, Title 1, Chapter 5,
``Rules and Standards for Hazardous Waste'', as published July 2008:
sections <IP_ADDRESS>5; and <IP_ADDRESS>0.
    (4) Memorandum of Agreement. The Memorandum of Agreement between
EPA Region 10 and the State of Idaho (IDEQ), signed by the EPA Regional
Administrator on August 1, 2001, although not incorporated by
reference, is referenced as part of the authorized hazardous waste
management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921, et seq.
    (5) Statement of Legal Authority. The ``Attorney General's
Statement for Final Authorization,'' signed by the Attorney General of
Idaho on July 5, 1988, and revisions, supplements and addenda to that
Statement, dated July 3, 1989, February 13, 1992, December 29, 1994,
September 16, 1996, October 3, 1997, April 6, 2001, September 11, 2002,
September 22, 2004, June 13, 2006, September 29, 2006 and June 23,
2008, although not incorporated by reference, are referenced as part of
the authorized hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921, et seq.
    (6) Program Description. The Program Description and any other
materials submitted as part of the original application or as
supplements thereto, although not incorporated by reference, are
referenced as part of the authorized hazardous waste management program
under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.

0
3. Appendix A to part 272 is amended by revising the listing for
``Idaho'' to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 272--State Requirements

* * * * *

Idaho

    (a) The statutory provisions include:
    Idaho Code containing the General Laws of Idaho Annotated, Title
39, Chapter 44, ``Hazardous Waste Management'', 2002: sections 39-
4402; 39-4403 (except 39- 4403(6) & (14)); 39-4408(1)-(3); 39-
4409(1) (except fourth and fifth sentences); 39-4409(2) (only the
first sentence); 39-4409(4) (except first sentence); 39-4409(5); 39-
4409(6); 39- 4409(7); 39-4409(8); 39-4411(2); 39-4411(4); 39-
4411(5); 39-4423 (except 39-4423(3)(a) & (b)); and 39-4424.
    Idaho Code containing the General Laws of Idaho Annotated, Title
39, Chapter 58, ``Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Act'', published
in 2002 by the Michie Company, Law Publishers: sections 39-5802; 39-
5803; 39-5808; 39-5811; 39-5813(1); and 39-5818(2). Copies of the
Idaho statutes that are incorporated by reference are available from
Michie Company, Law Publishers, 1 Town Hall Square, Charlottesville,
VA 22906-7587.
    (b) The regulatory provisions include:
    Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Rules and Regulations,
Idaho Administrative Code, IDAPA 58, Title 1, Chapter 5, ``Rules and
Standards for Hazardous Waste'', as published on July 2008: sections
<IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>;
<IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>;
<IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>;
<IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>;
<IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>6.01; and <IP_ADDRESS>8.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-7647 Filed 4-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40111-40112]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17298]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 31a-2, SEC File No. 270-174, OMB Control No. 3235-0179

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Section 31(a)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C.
80a-1 et seq.) (the ``Act'') requires registered investment companies
(``funds'') and certain underwriters, broker-dealers, investment
advisers, and depositors to maintain and preserve records as prescribed
by Commission rules. Rule 31a-1 (17 CFR 270.31a-1) under the Act
specifies the books and records that

each of these entities must maintain. Rule 31a-2 (17 CFR 270.31a-2)
under the Act specifies the time periods that entities must retain
certain books and records, including those required to be maintained
under rule 31a-1.
    The retention of records, as required by the rule, is necessary to
ensure access to material business and financial information about
funds and certain related entities. We periodically inspect the
operations of funds to ensure they are in compliance with the Act and
regulations under the Act. Due to the limits on our resources, however,
each fund may only be inspected at intervals of several years. In
addition, the prosecution of persons who have engaged in certain
violations of the federal securities laws may not be limited by timing
restrictions. For these reasons, we often need information relating to
events or transactions that occurred years ago. Without the requirement
to preserve books, records, and other documents, our staff would have
difficulty determining whether the fund was in compliance with the law
in such areas as valuation of its portfolio securities, computation of
the prices investors paid, and, when purchasing and selling fund
shares, types and amounts of expenses the fund incurred, kinds of
investments the fund purchased, actions of affiliated persons, or
whether the fund had engaged in any illegal or fraudulent activities.
As part of our examinations of funds, our staff also reviews the
materials that directors consider in approving the advisory contract.
    There are 3,160 funds currently operating as of December 31, 2018,
all of which are required to comply with rule 31a-2. The Commission
staff estimates that, on average, a fund spends 220.4 hours annually to
comply with the rule. The Commission therefore estimates the total
annual hour burden of the rule's and form's paperwork requirements to
be 696,464 hours. In addition to the burden hours, the Commission staff
estimates that the average yearly cost to each fund that is subject to
rule 31a-2 is about $36,510.28. The Commission estimates total annual
cost is therefore about $115.4 million.
    Estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a
comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of
information requirements of the rule is mandatory. Responses to the
disclosure requirements will not be kept confidential. An agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of
the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Charles Riddle, Acting
Director and Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange
Commission, c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549;
or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    All submissions should refer to File Number 270-174. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. The
Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website
(http://www.sec.gov). All comments received will be posted without
change; we do not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.

    Dated: August 7, 2019.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-17298 Filed 8-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P